Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Read this to find out WHY MUSCLE GROWS! Important! SHOCKERS INSIDE!
S
SSAlexSS
Guest
ZZuluZ said:
Going to failure IS NOT OPTIMAL! Infact it is often counterproductive.
By failure I mean doing descending sets (no break in between)...
most productive way to train is to train for strenth only. And that means stopping short of failure.... Olympic weighjtlifters are extremely strong, and they never go to failure.
Powerlifters the same....
Think about this... If you can bench 135 for 10 times, your chest would be small. But benching 315 for 10 reps, and your chest should be huge...!!!!
Ofcourse before you can bench 315 for 10 times you need to be able to bench it twixe, 3 times, four time, five times and till 10 times...
MonStar1023
New member
I personally dont agree really with that whole aspect of bodybuilding. That strength gains automatically correspond into size gains. I say thats bullshit. I mean my flat db press went from the 70s to the 100s or the 105s and my chest grew some, but not too much. Nothing dramatic. and since my chest strength went up around 30% it should have grown 30% bigger right? That means if my chest is 48" a 30% gain would be 62"... I know this is simply overexaggerating the point but still I just dont agree that strength gains always correspond to size gains.
Blood&Iron
New member
Hatfield's PhD is in sociology not exercise physiology. The fact that he has squatted 1000+ pounds means he is a genetically gifted individual, though obviously he did something right in his training to achieve such staggering poundages. If his training techiques were truly the cause of his accomplishments his disciples would all be squatting 1000+ lbs as well. This is not the case. Hatfield's writings are filled with misinformation and innumerable, unproven assertions. Further his dealings with Arthur Jones, the founder of Nautilus, and others within the bodybuilding community have been less than honest and have bordered on the criminal. Though Arthur Jones has a great many failings, having threatened death against his detractors among other things, he is a a brilliant innovator and is a man of integrity. Hatfield is none of these things.ZZuluZ said:
S
SSAlexSS
Guest
MonStar1023 said:I personally dont agree really with that whole aspect of bodybuilding. That strength gains automatically correspond into size gains. I say thats bullshit. I mean my flat db press went from the 70s to the 100s or the 105s and my chest grew some, but not too much. Nothing dramatic. and since my chest strength went up around 30% it should have grown 30% bigger right? That means if my chest is 48" a 30% gain would be 62"... I know this is simply overexaggerating the point but still I just dont agree that strength gains always correspond to size gains.
Strenth gains will almost ALWAYS result in bigger muscle, assuming you enough reps.
HOWEVER, I did not say that X percentage of strenth will equal X percentage of growth. Size + strenth IS related, however exact "formula" is unknown.
To finish up my reply,
If you always bench press X pounds for X times, would your chest grow? Maybe it would grow a little bit, but then it would stop. However if you keep improving your strenth (in a good rep range) you will GAIN size.
Look at ronnie coleman. Through huge poundages he built his great body. He didn't have Flex Wheelers genetics or Dorian Yates intensity. But he had brains. He knew that by doing heavy weights, constantly increasing weight, you could gain lots of muscle.... And his genetics were far from perfect.... Howeever SMART training made him Mr O....
ok, I am getting offtopic.////
S
SSAlexSS
Guest
ZZuluZ said:
Remember, more strenth (in good rep range) = MORE SIZE.
Plus going to failure stressess your body too much and it doesnt give you real results... Progressive resistance, yes... Muscle overload, yes...
Few simple proofs that going to failure is unnessesary.
Sprinters have great legs, infact many pro bb would be jealous of those legs... Sprinters dont run until they can't run no more. They stop very shrt of failure.
Bicyclists often have great legs - do they pedal until they cant move their legs and fall down??? NOO!
Soccer players, do they kick the ball/run until they fall down with exhaustion? NO!
Guys who carry lots of heavy weight develop huge upper torsos. Do the hold/carry their instruments/baggage/shit/ until they can't? NO!
Overload is what grows muscle....
FitnessFrk
New member
Smart training did make make Ronnie Mr. O Joe Weider says who is Mr O or not, it is purely politics. This was Ronnies last year, Cutler will be the next Mr O for several years.
Strength gains are in no ways directly proportional to size gains. there are many other physilogical factors that determine that.
Strength gains are in no ways directly proportional to size gains. there are many other physilogical factors that determine that.
Blood and Iron, your POV is very interesting, and I'm curious as to specificially why you think that way. I've always considered Fred Hatfield as one of the weightlifting greats.
SSAlexSS, you've ignored the most important factor when strength training: the nervous system. This will make you stronger but not make your muscles look any bigger.
As for bodybuilding.... going to failure IS the way to go. You're looking for hypertrophy, and it's those last few reps which stress fast twitch fibers the most and thus lead to the most growth.
-Zulu
SSAlexSS, you've ignored the most important factor when strength training: the nervous system. This will make you stronger but not make your muscles look any bigger.
As for bodybuilding.... going to failure IS the way to go. You're looking for hypertrophy, and it's those last few reps which stress fast twitch fibers the most and thus lead to the most growth.
-Zulu
Blood&Iron
New member
Most of these statements are simply too silly for me to even address. I will only point out that many olympic weightlifters and powerlifters have less than stellar physiques. This is no way diminishes their accomplishments, they simply have different goals than bodybuilders. I think the periodization employed by strength athletes is useful insofar as peaking for a competition and working down to a single, maximal attempt, but I have seen no evidence that periodization is the best way to train for strength.SSAlexSS said:
Monstar1023-
I completely agree. The correlation between size and strength gains is certainly not a linear one. I, for example, experience fairly large increases in size with only small increases in strength. I believe the best way to train for hypertrophy, however, is to train for strength. Additionally, only by going to failure can one be assured that one has made maximum inroads into a muscle.
