Author Topic: I thought Victor Richards was supposed to be strong (Read 18647 times)

no one · « **Reply #50 on:** July 05, 2011, 11:00:38 AM »

Quote from: tbombz on July 05, 2011, 10:31:32 AM

even juiced bodybuilders need to get stronger. if they dont get stronger they dont grow (growing=getting stronger [a biggger muscle= a stronger muscle] ).

that being said, they dont actually have to train heavier necessarily if they are juiced to the max and have good genetic response. but most guys need to focus on slowly building up the weights over time, even on juice.

you contradict yourself. either you have to lift heavier or you dont. quit straddling the fence and make a stand.

bigkid · « **Reply #51 on:** July 05, 2011, 12:04:22 PM »

Quote from: no one on July 05, 2011, 10:24:50 AM

where did you say natural bodybuilding? you didnt. NOBODY in this thread was talking about natural bodybuilding. dont change the parameters to suit your needs now that you've been called on it.

Well that's what I do and know and the orginal debate was strengths role in bbing. I believe it has a place in bodybuilding of all kinds, especially natural bbing and is fairly important in putting on as much muscle as a body can hold. Ronnie coleman and dorian yates are probably the 2 best bodybuilders in the last 20 years and both were heavy trainers. You look at jonnie jackson's chest and back and you see the density. Its probably not good long term on your body, but i don't know how people can argue it doesn't put more muscle on your body then going and getting a pump.

JP_RC · « **Reply #52 on:** July 05, 2011, 12:45:22 PM »

Quote from: snx on July 05, 2011, 12:24:58 PM

To refute your anecdotal evidence re: Yates/Coleman/Jackson, consider these very successful pros who only "pump" in the gym:

Vince Taylor
Paul Dillett
Flex Wheeler
Serge Nubret

None of the above ever lifted to get stronger. None of the above really cared to get stronger. If they did, it was a by-product, if it happened at all.

There's more than just myofibrillar hypertrophy. There's sarcoplasmic too.

Furthermore, how does one differentiate between myofibrillar and sarcolemmal hypertrophy when one looks in the mirror? Answer: you can't.

You have no idea if you're carrying more muscle because you bulked up the cytoplasm or actually added myosin/actin filament size.

Plus, how do you know the strength will lead to growth? Strength on any exercise occurs primarily due to neural adaptations to the movement (i.e. ability to preferentially recruit the motor unit pools responsible for contractions). Has nothing to do with hypertrophy. It's why you can weight 135lbs and C&J over 300lbs.

No One is right on this one - strength and hypertrophy aren't tied at the hip. Though they are correlated in some instances, their is no proof that one cannot happen without the other. Therefore, it's tough to prove causation, as you would so like everyone to believe.

And furthermore, it has nothing to do with how much junk you're shooting. That only magnifies your genetic tendencies and alters phenotype...does not alter genotype.

good post.

mesmorph78 · « **Reply #53 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:03:38 PM »

Quote from: snx on July 05, 2011, 12:24:58 PM

To refute your anecdotal evidence re: Yates/Coleman/Jackson, consider these very successful pros who only "pump" in the gym:

Vince Taylor
Paul Dillett
Flex Wheeler
Serge Nubret

None of the above ever lifted to get stronger. None of the above really cared to get stronger. If they did, it was a by-product, if it happened at all.

There's more than just myofibrillar hypertrophy. There's sarcoplasmic too.

Furthermore, how does one differentiate between myofibrillar and sarcolemmal hypertrophy when one looks in the mirror? Answer: you can't.

You have no idea if you're carrying more muscle because you bulked up the cytoplasm or actually added myosin/actin filament size.

Plus, how do you know the strength will lead to growth? Strength on any exercise occurs primarily due to neural adaptations to the movement (i.e. ability to preferentially recruit the motor unit pools responsible for contractions). Has nothing to do with hypertrophy. It's why you can weight 135lbs and C&J over 300lbs.

No One is right on this one - strength and hypertrophy aren't tied at the hip. Though they are correlated in some instances, their is no proof that one cannot happen without the other. Therefore, it's tough to prove causation, as you would so like everyone to believe.

And furthermore, it has nothing to do with how much junk you're shooting. That only magnifies your genetic tendencies and alters phenotype...does not alter genotype.

none of those guys you mentioned
carried the muscle quality of say coleman...
they just looked well "pumped"
not hard and as dense as ronnie

PhysiqueNatural · « **Reply #54 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:10:00 PM »

Quote from: crownshep on June 29, 2011, 11:22:56 AM

Well,not in this video,granted he doesn`t look as big as i`ve seen him before,but he`s still a decent size,but he struggles with 2 and a half plates on incline and the dumbell presses are a waste of time.

Looks to me he didn't have much will or focus that day, it happens, as for weight used it depends on what your goal or style of training are.

bigkid · « **Reply #55 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:20:38 PM »

Quote from: mesmorph78 on July 05, 2011, 01:03:38 PM

none of those guys you mentioned
carried the muscle quality of say coleman...
they just looked well "pumped"
not hard and as dense as ronnie

Wheeler, Nubret and Taylor were always known for their struture, shape and other genetic qualities and not the amount of muscle they carried. I don't know how anyone can argue against that heavy weight puts the most muscle on. You can argue whether or not its "the best" way, because of injuries. But when you compare Yates, coleman, ruhl and those kinda guys to the vince taylors and flex wheelers it becomes obvious. Although I think when drugs get involved it becomes a little less neceassary, but still the best way to add muscle.

PhysiqueNatural · « **Reply #56 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:25:00 PM »

Quote from: mesmorph78 on July 05, 2011, 01:03:38 PM

none of those guys you mentioned
carried the muscle quality of say coleman...
they just looked well "pumped"
not hard and as dense as ronnie

It produces a somewhat different look a little softer one, both training styles have value, i can say from my own experience with both styles that pumping workouts and i used Serge's style give me a more detailed look, separations and definition and more growth but my strength increase was minimum or none and i felt i lost some hardness, as of now i'm more in to strength mode still making muscle gains but not sculpting and improving on symmetry like on Serge's program, but weight lifted increased, hardness also, but il be back to more pumping training later, as always lifting heavy invites injuries.

Parker · « **Reply #57 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:25:40 PM »

Quote from: bigkid on July 05, 2011, 01:20:38 PM

Wheeler, Nubret and Taylor were always known for their struture, shape and other genetic qualities and not the amount of muscle they carried. I don't know how anyone can argue against that heavy weight puts the most muscle on. You can argue whether or not its "the best" way, because of injuries. But when you compare Yates, coleman, ruhl and those kinda guys to the vince taylors and flex wheelers it becomes obvious. Although I think when drugs get involved it becomes a little less neceassary, but still the best way to add muscle.

Nubret was known to lift heavy from time to time. Charles Glass had said he had to tell Flex not to lift so heavy...this was back in 93.

Yes, Ronnie got 8 Sandows, but he has torn muscles and a effed up back. Taylor still looks good with no major injuries that I know of.

JP_RC · « **Reply #58 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:30:20 PM »

Quote from: bigkid on July 05, 2011, 01:20:38 PM

Wheeler, Nubret and Taylor were always known for their struture, shape and other genetic qualities and not the amount of muscle they carried. I don't know how anyone can argue against that heavy weight puts the most muscle on. You can argue whether or not its "the best" way, because of injuries. But when you compare Yates, coleman, ruhl and those kinda guys to the vince taylors and flex wheelers it becomes obvious. Although I think when drugs get involved it becomes a little less neceassary, but still the best way to add muscle.

But what is heavy and what is light? Its all relative. Progressive overload puts on the most muscle, working on a proper rep range (8-15 imo) and with sufficient time under tension. Ever wonder why there are many guys out there who are very strong in low rep training, but have poor muscle development? And when drugs are entered it changes even more, as you see the guy who can press just as much as a pro, but has nowhere near the same development.

mesmorph78 · « **Reply #59 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:34:10 PM »

Quote from: GangstaLean on July 05, 2011, 01:25:40 PM

Nubret was known to lift heavy from time to time. Charles Glass had said he had to tell Flex not to lift so heavy...this was back in 93.

Yes, Ronnie got 8 Sandows, but he has torn muscles and a effed up back. Taylor still looks good with no major injuries that I know of.

....
injurries are inevitable....

anyway look at flex now..
ronnie looke 100 times better

bigkid · « **Reply #60 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:36:38 PM »

Quote from: JP_RC on July 05, 2011, 01:30:20 PM

But what is heavy and what is light? Its all relative. Progressive overload puts on the most muscle, working on a proper rep range (8-15 imo) and with sufficient time under tension. Ever wonder why there are many guys out there who are very strong in low rep training, but have poor muscle development? And when drugs are entered it changes even more, as you see the guy who can press just as much as a pro, but has nowhere near the same development.

That's because they lift low reps all the time. I'm defintely not advocating that. I just think power movements and low rep/strength days have their place in bodybuilding. I do a lot of 15-20 reps for legs.

Parker · « **Reply #61 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:39:45 PM »

Quote from: mesmorph78 on July 05, 2011, 01:34:10 PM

....
injurries are inevitable....

anyway look at flex now..
ronnie looke 100 times better

Flex can wear a decent suit. Ronnie, well you know the deal. Plus, Ronnie either has to stay big for guest appearances or his supp line. Flex doesn't have to stay big. But, apparently, Flex did tear a bicep and a pec at one time...

mesmorph78 · « **Reply #62 on:** July 05, 2011, 02:02:47 PM »

flex looks like a mess... tris gnoe synthol biceps... thats it
nothing else to him

wes · « **Reply #63 on:** July 05, 2011, 02:06:43 PM »

Hard training breaks down muscle tissue,proper nutrition and rest build it back up and repair it.

I think a person should train heavy for the amount of reps they are shooting for in a set, whether it be 3 reps or 20 reps,doesn`t matter.........it should be a challenge to eke out the last few reps or more,depending on the number of reps per set.

Try using Giant-Sets for an example..............4 exercises in a row with no rest between movements...........hard to do, and you won`t be able to use maximum poundages, but you will break down muscle tissue if you are pushing hard as you should be.

Break down tissue through hard training,not necessarily heavy training, as in trying to gain more power.

Eat,rest,recover,sleep = repair and hopefully growth.

AbrahamG · « **Reply #64 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:37:19 PM »

This guy must be in possession of one GIGANTIC COCK!

mesmorph78 · « **Reply #65 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:20:28 PM »

Quote from: wes on July 05, 2011, 02:06:43 PM

Hard training breaks down muscle tissue,proper nutrition and rest build it back up and repair it.

I think a person should train heavy for the amount of reps they are shooting for in a set, whether it be 3 reps or 20 reps,doesn`t matter.........it should be a challenge to eke out the last few reps or more,depending on the number of reps per set.

i agree... this is the best way to build size and strength

wild willie · « **Reply #66 on:** October 10, 2011, 11:52:44 AM »

Flex Wheeler routinely inclined 455 pounds

he also did incline db presses with 150-160 pounds

ask anyone that trained @ golds venice in the early to mid 90s

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #67 on:** October 10, 2011, 12:41:57 PM »

Quote from: wild willie on October 10, 2011, 11:52:44 AM

Flex Wheeler routinely inclined 455 pounds

he also did incline db presses with 150-160 pounds

ask anyone that trained @ golds venice in the early to mid 90s

Right Flex was motivated back in the day

da_vinci · « **Reply #68 on:** October 10, 2011, 03:09:42 PM »

Quote from: mesmorph78 on July 05, 2011, 01:34:10 PM

....
injurries are inevitable....

anyway look at flex now..
ronnie looke 100 times better

Evitable actually. R.Robinson still kickin it. Strong as hell for his age and says - he hasn't had any major injuries..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #69 on:** October 10, 2011, 04:14:30 PM »

Quote from: da_vinci on October 10, 2011, 03:09:42 PM

Evitable actually. R.Robinson still kickin it. Strong as hell for his age and says - he hasn't had any major injuries..

da_vinci · « **Reply #70 on:** October 11, 2011, 12:46:19 AM »

Geez, thanks man^^, I haven't had an idea Robby was on that show too!

AbrahamG · « **Reply #71 on:** October 14, 2011, 10:02:32 PM »

V-Rich is strong as fuk in the COCK department.

Author Topic: I thought Victor Richards was supposed to be strong (Read 18647 times)

PhysiqueNatural

PhysiqueNatural