My [Least] favorite training myths.

[MataUm]

actually there are people that squat 400 lbs and have small legs. They are called Olympic lifters. Go take a look at them.

Fibers and muscle recruitment patterns are a reality Debaser.

 

[Debaser]

actually there are people that squat 400 lbs and have small legs. They are called Olympic lifters. Go take a look at them.

Fibers and muscle recruitment patterns are a reality Debaser.

This wouldn't have anything to do with manipulating diet to stay in a certain weightclass, would it? And most olympic lifters I've seen have big legs for their size.

 

[MataUm]

Highly doubtful. Manipulation of diet won't accomplish that much.

So, tell me, do you deny the existance of the two types of hypertrophy as well?

 

[Debaser]

It won't accomplish that much? Then why are there powerlifters who can drop 30 lbs of muscle and compete STRONGER in a lower weight class?

Diet is EVERYTHING. If they ate 6000 calories a day they'd sure as hell be more muscular. And I STILL don't know what you're talking about, most olympic lifters have huge legs at their respective weights.

 

[guldukat]

actually there are people that squat 400 lbs and have small legs. They are called Olympic lifters. Go take a look at them.

Truly, nothing personal man, but I have several problems with this reasoning.

1--It is a hasty generalization*:

"If a few Olympic lifters have 'small' legs, and these lifters train a certain way, then said training doesn't yield size gains."

That's really jumping the gun. You're looking at a small sampling of people, then assuming the same is true of the majority.

An analogy: Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer. He ate his victims.

Therefore, serial killers eat their victims.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT. He was one uber-sicko among sickos, but most serial killers, evil fucks that they were, didn't EAT their victims. Asshole Dahmer was an exception to the rule (may he rot in Hell).

2--It is a false dichotomy*:

"Either you train like an Olympic lifter and have 'small' legs, or you train like a bodybuilder/with higher TUTs and get 'bigger' legs."

In other words, why are you ignoring other factors that affect growth, like diet and genetics?

(*You can find a crude summary of these informal fallacies here: http://www.podmonkeyx.com/LogicalFallacies.asp. If you want to know more about fallacies in general, just give me a shout...they're infinitely useful.)


3--Do you have any specific examples of these small-legged Olympic lifters?

I don't want to be a total dick, but I've learned to not simply take people's word when an argument hinges upon these sorts of premises...too often something that seems superficially acceptable isn't.


4--"Small legs" seems arbitrary. How do you define "small," and relative to what, exactly? To a certain bodybuilder's legs?


5--How do you explain the multitude of Olympic lifters who don't have "small" thighs? (They exist, don't they?) Do they train differently than the people you're thinking of?

Also:

Highly doubtful. Manipulation of diet won't accomplish that much.

Again, with respects, I have to ask...are you joking? For that matter, what does "that much" entail?

Think about what this would mean. It'd mean that growth occurs irrespective of energy requirements, so a person who eats maintenance-level calories and <80g of protein daily could grow at a rate comparable to someone who eats a large kcal surplus and >2g/kilo bodyweight of protein, if all other things are equal.

We know that ain't the case.

Again, however, let's not limit our focus to training OR diet: genetics play the biggest role in whether or not someone can develop appreciable strength and/or size. I'd argue that the small Olympic guys you're thinking of are simply not inclined to have big thighs, regardless of how they trained.

 

[MataUm]

Ahh yes, let us argue in circles. IF olympic lifters ate big (as if they don't), they would be HUGE, but not if they didn't have the "genetics" for it. What genetics are you talking about if you don't ascribe to the muscle fiber theory?

 

[MataUm]

Would you say the guy in the video in this thread has "big" legs? I wouldn't say they are remarkable, strong, yes, HUGE? No.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=284322

 

[MataUm]

Again, with respects, I have to ask...are you joking? For that matter, what does "that much" entail?

Think about what this would mean. It'd mean that growth occurs irrespective of energy requirements, so a person who eats maintenance-level calories and <80g of protein daily could grow at a rate comparable to someone who eats a large kcal surplus and >2g/kilo bodyweight of protein, if all other things are equal.

We know that ain't the case.

Again, however, let's not limit our focus to training OR diet: genetics play the biggest role in whether or not someone can develop appreciable strength and/or size. I'd argue that the small Olympic guys you're thinking of are simply not inclined to have big thighs, regardless of how they trained.

No, I am not joking. These guys eat diets that are high in protein just like you bodybuilders worship. They eat 3000-5000kcals a day. Their diets are reasonably similar. The differences in diet are so small "manipulation" of the diet will have little to no effect. The difference is solely in the training methods.

 

[guldukat]

Ahh yes, let us argue in circles. IF olympic lifters ate big (as if they don't), they would be HUGE, but not if they didn't have the "genetics" for it.

You're putting words in my mouth. If you'd quoted me directly that wouldn't be a problem.

I am telling you that reducing an Olympic lifter's development solely to training is illicit.

I wasn't trying to be a dick about it; I even said so a couple of times. If you think that's "arguing in circles," though...*shrugs*

What genetics are you talking about if you don't ascribe to the muscle fiber theory?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take this statement to mean:

"The only 'genetic' factor in muscle growth is fiber type."

Would that be accurate?

 

[guldukat]

No, I am not joking. These guys eat diets that are high in protein just like you bodybuilders worship.

Let's be civil here. I don't "worship" a diet any more than you worship the muscle fiber theory. I also don't recall noting that I was necessarily a bodybuilder--not that such is relevant.

I'm also reticent to simply take your word that all Olympic lifters eat a high-protein diet. It's nothing personal, that's simply a sweeping statement.

They eat 3000-5000kcals a day. Their diets are reasonably similar. The differences in diet are so small "manipulation" of the diet will have little to no effect. The difference is solely in the training methods.

They all eat that much, eh? How might one verify that? I take it we're assuming that value represents a caloric surplus for all these hypothetical gents, too (probably not unreasonable).

You say the difference is solely in the training methods, but just a minute ago you intimated that, if one subscribed to the muscle fiber theory, genetics could be relevant.

Which is it?

You also pointed out this gent:

Would you say the guy in the video in this thread has "big" legs? I wouldn't say they are remarkable, strong, yes, HUGE? No.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/foru...threadid=284322

I wouldn't say those are "huge" legs, no. It's difficult to tell exactly what level of development he has, but it's definitely to a comparably weighted, decent bodybuilder's.

That said, refer back to the "hasty generalization" I mentioned earlier...this is only one guy. To say he's representative of the majority warrants substantiation.