I think its that old misconception that you can TONE your muscles. The only two things your muscles can do are get larger/stronger or smaller/weaker.
When someone says they want to 'tone' their muscles, it's simply a lack of knowledge about the body. Certainly not their fault.
Let's talk a bit about muscle tone.
If when I ask someone what they mean by it when they say, "I want to tone my muscles," they explain that they want to increase the myogenic tone of their muscles..... than I'd respond by saying, "that makes sense."
Unfortunately though, most think there's some magical benefit to weight training that *reshapes* their muscles and gives them that ripped look, which as anyone who knows anything about the body understands that being ripped is about carrying very little body fat.
FYI to anyone who doesn't know, you can actually increase the myogenic tone of a muscle. This is merely a measure of a muscle's density. Here's the kicker though..... if you really want to 'tone' the muscle in the literal sense (i.e., increase myogenic tone), you have to lift heavy weights, haha. In the classical, mythical sense that most associate with toning, you need to lift light weights for high reps. They are completely wrong in the context of toning a muscle.
And, I forget his screenname above, but the gentleman eluded to being tired of hearing this stupid debate about high rep or low rep and heavy or light. I was kind of taken back by his statement.... I mean there are very *real* differences in the parameters that play out in the development of one's physique.
For starters, and especially for women who aren't as fortunate as men in that they don't have the natural tendency to pack on or maintain muscle, especially while dieting, lifting heavy weights sends the strongest neuro-chemical signaling for muscle maintenance.
Secondly, different loading parameters (heavy vs. light) call on different *characteristics* of the muscle, namely different motor units/muscle fibers. This will play out in performance and physique.
Thirdly, and in general, there are multiple types of muscle growth. You've got the myofibrillar and the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Each is primarily triggered by a different training stimulus.... so when saying you're tired of this 'debate' you darn well better caveat what you mean b/c this isn't something that can be written off so easily by simply saying something like, "it doesn't really matter."
Myofibrillar hypertrophy essentially is the growth of the contractile proteins comprising our muscle. This ties into the myogenic tone topic discussed previously. Larger contractile proteins and fibers in the muscle (myofibrillar hypertrophy) = a denser muscle = increased myogenic tone. Having dense muscles go an extremely long way in regards to looking firm and 'ripped' at low body fat levels.
Myofibrillar hypertrophy is stimulated primarily by heavy loads, which naturally dictates lower reps.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy essentially is the growth of the fluid component of the muscle; sacroplasm, glycogen, etc. While this still contributes to overall hypertrophy, it's stimulated primarily by lighter loads, which naturally dictates higher reps.
If I had to organize a training regime for a woman who had to lose 10 lbs or so, you better believe that heavy training is going to dictate the majority of it. This will help her retain the majority of her muscle (assuming proper diet as well) and give her the most mileage in terms of the physique she is most likely looking for.
When you start getting into different categories, goals, and situations..... certainly recommendations change. For instance, an obese person isn't going to need a routine comprised primarily of heavy training. More 'pumping and toning' crap will be better suited for said individual since caloric expenditure is of primary importance in this case.
It all has to be given in context, and that's why I'm not a fan of saying, "do whatever."
People think toning is changing the way muscles look but its not true, when people say TONE they really should say, LOSE BODY FAT, but they don't because toning sounds more sophisticated or sporty.
Truthfully, most just aren't educated on the subject. Their source of information is fitness magazines and infomercials which are as misleading as they come. They when they say they want to tone their muscles, they really don't know what they're saying.
P.S. maybe I should stay out of this, I think you were trying to make this point anyways. I just laugh when people think they are more cut when they think they are making the muscle longer or something. They don't realize it's there they are just making it shown.
Hahaha, nah, you're fine. I was trying to make a point and I was going to get to it one way or another. What I've said in this post is my point, so I'm happy.
I think people think they bulk up because they become "more defined" by losing body fat, so it looks more impressive and assume its added muscle (although it was either there or maintained from weight training).
This is most often the case.
Don't get me wrong, there are certainly instances where muscle mass increases concurrently with losses in fat stores. This is most common in obese individuals and/or people who have never done any sort of resistance training.
But a vast majority of the time when someone says, "I've gained so much muscle on my diet," they're simply confused about the exposure of existing muscle now that they've lost a fair amount of fat.
And that confusion is fine.... as long as they're happy with their end appearance.
Not to thread crap, but I had a trainer here for the football team yesterday make a comment to me about how long my gym workouts were. I didn't want to get into it with him but basically I am doing the basic lifts (that Steve talks about) in the school gym (my weights are fairly up there with 5 reps each set),
Was he saying the workout was too long or too short?
trainer who actually then commended me for having a sound plan (Thanks Steve).
Anytime.
