Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
D
Debaser
Guest
MataUm said:
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.
D
Debaser
Guest
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.
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.
MataUm said:
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:
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.
Last edited:
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
http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=284322
guldukat said:
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.
MataUm said:
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*
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?
MataUm said:
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 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:
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.
Debaser said:
Ill say this: The guy I train with flat benches 400lbs. His incline sucks in comparison (275x3). And his upper chest is almost completely flat, has a droopy look. My flat and incline are very close, and you can definately see a difference in my chest development.
C3bodybuilding said:
Keep in mind Debaser has only one year actual training experience
Debaser said:
Not with your "reasoning"
NWinters
New member
WalkingBeast said:
Seriousley Debaser, how and where do you get your info? And what training methods have you used since you have been working out. And if you tell me more than 2 methods im gonna be dissapointed cause it was you who said somthing about changing routines wont get you anywhere.
WalkingBeast said:
Heh...that was like me when I did flat and incline BB
I didn't have bench tits too bad, though *whew* That shit really starts to look gross after awhile...I don't know if you're familiar with him, but 2nd tier IFBB pro Art Atwood's got it BAD. Look at him from the front; his pecs are huge, but look like teardrops.I think it's mostly a genetic thing, but it is interesting that your training partner has a weak upper chest AND incline (though 275x3's quite good taken alone).
Has he drilled inclines hard for long, I wonder? The fact that he does them and still has a weak upper chest could actually work against the idea that inclines = great upper chest developer.
I like incline presses, but I do see what Debaser's saying. Too often some guys do treat them as if they'll magically fix any pec training problems.
guldukat said:
Heh...that was like me when I did flat and incline BB
I think it's mostly a genetic thing, but it is interesting that your training partner has a weak upper chest AND incline (though 275x3's quite good taken alone).
Has he drilled inclines hard for long, I wonder? The fact that he does them and still has a weak upper chest could actually work against the idea that inclines = great upper chest developer.
I like incline presses, but I do see what Debaser's saying. Too often some guys do treat them as if they'll magically fix any pec training problems.
I heard of Artwood, but havent even viewed a recent muscle mag in a while. The guy I train with hardly ever inclines. He will do maybe 2 sets after maybe 11 sets of flat benching. One of those sets is a warm-up with 135, and the other is usually 225x11. IMO hes almost getting nothing out of them. Just an afterthought really. 275x3 is bad IMO because he gets 315x17 on flat bench. His form is real sloppy though. Ass off the bench and bouncing. Its almost as if the incline is an equalizer..haha Feels good to destroy him on every other movement aside from flat bench. I have to wonder how strong hed be if he benched like me. It would definately cut his strength alot! hahaha ThanX Guld!
D
Debaser
Guest
NWinters said:
You're saying it as if there is one extreme or the other. As if I can only ignore everyone's advice, or accept everyone's ideas as gospel. No, I do what everyone should do but appears to be almost nonexistant on this board:
1. Think about the different variables LOGICALLY. Logic, lately seems to be seldomly employed.
2. If necessary, consider scientific, biomechanical, physiological, anatomical (etc.) grounds.
3. Reach a decision.
I'm not going to listen to a big guy in the gym merely because he's big. If what he says doesn't sound ripped off the latest muscle magazine (like incline chest press importance perhaps?), then I might take note. If he sounds like a bumbling fool, then I'm not going to waste my time with his advice.
D
Debaser
Guest
WalkingBeast said:
You're starting to undermine any last iota of credibility or rationality I thought you had. Keep it up.
NWinters
New member
Debaser said:
At least he keeps a journal. And we are all very interested in his progress (and proud for the most part). And he seems to have very SIMPLE answers. He never hesitates or ponders for hours trying to come up with an answer to very simple questions. First and furter more he doesnt fuckin argue, like you claim that you never do. You will make a hell of a mod!!!!!!
NWinters said:
ThanX brother!!! Its the few members like you that keep me on Elite. Im proud of you to man! Your one of the few that trains hardcore. Ive heard Debaser reffered to as a cut and paste ho and its hard to disagree. But overall Debaser is no doubt the most knowledgable on the boards. Fuck those with actual lifting experience. Id post something more constructive if this thread was worth a shit
NWinters
New member
WalkingBeast said:
ThanX brother!!! Its the few members like you that keep me on Elite. Im proud of you to man! Your one of the few that trains hardcore. Ive heard Debaser reffered to as a cut and paste ho and its hard to disagree. But overall Debaser is no doubt the most knowledgable on the boards. Fuck those with actual lifting experience. Id post something more constructive if this thread was worth a shit
Thanx bro....The same can be said for you too.
NWinters said:
No problem!!
Sweeping generalizations are not generalizations if they are true. Its like saying that all professional bodybuilders juice is a sweeping generalization. Or that all sprinters run is a sweeping generalization.
Sorry man, but the training necessary to reach Oly levels is on such a level have activity levels DEMANDING that much caloric intake. You can't be top level by eating a twinkie for breakfast and nothing else all day, no matter how good your "genetics".
Sorry man, but the training necessary to reach Oly levels is on such a level have activity levels DEMANDING that much caloric intake. You can't be top level by eating a twinkie for breakfast and nothing else all day, no matter how good your "genetics".
Toozee
New member
It appears from this study that both parties are correct to a degree. The first part covers the lower pec activation and the second part covers upper pec activation. This also covers grip width. See foot for references.
Barnett et al (1995)
The Sternocostal Head
One of the most common assumptions in the world of iron is that the decline bench is the best for developing the lower pecs. However, this familiar premise may be nothing more than another unfounded gym myth. According to the Barnett EMG study, the flat bench produced much more electrical energy in the lower pecs than did either the decline or incline positions. "I agree with this research" says NPC National Champion and pro bodybuilder Jay Cutler, "The flat bench is much better for lower pec development than the decline."
But what is the best grip to use? EMG studies have also shown that when doing the flat bench, the muscle fibers of the lower pecs are activated the most when using a wide grip. "This is very much true," adds Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield, Ph.D. "A wide grip with the elbows out will cause much more lower pec activation." However, whether you choose to use a wide or narrow grip, we can assume that using the decline position to target the lower pecs is just not justified. Eddie Robinson, IFBB pro bodybuilder states, "I feel the flat bench press, with a wide grip is best for over all pec development, but you do not want to go so wide with the grip that you over stress the shoulders."
The Clavicular Head
Now we all know that the incline bench hits the upper pecs. Right? Since the upper pecs seem to help to raise the arm, this would make sense. The incline position would put the arm in more of a flexed position than either the flat or decline positions. According to EMG studies this advice seems to be pretty much true. The Barnett study tells us that the incline position produces just slightly more electrical energy in the upper pecs that either the flat or decline positions. However, the flat bench was found to be very close. While the difference between the two was considered insignificant, the slight advantage of the incline over the flat bench in upper pec activation may be just what some of us need to further develop the upper pecs. "This is all very true," says Robinson. "There is no doubt the incline bench hits the pecs more than the flat bench."
Cutler agrees and says, "I personally feel upper pec development is very important for a bodybuilder. So I concentrate more on the incline bench that I do the flat bench." While the incline position may provide slightly greater upper pec stimulation Hatfield contends, "The same thing can be accomplished by using the flat bench. I would suggest lowering the bar to the upper pecs instead of the lower pecs (as normal), using a wide grip with the elbows out."
Nevertheless, if you are going to use the incline position to target the upper pecs, a narrower grip has been shown to best activate them. Professional bodybuilder Mike Francois agrees and says "A grip that is just a little bit wider than shoulder’s width really hits my upper pecs best." But Sal Arria, D.C., founder of the International Sport Science Association and former powerlifting champion warns: "Using a wide grip can involve too much front deltoid and can cause the deltoids to slam against the acronium process, causing trauma to the muscle."
So.....focusing on the highlighted parts, it seems the missing factor here is where you lower the bar to.
Now let's all make nice nice and go to another thread.
-2z-
References:
Barnett, C., Kippers, V., and Turner, P. (1995). Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 9(4): 222-227.
Elliot, B.C., Wilson, G.J., and Kerr, G.K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Medicine, Science, Sports and Exercise. 21(4): 450-462.
Lockhardt, R.D. (1974). Living Anatomy: A Photographic Atlas of Muscles in Action and Surface Contours, 7th ed. London: Farber & Farber.
McCaw, S.T. and Friday, J.J. (1994). A comparison of muscle activity between a free weight and machine bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 8(4):259-264.
Thompson, C.E. and Floyd, R.T. (1994). The shoulder joint. In: Manual of Structural Kinesiology, 12th ed. Smith, J.M. Ed. St. Louis, MS: Mosby-Year Book.
Barnett et al (1995)
The Sternocostal Head
One of the most common assumptions in the world of iron is that the decline bench is the best for developing the lower pecs. However, this familiar premise may be nothing more than another unfounded gym myth. According to the Barnett EMG study, the flat bench produced much more electrical energy in the lower pecs than did either the decline or incline positions. "I agree with this research" says NPC National Champion and pro bodybuilder Jay Cutler, "The flat bench is much better for lower pec development than the decline."
But what is the best grip to use? EMG studies have also shown that when doing the flat bench, the muscle fibers of the lower pecs are activated the most when using a wide grip. "This is very much true," adds Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield, Ph.D. "A wide grip with the elbows out will cause much more lower pec activation." However, whether you choose to use a wide or narrow grip, we can assume that using the decline position to target the lower pecs is just not justified. Eddie Robinson, IFBB pro bodybuilder states, "I feel the flat bench press, with a wide grip is best for over all pec development, but you do not want to go so wide with the grip that you over stress the shoulders."
The Clavicular Head
Now we all know that the incline bench hits the upper pecs. Right? Since the upper pecs seem to help to raise the arm, this would make sense. The incline position would put the arm in more of a flexed position than either the flat or decline positions. According to EMG studies this advice seems to be pretty much true. The Barnett study tells us that the incline position produces just slightly more electrical energy in the upper pecs that either the flat or decline positions. However, the flat bench was found to be very close. While the difference between the two was considered insignificant, the slight advantage of the incline over the flat bench in upper pec activation may be just what some of us need to further develop the upper pecs. "This is all very true," says Robinson. "There is no doubt the incline bench hits the pecs more than the flat bench."
Cutler agrees and says, "I personally feel upper pec development is very important for a bodybuilder. So I concentrate more on the incline bench that I do the flat bench." While the incline position may provide slightly greater upper pec stimulation Hatfield contends, "The same thing can be accomplished by using the flat bench. I would suggest lowering the bar to the upper pecs instead of the lower pecs (as normal), using a wide grip with the elbows out."
Nevertheless, if you are going to use the incline position to target the upper pecs, a narrower grip has been shown to best activate them. Professional bodybuilder Mike Francois agrees and says "A grip that is just a little bit wider than shoulder’s width really hits my upper pecs best." But Sal Arria, D.C., founder of the International Sport Science Association and former powerlifting champion warns: "Using a wide grip can involve too much front deltoid and can cause the deltoids to slam against the acronium process, causing trauma to the muscle."
So.....focusing on the highlighted parts, it seems the missing factor here is where you lower the bar to.
Now let's all make nice nice and go to another thread.
-2z-
References:
Barnett, C., Kippers, V., and Turner, P. (1995). Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 9(4): 222-227.
Elliot, B.C., Wilson, G.J., and Kerr, G.K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Medicine, Science, Sports and Exercise. 21(4): 450-462.
Lockhardt, R.D. (1974). Living Anatomy: A Photographic Atlas of Muscles in Action and Surface Contours, 7th ed. London: Farber & Farber.
McCaw, S.T. and Friday, J.J. (1994). A comparison of muscle activity between a free weight and machine bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 8(4):259-264.
Thompson, C.E. and Floyd, R.T. (1994). The shoulder joint. In: Manual of Structural Kinesiology, 12th ed. Smith, J.M. Ed. St. Louis, MS: Mosby-Year Book.
Because it came up I am going to add that the body does not need as much protein as bodybuilders and their magazines think they need. Excess protein is broken down into glucose anyhow, expecially if your body needs energy (i.e not getting enough carbohydrates). The body also produces these types of protein by itself, and many of them go towards the production of muscle fibers.
Alanine (synthesized from pyruvic acid)
Arginine (synthesized from glutamic acid)
Asparagine (synthesized from aspartic acid)
Aspartic Acid (synthesized from oxaloacetic acid)
Cysteine
Glutamic Acid (synthesized from oxoglutaric acid)
Glutamine (synthesized from glutamic acid)
Glycine (synthesized from serine and threonine)
Proline (synthesized from glutamic acid)
Serine (synthesized from glucose)
Tryosine (synthesized from phenylalanine)
The following proteins are the only ones that are necessary, and can be consumed by eating DRV of protein, all the rest your body will produce.
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine
Phenylalanine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine
Alanine (synthesized from pyruvic acid)
Arginine (synthesized from glutamic acid)
Asparagine (synthesized from aspartic acid)
Aspartic Acid (synthesized from oxaloacetic acid)
Cysteine
Glutamic Acid (synthesized from oxoglutaric acid)
Glutamine (synthesized from glutamic acid)
Glycine (synthesized from serine and threonine)
Proline (synthesized from glutamic acid)
Serine (synthesized from glucose)
Tryosine (synthesized from phenylalanine)
The following proteins are the only ones that are necessary, and can be consumed by eating DRV of protein, all the rest your body will produce.
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine
Phenylalanine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine
NWinters said:
Uhhhh............
you're kidding, right?
This seems to be what you respect... (see above) correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Simplicity
2. Not thinking
3. Not arguing
Do you want a board contributor or a mindless sheep follower? For shit's sake, I'd take a debaser thread over 15 training journals. This is actually interesting.
b fold the truth said:
D
Debaser
Guest
B fold I already replied to that specific post. You then replied with "it's pointless to debate with you." Now you're simply posting the exact same thing. That is at least mildly humorous.
***
This coming from the guy that kept saying a man could squat 1 million pounds and that genetics don't exist.
***
Nwinters it's difficult to feel the need to dignify your post with a response, and casualbb already said everything that needs to be said (with a competent reply by you, I might add). But I would like to add a couple points:
1. Who the fuck said I never kept a training journal? Just because I don't post it online I somehow don't track my progress?
2. Shit, maybe I shouldn't "think things through" and thus win your respect! I should instantly come up with simpler answers that are not taxing on your thought process. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, which is a simpler answer:
1. Training with all different rep ranges, or trying to hit different fiber types, saying you can only grow with low or high rep ranges, all this "fiber type" mumbo jumbo nauseatingling complicates things.
Work on adding weight to the bar, stop paying so much attention to your rep range. MY ANSWER.
or
2. You must use singles for this, 2-3 reps for this exercise, and make sure you only use 12 reps for this muscle group, because it's composed of a greater deal of higher twitch fibers. Also, legs only respond to low reps. You need to train to hit each individual fiber type. THEIR ANSWER.
Now, which is the simpler answer? I hope you have some leftover Thanksgiving crow.
***
This coming from the guy that kept saying a man could squat 1 million pounds and that genetics don't exist.
***
Nwinters it's difficult to feel the need to dignify your post with a response, and casualbb already said everything that needs to be said (with a competent reply by you, I might add). But I would like to add a couple points:
1. Who the fuck said I never kept a training journal? Just because I don't post it online I somehow don't track my progress?
2. Shit, maybe I shouldn't "think things through" and thus win your respect! I should instantly come up with simpler answers that are not taxing on your thought process. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, which is a simpler answer:
1. Training with all different rep ranges, or trying to hit different fiber types, saying you can only grow with low or high rep ranges, all this "fiber type" mumbo jumbo nauseatingling complicates things.
Work on adding weight to the bar, stop paying so much attention to your rep range. MY ANSWER.
or
2. You must use singles for this, 2-3 reps for this exercise, and make sure you only use 12 reps for this muscle group, because it's composed of a greater deal of higher twitch fibers. Also, legs only respond to low reps. You need to train to hit each individual fiber type. THEIR ANSWER.
Now, which is the simpler answer? I hope you have some leftover Thanksgiving crow.
NWinters
New member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by b fold the truth
Debasser: Don't forget that good arguements can be made for all of your 'myths' as well as your 'facts'. There is no black and white...for either one. I can find examples which would prove both your 'facts' as well as your 'myths'.
..........................
I trust competitive strength athletes.
Read THAT again...I trust competitive strength athletes!!! I read some study that was done by some group of Ph.D.'s and realize that they were done on a bunch of goofballs who attend the local college nearly as much as they do the local bars and fraternity houses and they get amazing results from them.
On the other hand...I read something from Poliquin, Simmons, the guys at Metal Militia, Chad Coy, Willie Wessels, etc...and they are giving me something that they have found to work on people who are COMPETITIVE, are already trained athletes, AND that really works in practice...NOT just in theory.
Hey...I'll take what works for the competitive athlete 8 days a week before I'll take what SHOULD work.
..................
"There comes a time when you have to stop talking about the weights and you have to wrap your hands around a cold piece of steel and give it Hell."
Terry Long (old friend of mine)
B True
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by b fold the truth
Debasser: Don't forget that good arguements can be made for all of your 'myths' as well as your 'facts'. There is no black and white...for either one. I can find examples which would prove both your 'facts' as well as your 'myths'.
..........................
I trust competitive strength athletes.
Read THAT again...I trust competitive strength athletes!!! I read some study that was done by some group of Ph.D.'s and realize that they were done on a bunch of goofballs who attend the local college nearly as much as they do the local bars and fraternity houses and they get amazing results from them.
On the other hand...I read something from Poliquin, Simmons, the guys at Metal Militia, Chad Coy, Willie Wessels, etc...and they are giving me something that they have found to work on people who are COMPETITIVE, are already trained athletes, AND that really works in practice...NOT just in theory.
Hey...I'll take what works for the competitive athlete 8 days a week before I'll take what SHOULD work.
..................
"There comes a time when you have to stop talking about the weights and you have to wrap your hands around a cold piece of steel and give it Hell."
Terry Long (old friend of mine)
B True
D
Debaser
Guest
casualbb said:
Let me just say, I in no way meant to say that WalkingBeast is any of those things, I was merely indicating them as traits NWinter seems to respect. Reading that post blew my mind, because...
If everybody has exactly the same opinions, how is being a member here productive? The whole point is you know something he doesn't know, and he knows something you don't. And then you tell each other, and go on to make better progress.
Variety is the spice of life.
If everybody has exactly the same opinions, how is being a member here productive? The whole point is you know something he doesn't know, and he knows something you don't. And then you tell each other, and go on to make better progress.
Variety is the spice of life.
casualbb said:
ThanX
MataUm said:
To nitpick, that's still a generalization, it's just not a bad one
The reason I said "sweeping" is because many competitive lifters do take pains to stay in a certain weight class. They have to curb calories to that end; therefore, to claim they're eating adequately for bodybuilder-calibre growth, and don't achieve as much growth solely because of their training, is a bit hasty.
I partially agree, though I'd caution against saying "The successful must eat that much because they have to eat that much to succeed." You mentioned arguing in circles awhile back--the above is the very definition of circular reasoning.
I should also note I never said all OLers didn't eat well at all, nor should we look at diet as something so extreme; i.e., "Either you eat 6,000 kcal daily or you only eat the equivalent of a few Twinkies." There's a _huge_ middle ground there, just as there are lifters between Don Knotts' strength and Ed Coan's.
It's really a moot point since I don't claim that diet's the sole reason OLers sometimes have smaller muscles than bodybuilders; it's been some days, but I recall I was the guy who favored the genetics explanation. There are, after all, OLers who *do* have pretty good muscularity, so if they train--and, as you suggested, eat--like their smaller-muscled Olympic cousins, there must be something else to account for said superior development, some other factor at play.
Olypic lifters are smaller because they train for sarcomere hypertrophy, not sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (the non contractile proteins)
From here: http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/hypertrophy.txt
OPTIMUM, NOT MAXIMUM, HYPERTROPHY
In both Olympic lifting and powerlifting, optimal and not maximal
hypertrophy is a central feature of the game, unlike bodybuilding where it
does not matter whether one is relatively weak or strong with reference to
one's bodymass. All that matters is well-defined, symmetrical muscle bulk
in bodybuilding, but in the lifting sports, your size and impressiveness of
appearance earn you scant respect - all that counts is what you lift.
Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as
long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases
in strength and power. If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total
increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative
strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.
This is a serious problem in contact sports such as football where the
common belief is that virtually any form of added mass is good for the game
(especially defensive players), whereas in reality it would be a lot better
if the added bulk was mainly solid, functional muscle which added strength,
power, speed and agility.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF HYPERTROPHY
Research from Russia even suggests that there are two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy (of the actual contractile
components) and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (of non-contractile proteins and
semifluid plasma between the muscle fibres), with the latter type of
hypertrophy being more in evidence in bodybuilding (Siff & Verkhoshansky
"Supertraining" 1998 Ch 1.12).
MUSCLE GROWTH & PERFORMANCE
To provide some more relevant information on this important and
controversial topic, I have included this fairly lengthy extract from
"Supertraining" (pp 58-60) for those who may be interested:
Other research has found that hypertrophied muscle fibres need a
significantly larger tissue volume to perform a given amount of work. With
the development of non-functional muscle bulk (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),
the increase in muscle mass outsrtips the development of the circulatory
system, resulting in decreased nutrition and oxygenation of the muscle,
slowing down the metabolic processes in the muscle and less efficient
disposal of metabolic waste products from the musculoskeletal system
(Zalessky & Burkhanov Legkaya Atletika 1981: 1-7).
Furthermore, adaptation occurs more slowly in connective tissue (such as
tendons and ligaments) than in muscle and any increased tension made
possible in the musculotendinous complexes by the increased muscle mass can
cause damage to these structures (Zalessky & Burkhanov, 1981). Thus,
excessive hypertrophy usually leads to slower muscle recovery after
exercise, deterioration in speed, speed-strength and speed, as well as an
increased incidence of injury.
THE ENERGY COSTS OF TOO MUCH HYPERTROPHY
This might suggest that all muscle fibre hypertrophy lowers work capacity.
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response to physical stress and does offer the
benefit of increased mitochondrial surface area, which provides for more
efficient energy processes than would an increased number of mitochondria.
With a rapid increase in loading, the size of the mitochondria continues to
increase markedly, but their number decreases and the concentration of ATP
drops, thereby diminishing the partial volume of the contractile myofibrils.
The resulting energy deficit soon inhibits the formation of new structures
and the decreased amount of ATP stimulates various destructive processes
associated with decrease in the number of myofibrils. This process is
referred to as irrational adaptation.
Growth of any living structure is related to the balance between its volume
and its surface area. When muscle hypertrophy occurs, the surface of the
fibres grows more slowly than their volume and, this imbalance causes the
fibres to disintegrate and restructure in a way which preserves their
original metabolic state (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990).
It would appear that light and medium increases in loading require less
energy, facilitate cell repair, minimise the occurrence of destructive
processes and stimulate the synthesis of new, non-hypertrophied cellular
structures. Medium loads applied with a medium rate of increase in loading
produce intense muscular development, the process in this case being
referred to as rational adaptation..
The fact that conventional isometric training improves performance in
static, rather than dynamic, exercise may be due to the different
structural effects of isometric training on the muscle fibres, muscle
cells, connective tissues and blood capillaries.
MORE ON OPTIMAL HYPERTROPHY
This work seems to corroborate the hypothesis referred to earlier that
there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy
(MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of
prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance
between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious. Thus, it
is not only prolonged cardiovascular training which can be detrimental to
the acquisition of strength, but multiple fairly high repetition sets of
heavy bodybuilding or circuit training routines to the point of failure may
also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres.
Therefore, it is vital to monitor regularly changes in muscular structure
and function alongside changes in size and mass. In most cases the taking
of biopsies is not possible or financially practical, so that indirect
assessment of the adaptive processes is necessary. Increase in hypertrophy
of a given muscle zone may be assessed from muscle girth and skinfold
thicknesses at that site, while factors such as relative strength, maximal
strength and the strength deficit (see Ch 1) serve as useful indicators of
functional efficiency.
INDISCRIMINATE WEIGHT TRAINING
Bosco (1982a) cautions against the indiscriminate use of resistance
training that typifies much of the 'cross training' prescribed with weights
and circuits by Western personal trainers and coaches. He emphasizes that,
although heavy resistance training serves as a powerful stimulus for the
development and hypertrophy of both ST and FT fibres, the invaluable role
played by FT development can be impaired by the accompanying growth of ST
fibres, because the latter appear to provoke a damping effect on FT
contraction during fast movement.
This is due to the fact that, during high speed shortening of muscle, the
sliding velocity of ST fibres can be too slow and therefore, may exert a
significant damping effect on the overall muscle contraction. He concludes
that the central role played by the storage and release of elastic energy
by the connective tissues of the muscle complex should never be ignored in
sport specific training programmes.
Dr. Mel Siff
From here: http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/hypertrophy.txt
OPTIMUM, NOT MAXIMUM, HYPERTROPHY
In both Olympic lifting and powerlifting, optimal and not maximal
hypertrophy is a central feature of the game, unlike bodybuilding where it
does not matter whether one is relatively weak or strong with reference to
one's bodymass. All that matters is well-defined, symmetrical muscle bulk
in bodybuilding, but in the lifting sports, your size and impressiveness of
appearance earn you scant respect - all that counts is what you lift.
Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as
long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases
in strength and power. If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total
increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative
strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.
This is a serious problem in contact sports such as football where the
common belief is that virtually any form of added mass is good for the game
(especially defensive players), whereas in reality it would be a lot better
if the added bulk was mainly solid, functional muscle which added strength,
power, speed and agility.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF HYPERTROPHY
Research from Russia even suggests that there are two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy (of the actual contractile
components) and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (of non-contractile proteins and
semifluid plasma between the muscle fibres), with the latter type of
hypertrophy being more in evidence in bodybuilding (Siff & Verkhoshansky
"Supertraining" 1998 Ch 1.12).
MUSCLE GROWTH & PERFORMANCE
To provide some more relevant information on this important and
controversial topic, I have included this fairly lengthy extract from
"Supertraining" (pp 58-60) for those who may be interested:
Other research has found that hypertrophied muscle fibres need a
significantly larger tissue volume to perform a given amount of work. With
the development of non-functional muscle bulk (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),
the increase in muscle mass outsrtips the development of the circulatory
system, resulting in decreased nutrition and oxygenation of the muscle,
slowing down the metabolic processes in the muscle and less efficient
disposal of metabolic waste products from the musculoskeletal system
(Zalessky & Burkhanov Legkaya Atletika 1981: 1-7).
Furthermore, adaptation occurs more slowly in connective tissue (such as
tendons and ligaments) than in muscle and any increased tension made
possible in the musculotendinous complexes by the increased muscle mass can
cause damage to these structures (Zalessky & Burkhanov, 1981). Thus,
excessive hypertrophy usually leads to slower muscle recovery after
exercise, deterioration in speed, speed-strength and speed, as well as an
increased incidence of injury.
THE ENERGY COSTS OF TOO MUCH HYPERTROPHY
This might suggest that all muscle fibre hypertrophy lowers work capacity.
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response to physical stress and does offer the
benefit of increased mitochondrial surface area, which provides for more
efficient energy processes than would an increased number of mitochondria.
With a rapid increase in loading, the size of the mitochondria continues to
increase markedly, but their number decreases and the concentration of ATP
drops, thereby diminishing the partial volume of the contractile myofibrils.
The resulting energy deficit soon inhibits the formation of new structures
and the decreased amount of ATP stimulates various destructive processes
associated with decrease in the number of myofibrils. This process is
referred to as irrational adaptation.
Growth of any living structure is related to the balance between its volume
and its surface area. When muscle hypertrophy occurs, the surface of the
fibres grows more slowly than their volume and, this imbalance causes the
fibres to disintegrate and restructure in a way which preserves their
original metabolic state (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990).
It would appear that light and medium increases in loading require less
energy, facilitate cell repair, minimise the occurrence of destructive
processes and stimulate the synthesis of new, non-hypertrophied cellular
structures. Medium loads applied with a medium rate of increase in loading
produce intense muscular development, the process in this case being
referred to as rational adaptation..
The fact that conventional isometric training improves performance in
static, rather than dynamic, exercise may be due to the different
structural effects of isometric training on the muscle fibres, muscle
cells, connective tissues and blood capillaries.
MORE ON OPTIMAL HYPERTROPHY
This work seems to corroborate the hypothesis referred to earlier that
there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy
(MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of
prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance
between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious. Thus, it
is not only prolonged cardiovascular training which can be detrimental to
the acquisition of strength, but multiple fairly high repetition sets of
heavy bodybuilding or circuit training routines to the point of failure may
also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres.
Therefore, it is vital to monitor regularly changes in muscular structure
and function alongside changes in size and mass. In most cases the taking
of biopsies is not possible or financially practical, so that indirect
assessment of the adaptive processes is necessary. Increase in hypertrophy
of a given muscle zone may be assessed from muscle girth and skinfold
thicknesses at that site, while factors such as relative strength, maximal
strength and the strength deficit (see Ch 1) serve as useful indicators of
functional efficiency.
INDISCRIMINATE WEIGHT TRAINING
Bosco (1982a) cautions against the indiscriminate use of resistance
training that typifies much of the 'cross training' prescribed with weights
and circuits by Western personal trainers and coaches. He emphasizes that,
although heavy resistance training serves as a powerful stimulus for the
development and hypertrophy of both ST and FT fibres, the invaluable role
played by FT development can be impaired by the accompanying growth of ST
fibres, because the latter appear to provoke a damping effect on FT
contraction during fast movement.
This is due to the fact that, during high speed shortening of muscle, the
sliding velocity of ST fibres can be too slow and therefore, may exert a
significant damping effect on the overall muscle contraction. He concludes
that the central role played by the storage and release of elastic energy
by the connective tissues of the muscle complex should never be ignored in
sport specific training programmes.
Dr. Mel Siff
Some other links that support my argument and debunk debasers outrageous claims that muscle fiber types and differing types of hypertrophy exist:
http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/growth2.html
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=106
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercisephysiology/a/aa080901a.htm
I can get more. So, whom to believe? Current research, or some guy on a message board that promotes simplicity over accuracy?
http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/growth2.html
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=106
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercisephysiology/a/aa080901a.htm
I can get more. So, whom to believe? Current research, or some guy on a message board that promotes simplicity over accuracy?
guldukat said:
To nitpick, that's still a generalization, it's just not a bad one
The reason I said "sweeping" is because many competitive lifters do take pains to stay in a certain weight class. They have to curb calories to that end; therefore, to claim they're eating adequately for bodybuilder-calibre growth, and don't achieve as much growth solely because of their training, is a bit hasty.
Obviously Oly lifters as a general rule do not "bulk" like bodybuilders, so in that case you are right, however, the purpose of bulking is to build sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and keep glycogen replentished. So in that case, they eat less. That isn't diet manipulation any more than me not eating at a buffet every day.
I don't see the problem with that circular reasoning? You classify it as such, but it is no different than saying that a racecar must use lots of gas because going that fast uses a lot of fuel. It isn't false, just worded poorly. There is nothing fallicious about that statement, nor the one above.
The something else that accounts for superior development is genetics. Muscle insertion points, total amount of muscle fibers, both ST AND FT depending on the sport, height, weight, age, all are factors. That is what seperates the guy that competes amateur leve and the guy that made it to the pros, even though their diets and training regimine are identical.
(and yes, I realize that to compete at the high levels olypic level lifters lift at, they too as a general rule, juice)
From the OP:
I then asked him if his opinion on the two types of hypertrophy and got no response. I took this as a negative.
Sarcomere energy doesn't take that much energy. (relatively) The purpose of bulking is what I said: getting to body to realize there is an abundance of nutriants and to store them. Training the body with high reps and lots of sets gets the body to store lots of extra glycogen and such and that contributes to size.
If building up contractile proteins took that much energy mankind, and down through the ancestors, because much of mammillian physiology/musculature is pretty similar, would not have survived.
Debaser said:
I then asked him if his opinion on the two types of hypertrophy and got no response. I took this as a negative.
Sarcomere energy doesn't take that much energy. (relatively) The purpose of bulking is what I said: getting to body to realize there is an abundance of nutriants and to store them. Training the body with high reps and lots of sets gets the body to store lots of extra glycogen and such and that contributes to size.
If building up contractile proteins took that much energy mankind, and down through the ancestors, because much of mammillian physiology/musculature is pretty similar, would not have survived.
Okay, first of all, building any sort of macromolecule out of components takes a lot of energy.
And secondly, what are you saying, that bulking will only ever produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? If that's the case, then why do the vast majority of trainees find they're stronger when they do a lot of bulking? Obviously not all of it is nonfunctional.
Oh and also the study I posted earlier showed little correlation between rep range and fiber type growth.
And secondly, what are you saying, that bulking will only ever produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? If that's the case, then why do the vast majority of trainees find they're stronger when they do a lot of bulking? Obviously not all of it is nonfunctional.
Oh and also the study I posted earlier showed little correlation between rep range and fiber type growth.
D
Debaser
Guest
I didn't mean that various fiber types DON'T exist, I said that it's so irrelevent to the progress of a trainee that many trainees fail because they worry about such things (will certain rep ranges hit certain fibers, etc.).
I pretty much lump various types of hypertrophy into a similar category. If I'm training for mainly for strength, size, or a combination of both I'm doing just that, and not worrying about contractile proteins. Interesting how I gain strength very quickly from both high rep sets and low rep sets. Why don't you call Dr. Ken, DC, or any of those guys and ask if "fairly high repetition sets...to the point of failure may also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres." In their experience, their trainees as well as themselves have gained enormous amounts of strength through the sole use of high rep sets to failure. Also, note the "may" in the preceding quote.
I pretty much lump various types of hypertrophy into a similar category. If I'm training for mainly for strength, size, or a combination of both I'm doing just that, and not worrying about contractile proteins. Interesting how I gain strength very quickly from both high rep sets and low rep sets. Why don't you call Dr. Ken, DC, or any of those guys and ask if "fairly high repetition sets...to the point of failure may also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres." In their experience, their trainees as well as themselves have gained enormous amounts of strength through the sole use of high rep sets to failure. Also, note the "may" in the preceding quote.
D
Debaser
Guest
Is that basically the technical term for the mechanism for strength gain? Or are there other ways to gain strength?
casualbb: You mean this study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12436270&dopt=Abstract
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Related Articles, Links
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12436270&dopt=Abstract
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Related Articles, Links
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Yeah I mean that one.
Argh! That violates a central law of physics. You can't build something from nothing. Proteins don't just randomly arrange themselves into sarcomeres; that would reduce the universe's entropy, which CAN'T HAPPEN. Your stove doesn't spontaneously heat up; you have to apply a flame. The only way to get it to work it apply enough energy to overcome the tendency for randomness.
Argh! That violates a central law of physics. You can't build something from nothing. Proteins don't just randomly arrange themselves into sarcomeres; that would reduce the universe's entropy, which CAN'T HAPPEN. Your stove doesn't spontaneously heat up; you have to apply a flame. The only way to get it to work it apply enough energy to overcome the tendency for randomness.
Debaser said:
Didn't claim that my way was the only way of gaining strength, I am only claiming there are OTHER ways of gaining strength, ways of gaining strength that is more efficient for a given task. Bodybuilders don't compete for strength like OL or powerlifters so just lifting to gain some size is OK. However, to say that because that is how you train and get results, means that it is the only way is a bit shortsighted. I am only offering an alternative.
Yes, but their strength to bodyweight ratio is not so good, now is it? Can these people lift 4 times their bodyweight over their head?
Yes, the may is a good indicator of something else working isn't it? It would be foolish for somebody in the acedemic field to claim an absolute, and doing such reps to failure may not inhibit the formation of said muscle fibers, but may only inhibit their efficency. Which is what many strength athletes need.
Keep doing what you are doing if it works. Since you clarified yourself, that you don't think ST and FT fibers are imaginative like I got the impression you were saying we are on the same level.
D
Debaser
Guest
In terms of strength to bodyweight, Dr. Ken can full squat 407 lbs for 23 reps at a bodyweight of 150-160, completely raw. I'd say this isn't too shabby. He could have improved upon that number since then also.
casualbb said:
Yes, but your claim that it takes a lot of energy to form contractile protein chains has yet to be backed by any evidence. The fact that this can happen in short deprevational periods is evidence that large amounts of food is not necessary.
The rest of your post is rather interesting, but not really relevant, I must say that I don't see the connection between an oven lighting itself and a body that is designed to strengthen muscle fibers when they are stressed. Perhaps you could clarify.
With respect to fiber type growth, there seemed to be littler correlation between rep range and growth of fiber type. But I never said anything about strength. Of course the people lifting maximal weights gain more strength (neural adaptation), and of course those lifting with higher reps gained more strength-endurance (trained the glycolysis/oxidative energy pathway). If that's your point, then we are in agreement.
Can happen is different than "does" happen. Animals in the lab can experience severe hypertrophy during starvation conditions, but this is in response to extreme stimulus. We're talking all waking hours spend supported weight in a stretched position. For all intents and purposes, human trainees need to overeat to gain appreciable amounts of muscle. If you use extreme amounts of juice or come from a layoff, you can gain while dieting, but that's the exception, not the rule.
Yes, I shall clarify. Despite the fact that everything is infinitely more complicated in biological systems as opposed to inorganic ones, they still must obey fundamental laws of physics. One of which is that particles don't spontaneously find themselves in ordered arrangements out of chaos without an input of energy. What this means is that amino acids don't magically connect themselves to form sarcomeres. There are enzymes and growth processes that exist to assemble new muscle, but it requires energy both to run this cellular machinery and to actually connect the amino acids. Digestion is the breaking of chemical bonds to derive energy, and this is the opposite process. Obviously it requires energy.
R
revexrevex
Guest
seriously people with less than 2 years experience need to stop posting on this thread
A
Arnold'sApprentice
Guest
revexrevex said:
why? i didn't see a disclaimer..you're the one bringing the negativity.
either leave it alone or read it and maybe you will learn why your gains are so slow
revexrevex said:
Agreed...
Tweakle
New member
It might sound almost unbelieveable but it's possible to achieve drug-free 14" arms after only a couple of years of intensive google searching for abstracts and arguing about fiber types or rep speed on the internet.
Compare that to people who spend months and years of their lives locked into the blind, untheoretical pursuit of lifting increasingly heavy weights and eating lots of good food.
Compare that to people who spend months and years of their lives locked into the blind, untheoretical pursuit of lifting increasingly heavy weights and eating lots of good food.
D
Debaser
Guest
WalkingBeast said:
Let's then listen to the knowledgeable walkingbeast, after all he has more "experience" than me. Everyone here follow his advice: doing 30 sets for every bodypart all to failure, or they can follow mine, and we'll see who progresses. This coming from the guy who started a thread called "arm pump PR"
By the way, your goal of "405 by December," how's that coming along? Ever think you shouldn't have a 5 hour long chest day and maybe your bench press might go somewhere? But what do I know, you obviously have "experience."
Debaser said:
Get it on with your badass self. One year training experience, you must know your shit. Keep pushing those pencils
A
Arnold'sApprentice
Guest
Then the great Arnold is the most knowledgable..so get on with your six days a week 60 set workouts guys..no,actually,according to your flawed,pathetic 'logic' then Reg Park has more knowledge than anyone else..i mean over 50 years in the gym..that guy knows the most because he has trained the longest.
MataUm said:
I concur.
Btw, you hit the nail on the head about the question-begging I mentioned earlier. It was just a matter of wording.
Oops, one more thing: I also agree that argumentation and lifting needn't be mutually exclusive. (I've done the former well enough for upwards of 6 years, and the latter 11, so one can be a capable debater AND lifter at the same time.)
At the risk of sermonizing--and directed at no one in particular--it seems very strange to me that anyone would be willing to push the iron as hard as possible yet, at the same time, wouldn't want to test their mental limits as well.
Lots of "debates," like attacks against the person, ARE pointless. People get the wrong idea about real argumentation based on petty squabbles...they've come to regard "argument" and "debate" as synonymous with calling someone a jerk-off.
That couldn't be further from the truth. The real-deal argument is not about men but ideas, about learning. And let's face it: without pushing our limits in all areas of life, we can count on sweet fuck all for progress.
Bros, I say eschewing a tough argument is akin to never adding more iron to the bar. We have to work for that shit.
revexrevex said:
I must respectfully disagree here, my friend (and I've been in this game for over 11 years, so that's not why I object
). Let me explain why.Basically, I think experience is valuable, but it certainly doesn't correlate to knowledge. After all, we've all met people who slaved away for many years with little to show for it, and looking at how those guys usually train it's no surprise.
And for that matter, most of us have also seen firsthand decent physiques which belong to flat-out DUMB people, guys from whom advice would probably be worthless if not dangerous. (An example: one fellow I met seriously thought muscle PAIN was the key to growth, so he'd have someone punch him in the chest, arms etc. as hard as possible. He was always bruised. I told him to stop doing that, but I don't know if he followed my advice; he moved away after being fired from his dish-washing job at Denny's, and I haven't seen him again.)
On the other hand, there are also quick learners. Not all newbies lift correctly, but some do. Take a friend of mine's case:
About 18 months ago (? I think that's right), one of my buddies asked me to train him. He was interested to know everything about training, so much so I had to go look lots of stuff up to answer the questions he started asking me. A lot of times I just told him, "I honestly don't know that man."
Since I got him started, he's sought out information from all kinds of sources. He can talk about aspects of physiology I couldn't touch now, and I think his progress has reflected his growing knowledge: he took a very weak, beanpole body of 6'3" and 165ish to a fairly strong 6'3", 225. He's certainly not huge, but I think he's even leaner now, and would've gained a good bit more if he ate like I told him to
IMO, someone like him would be a worthwhile contributor to any training discussion group. His contributions would be better *after* 8 more years of lifting to draw from, no doubt, but his intelligence, not the years themselves, make learning from that experience possible in the first place.
As usual that's a long post and all that, but I thought it was an important distinction to make.
Tweakle
New member
new trainees bring a fresh enthusiasm to the table that many of us long timers have lost. Personally I wouldnt do either WB's or debasers routine, both are too extreme for me but that doesn't matter squat because their routines work for them and that's what counts. And they're both cool wid me
