Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: yangmian on October 07, 2006, 10:00:53 PM
-
u said that muscle lost or gained has little to do with the weight lifted.so am i wasting my time than training for strengh i always thought that all things being equal if a person strengh increaces than bigger muscles will b achieved but the strengh to size relationship varies from person 2 person
-
u said that muscle lost or gained has little to do with the weight lifted.so am i wasting my time than training for strengh i always thought that all things being equal if a person strengh increaces than bigger muscles will b achieved but the strengh to size relationship varies from person 2 person
Correct.
You can make wonderful strength gains and not gain a pound.
Bodybuilders who posess the biggest muscles are not the strongest people. There are plenty of people under 200 lbs outlifting IFBB pro bodybuilders on a daily basis. If the statement that the bigger the muscle the stronger the person, this would not hold true one bit.
-
You can make wonderful strength gains and not gain a pound.
true but extremely unlikely.....especially if you're a human being
-
true but extremely unlikely.....especially if you're a human being
Not at all.
Many Powerlifters and Olympic lifters want to RULE their respective weight classes.
So they train to get stronger without exceeding their weight limits.
-
Not at all.
Many Powerlifters and Olympic lifters want to RULE their respective weight classes.
So they train to get stronger without exceeding their weight limits.
& surprisingly....they're all small & skinny guys
-
Correct.
You can make wonderful strength gains and not gain a pound.
Bodybuilders who posess the biggest muscles are not the strongest people. There are plenty of people under 200 lbs outlifting IFBB pro bodybuilders on a daily basis. If the statement that the bigger the muscle the stronger the person, this would not hold true one bit.
yes but if the larger but not as strong bodybiulder increases his strengh with out getting fat than he would grow the same as if the smaller but stronger bodybuilder increases his strengh than he will get bigger also
-
Refer to these guidelines when training:
1-6 reps = Power
6-10 reps = Strength
10-15 reps = Hypertrophy
-
Not at all.
Many Powerlifters and Olympic lifters want to RULE their respective weight classes.
So they train to get stronger without exceeding their weight limits.
The reason they don't exceed their weight is either they feel good at their weight or just don't want to have to gain weight. In other words your theory is wrong about strength and weight. Their is a reason why the heavier powerlifters lift more weight, its becasue they have more muscle and are heavier. Why do you think lighter guys don't hold the records in heavier classes except in extreme cases. You keep trying to say you can get strong and not gain a pound. That is correct but the weight you lift would be very insignificant compared to someone who had gained muscle mass. If two people who have never lifted a wight in their lives decided to lift and see who gets strongest, stay together train the same eat the same and always weigh the same their weights lifted won't be much different if at all. Now take one of the guys have eat more protein and lift heavier weight he will not only be heavier he will be stronger. I love your theories but 99% of wrong.
-
They purposely cut their calories, if they didn't they would still gain weight. If a person is naturally strong realtive to his bodyweight, it's to his advantage to stay at his current weight and try to only increase his strength.
-
1-6 reps = Power
6-10 reps = Strength
10-15 reps = Hypertrophy
6-12 reps is optimal for hypertrophy; below 6 is good for strength.
Power training has to do with incorporating speed/explosiveness into the equation.
Above 12 reps you're starting to skew between endurance & hypertrophy.
-
6-12 reps is optimal for hypertrophy; below 6 is good for strength.
Power training has to do with incorporating speed/explosiveness into the equation.
Above 12 reps you're starting to skew between endurance & hypertrophy.
this is true about strength and power. people seem to confuse the meaning of power. maybe because of the term 'powerlifting'.
however, i don't think hypertrophy is that easy to quantify in rep numbers. too many variables (rep speed, cadence, leverage, etc). besides, i've seen guys and girls gain muscle by doing 1-2 rep training ie westside stuff.
-
i don't think hypertrophy is that easy to quantify in rep numbers. too many variables (rep speed, cadence, leverage, etc). besides, i've seen guys and girls gain muscle by doing 1-2 rep training ie westside stuff.
It's fair to generalize on 6-12 for growth, assuming standard cadence/training and 1 minute max. rest between sets, 1.5 minutes for squats.
People can grow on any program including low reps; not the same thing as being the most effective.
-
Ok, now for the facts.
Individually speaking the bigger one's muscles the stronger they are. Hypertrophy of the contractile elements of skeletal muscles is one adaptation to the stress imposed by lifting heavy loads. One should therefore always strive to increase the load they can handle on a given moevement for a given number of reps. There are other variables but load is an important one.
-
Refer to these guidelines when training:
1-6 reps = Power
6-10 reps = Strength
10-15 reps = Hypertrophy
you forgot indurance 16+ reps
-
6-12 reps is optimal for hypertrophy; below 6 is good for strength.
Power training has to do with incorporating speed/explosiveness into the equation.
Above 12 reps you're starting to skew between endurance & hypertrophy.
holy shit, pumpster i agree with you on this one.
-
There are other variables but load is an important one.
Very important, in combination with a few other things. Load using low reps and very long rests does not lead to maximum size.
you forgot indurance 16+ reps
No, that was the number previously discussed. Plus with any common sense you already know that it's just a continuum that gets more skewed at each end of the scale.
holy shit, pumpster i agree with you on this one.
You're learning. ;)
-
pumpster, i disagree with your 6-12r 1-1.5min rest between sets for hypertrophy thing.
put it this way, how do you know that is the most effective prescription for mass? got any reasoning behind that rational?
i see too many monsters lifting the biggest weights they can (for reps) and then resting as long as they want to. they don't look at the watch. sometimes it may be over 10 minutes before they look at the weight again.
-
Ok, now for the facts.
Individually speaking the bigger one's muscles the stronger they are. Hypertrophy of the contractile elements of skeletal muscles is one adaptation to the stress imposed by lifting heavy loads. One should therefore always strive to increase the load they can handle on a given moevement for a given number of reps. There are other variables but load is an important one.
Yes, increase the cross-sectional area of a muscle and you've increased it's strength on an individual basis.
However, there is not a linear relationship at all.
For instance if you increase a muscle size by 10%, that doesn't mean you will be 10% more strong.
-
i see too many monsters lifting the biggest weights they can (for reps) and then resting as long as they want to. they don't look at the watch. sometimes it may be over 10 minutes before they look at the weight again.
Your own sample doesn't take into account the facts that (1) they might be training differently and less efficiently after reaching a certain size (lazy, in other words, not serious trainers) and (2) genetic superiors can train any way they want and still gain, doesn't mean it's efficient.
Shorter rest times have long been known as one of the primary ways to overload the muscle; this has been established as a fundamental tenet of BB for decades. Some reduce the time to well below a minute, as espoused by the great trainer Vince Gironda as part of volume training. Others like Coleman do this by using supersets, trisets or giant sets, with little or no rest between multiple, consecutive sets, because of the overload on the muscles.
There are a couple of other advantages besides the most important one of increasing intensity. The pump is drastically better with shorter rest times, which is which is psychologically huge-resting long periods of time the pump is lost and isn't a factor, a big negative to most serious BBs.
Secondly, long periods of rest allow the body to cool down, which drastically increases injury potential.
Third, shorter rest times overload the muscle without increasing the amount of weight used, which can reduce the injury potential.
Forth, most top guys don't rest long periods of time between sets, for all of the above reasons.
-
Very important, in combination with a few other things. Load using low reps and very long rests does not lead to maximum size.
Paul Anderson and Doug Hepburn might have to disagree with you on that one were they alive today.
-
Correct.
You can make wonderful strength gains and not gain a pound.
Bodybuilders who posess the biggest muscles are not the strongest people. There are plenty of people under 200 lbs outlifting IFBB pro bodybuilders on a daily basis. If the statement that the bigger the muscle the stronger the person, this would not hold true one bit.
TA, you are only partly correct when you say you can gain strength but no bodyweight. While it is possible in the cognitive stages of muscular development, the stronger you get the bigger your muscles become. If you keep getting stronger your muscles will get bigger ERGO you will put on bodyweight.
Weightlifters/bb/powerlifters often keep their weight down, as already pointed out in this thread by diet and cardio manipulation.
While BB who possess the biggest muscles may not be the strongest people (as strength relies on lots of other variables) they will be somewhere near the top.
A big muscle is a strong muscle. There is an irrefutable correlation between the two.
-
how many times must TA be proven wrong before he is totally ignored?
-
Correct.
You can make wonderful strength gains and not gain a pound.
Bodybuilders who posess the biggest muscles are not the strongest people. There are plenty of people under 200 lbs outlifting IFBB pro bodybuilders on a daily basis. If the statement that the bigger the muscle the stronger the person, this would not hold true one bit.
All lies
-
Your own sample doesn't take into account the facts that (1) they might be training differently and less efficiently after reaching a certain size (lazy, in other words, not serious trainers) and (2) genetic superiors can train any way they want and still gain, doesn't mean it's efficient.
Shorter rest times have long been known as one of the primary ways to overload the muscle; this has been established as a fundamental tenet of BB for decades. Some reduce the time to well below a minute, as espoused by the great trainer Vince Gironda as part of volume training. Others like Coleman do this by using supersets, trisets or giant sets, with little or no rest between multiple, consecutive sets, because of the overload on the muscles.
There are a couple of other advantages besides the most important one of increasing intensity. The pump is drastically better with shorter rest times, which is which is psychologically huge-resting long periods of time the pump is lost and isn't a factor, a big negative to most serious BBs.
Secondly, long periods of rest allow the body to cool down, which drastically increases injury potential.
Third, shorter rest times overload the muscle without increasing the amount of weight used, which can reduce the injury potential.
Forth, most top guys don't rest long periods of time between sets, for all of the above reasons.
definitely a compelling argument and some very good points but i'm not convinced.
when ronnie is gaining mass he lifts big heavy weights and rests big between sets. i remember the most massive guys like jim quinn would take massive rests between sets whilst using massive weights, often going down to a couple of reps with a ridiculous amount of weight.
if you are on gear you can get a fair bit of size from capillary growth caused by the massive pump you get from volume training with little rest, but real cellular hypertrophy that lasts and doesn't deflate in a couple of weeks is built on training with the heaviest weights possible which you simply can't do when you're having 1 - 1.5min rests between sets.
a lot of the top guys who are genetic freaks whilst being on gear do lift lighter and have shorter breaks, but a natural guy doing exactly the same training style just looks like average joe. in fact when the top guy comes off the gear they look pretty damned average too.
someone like shawn ray had a brisk pace to his workouts but he was not one of the most massive bodybuilders. actually, i don't think he gained much size at all after he built his foundation in the 80's. he was more about refinement.
yates was a guy that you could actually see growing throughout his career and he rested big between sets (over 5 minutes).
i've never seen a single bodybuilder that put an honest all out effort with the heaviest weight he could for reps ie 500lb squats for 10 quality reps to failure be ready to do another set in 1.5 minutes, and if he did i would suggest that he probably should be using 550lbs min in his squats.
i do agree that a bigger muscle (all things being equal - and there are a heap) is a stronger muscle and, especially if you want lasting gains, you should always strive to train with heavier weights in good form.
you just can't do that with 1 minute breaks between sets.
-
you just can't do that with 1 minute breaks between sets.
It's not that black & white, doesn't make sense to you because you're focused on the wrong thing. Amount of weight used is only one of the variables that constitutes intensity, which is the central tenet. Intensity can be accomplished by shorter rests, heavier weights, post-failure intensity techniques, more sets, etc. Heavier weights is only one way to do it.
If only the amount of weight used was important there'd be a closer correlation between the strongest BBs and the biggest; Dillet's an example of the opposite. Yates used a combo of post-failure HIT and weight, so rest times weren't so important. Scott used supersets and trisets along with post-failure techniques & fairly short rest times.
-
Most of the top powerlifters in the lighter classes are very big people. They just don't have the bone structure and height to weigh much more than they do. Look at Ed Coan. He's something like 240 lb at 5'6". That huge for someone of that height. You could say the same thing about guys like Vince Anello and Gene Bell. They weren't small at all, just short.
-
it's a sign you're not eating enough if you're gaining strength and not size.
true story ;)
-
it's a sign you're not eating enough if you're gaining strength and not size.
true story ;)
Not at all.
-
common sense might lean more my direction that yours...
explain your standing for me please
-
common sense might lean more my direction that yours...
explain your standing for me please
The men capable of lifting the greatest amount of weights do not have the muscle mass of bodybuilders.
Plain and simple.
-
lol you're arguing a completely different point that i am..if he wants more size dude's gotta eat more period! you can't build a sky scraper without all the iron and concrete! You can be strong as hell and not be large at all...It read as if he was wondering how he was getting stronger but not larger.
-
The thickest/biggest bodybuilders (Ronnie, Lee, Johnny, Levrone) are also the strongest, plain and simple.
-
The thickest/biggest bodybuilders (Ronnie, Lee, Johnny, Levrone) are also the strongest, plain and simple.
Wrong. Dillet doesn't go heavy, as well as some others like Robinson & Taylor, some of the most heavily muscled and impressive ever.
-
Wrong. Dillet doesn't go heavy, as well as some others like Robinson & Taylor, some of the most heavily muscled and impressive ever.
drugs and genetics ;D
-
drugs and genetics
That's the standard, canned excuse when there's none other. ;D
-
That's the standard, canned excuse when there's none other. ;D
come on, imagine if a natural guy with average genes trained like dillet did? he'd go backwards.
dillet trained like a woman trying NOT to develop big muscles.
he was the absolute poster boy for drugs and genes.
-
???
-
The only way to gauge true strength gains is to train without the use of AAS.....it's not fair to make assessments with someone who takes AAS!
-
it doesn't matte wether you're using or not..if you don't know what you're doing, it doesnt matter how much gear you take unless you're paul dillet....who looks like he's blowing an o-ring everytime he flexes....
big paul dillet fan btw! ;D
-
I'm wasn't really talking about Dillett.....just gaging strength in general.....but yes, Dillett is definatly a freak!
-
Wrong. Dillet doesn't go heavy, as well as some others like Robinson & Taylor, some of the most heavily muscled and impressive ever.
Are you trying to say that there is no corraltion between weights used and muscle size? you would be well wide of the mark.
When you say Dilett, taylor etc dont go heavy they go heavy enough to stimulate growth with the inclusion of pre-exhust, supersets etc.
Also the BB's you mentioned certainly went heavy at the beggining of their bb careers while putting on a lot of their mass. Vince Taylor for example only stopped heavy squating due to injury.
The Biggest BB's in this sport are usually the strongest. Ronnie, dorian, Levrone etc.
Simple as.
-
Are you trying to say that there is no corraltion between weights used and muscle size? you would be well wide of the mark.
When you say Dilett, taylor etc dont go heavy they go heavy enough to stimulate growth with the inclusion of pre-exhust, supersets etc.
Now you're qualifying it, and are still wrong. They go as heavy as they can, within the constraints of other variables that challenge the muscles such as the ones i've mentioned-not at all the same as lifting heavy weights in absolute terms.
come on, imagine if a natural guy with average genes trained like dillet did? he'd go backwards.
dillet trained like a woman trying NOT to develop big muscles.
You're just speculating, or trying to feel better thru excuses for why you don't look anything like that. Most of these guys are already freaks prior to AAS.
-
Now you're qualifying it, and are still wrong. They go as heavy as they can, within the constraints of other variables that challenge the muscles such as the ones i've mentioned-not at all the same as lifting heavy weights in absolute terms.
You're just speculating, or trying to feel better thru excuses for why you don't look anything like that. Most of these guys are already freaks prior to AAS.
try and keep it real pumpster. i really can't be bothered getting into a pissing contest.
i'm not speculating at all OR making excuse. i've been training with weights for 15 years and have got plenty big and strong taking plenty of rest between very heavy sets. it's the only way that ever made sense to me.
conversely, i've seen plenty of very small guys come into the gym and follow your protocol only to remain small because they just can't use the right weight or intensity because they've got 20 more sets to do with 1 minute breaks.
the ONLY people i see getting big on this protocol are guys that juice because they get massive pumps which give the illusion of more size, but it deflates when they go off.
put in it's most simple form, a guy who bench presses 400lbs for reps is going to be much more muscular and massive than a guy doing 20 supersets of 250lb with cable cross overs, flies, etc thrown in. so why not find the most effective way to get 400lb bench presses for reps?
in other words get stronger and add more weight to the exercise over time whilst maintaining good form = muscular size.
K.I.S.S ;)
-
team goodbum coming at your ass in 2007-!!!!!