After Yesterday`s "No One" Machine Workout...

[no one]

ya it's a tough debate that one could agrue from different stances and not be incorrect.

for myself I'm 'weaker' than I was 10 years ago. 10 years ago I had a 545 for reps ass to the floor squat, and a bigger deadlift. I trained like that for years obviously. you just don't jump under 546 and grind good reps.

since I stopped training heavy, cut my poundages back, focused more on the muscle I'm training, my physique has improved considerably. well it's not even considerably it's night and day.

[The True Adonis]

A lot of Olympic lifters are incredibly strong and look like shit, small muscles.

[pellius]

A lot of Olympic lifters are incredibly strong and look like shit, small muscles.

Conversely, a lot of lifters are incredibly strong and look great. Not sure what your point is.

You seem to be conflating muscle size with aesthetics. Big muscles in and of itself does not guarantee that you will look good.

I can just as easily say that there are a lot of lifters that are not particular strong with small muscles that look great. You being a
prime example.

My only point is that all else being equal the bigger the muscle the stronger the muscle. If you can curl X amount of weight for 8 reps you will be able
to curl even more for 8 reps if your bicep muscle increased markedly in size. But it is true as No One pointed out that an increase in resistance for any particular movement does not translate into an automatic increase in muscle size. So many factors are involved when one moves a particular weight.

When I was in high school I remember telling my friend that I always seemed to be a bit stronger when I trained with a partner or if a hot chick was watching. My body was the same but my daily performance varied somewhat. I asked why do you think you are stronger when training with a partner or when girls were around. He just shrugged and said, "I don't know. Maybe it's because you want to be."

He may have been more right than either of us realized at the time.

[pellius]

Also, another factor to be consider is that a person who is incredibly strong, I mean freaky strong, often -- not always - has a body frame or make up not necessarily conducive to pleasing aesthetics. They often have stout and sturdy frames with broad, large and stable joints. They will look more like a Paul Anderson rather than a Bob Paris or Frank Zane.

[The True Adonis]

Also, another factor to be consider is that a person who is incredibly strong, I mean freaky strong, often -- not always - has a body frame or make up not necessarily conducive to pleasing aesthetics. They often have stout and sturdy frames with broad, large and stable joints. They will look more like a Paul AndersonShit rather than a Bob Paris or Frank Zane.

Fixed.

[Vince B]

strength is a by product of training. you could even call it a side effect of training.

you do not need to increase your strength to increase your lean mass.

but as you increase your lean mass so also your strength will increase. there actually needs not even be a significant increase or any measurable increase in lean mass to become 'stronger'. strength an adaptative response of the body to the stress of training.

don't put the cart before the horse.

I believe this statement is false. There is enough science out there to demonstrate that you need increases in resistance to make the muscles larger. Have a look at Hypertrophy Specific Training and view the research that their protocols are based on.

If the body/brain detects an increase in resistance then that can trigger more hypertrophy. The point being that the increases need not be huge. There has to be a progression for continued hypertrophy. You can mix it up by increasing the load,
doing more volume or decreasing the time. Or you can do two or more at the same time.

[pellius]

I believe this statement is false. There is enough science out there to demonstrate that you need increases in resistance to make the muscles larger. Have a look at Hypertrophy Specific Training and view the research that their protocols are based on.

If the body/brain detects an increase in resistance then that can trigger more hypertrophy. The point being that the increases need not be huge. There has to be a progression for continued hypertrophy. You can mix it up by increasing the load,
doing more volume or decreasing the time. Or you can do two or more at the same time.

I don't think that's what No One meant specifically. Perhaps saying you have to increase intensity, level of difficulty, or training load.

One can increase the training load of a muscle substantially simply by how they perform the movement without changing the actual resistance.

Even a change in the stimulus can trigger hypertrophy. Say, going from barbell over head presses to dumbbell presses.

[The True Adonis]

Yes!  The more weight you do the huge muscles you get like this guy.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[The True Adonis]

Proof that the more weight you do, the bigger your chest and muscles are going to be. 

[The True Adonis]

Repping that 405 Bench will get nice muscles like this:

[njflex]

Yes!  The more weight you do the huge muscles you get like this guy.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

i'm with you on this one,leaner in shape 'who looks strong'vs someone who is strong but less impressive shirt off,,but majority of people who would see someone of this type would say 'damn man he's twice the size as you 'even tho you throw that line like lets see him with his shirt off or 'i;'m ripped he's not..people will still be impressed of the size regardless of the gut in a shirt..

[The True Adonis]

i'm with you on this one,leaner in shape 'who looks strong'vs someone who is strong but less impressive shirt off,,but majority of people who would see someone of this type would say 'damn man he's twice the size as you 'even tho you throw that line like lets see him with his shirt off or 'i;'m ripped he's not..people will still be impressed of the size regardless of the gut in a shirt..

Well most people think fat people in shirts who never have lifted a weight in their life are huge and have muscle.  They usually have the prefix "Big" attached to their name.  Big "Timmy", Big "Mike".  Then you get to hear all the stories about how strong "Big" Kevin is and how he is twice the size of everyone and "all muscle".

Then he makes an appearance looking like this:



The moral is, who cares what the average public thinks.  If you want to impress the average public, all you gotta do is eat a ton of calories and wear a strategic shirt that accentuates fat rolls and turns them into muscle.

[njflex]

Well most people think fat people in shirts who never have lifted a weight in their life are huge and have muscle.  They usually have the prefix "Big" attached to their name.  Big "Timmy", Big "Mike".  Then you get to hear all the stories about how strong "Big" Kevin is and how he is twice the size of everyone and "all muscle".

Then he makes an appearance looking like this:




The moral is, who cares what the average public thinks.  If you want to impress the average public, all you gotta do is eat a ton of calories and wear a strategic shirt that accentuates fat rolls and turns them into muscle.

i know and it is what it is....he's considered the 'big man'bouncing and he'll toss you out if you get out of line cause he has 50/70 lbs on u...

[D.O.A.]

Hahahaha!

[SF1900]

What's the point of being strong if you look like this:

[the trainer]

This is what a real strongman looks like, that is a big gymrat but he makes him look like a baby

[pellius]

TA, you can post all the pix you want of fat people that you claim are strong that look like shit. What does that prove? I can post pics of strong people that look great, weak people that look great, weak people that look horrible, strong people that look horrible.... That proves nothing. As I tried to point out to you, muscle size (small or large) and aesthetics are too different issues. If you are simply not put together well you will not look good no matter how big or small your muscles all.  I would think that such an elementary concept would be obvious to your massive intellect. But, as is often your propensity, you often let your personal bias cloud  your thinking. You prefer more slender physiques, or rather, do not like that massively built ones so you will portray heavily muscled physiques in the worse possible light.

Johnny Jackson is consider one of the strongest bodybuilders that has ever lived. Again, this is in and of itself meaningless and we can go back and forth ad infinitum.

[pellius]

What's the point of being strong if you look like this:

No point if physical appearance is your main concern and objective. Obviously these fellas are performance athletes and do whatever it takes to move more weight and win competitions.

For most athletes, they are far more concerned about athletic performance than physical attractiveness.

[Marty Champions]

How stupid to argue lol

[The True Adonis]

TA, you can post all the pix you want of fat people that you claim are strong that look like shit. What does that prove? I can post pics of strong people that look great, weak people that look great, weak people that look horrible, strong people that look horrible.... That proves nothing. As I tried to point out to you, muscle size (small or large) and aesthetics are too different issues. If you are simply not put together well you will not look good no matter how big or small your muscles all.  I would think that such an elementary concept would be obvious to your massive intellect. But, as is often your propensity, you often let your personal bias cloud  your thinking. You prefer more slender physiques, or rather, do not like that massively built ones so you will portray heavily muscled physiques in the worse possible light.

Johnny Jackson is consider one of the strongest bodybuilders that has ever lived. Again, this is in and of itself meaningless and we can go back and forth ad infinitum.

You and Basile were saying something the stronger one is, the bigger the muscle has to be.

[Vince B]

You and Basile were saying something the stronger one is, the bigger the muscle has to be.

I state it quite clearly. You need big muscles to move a reasonably heavy resistance many times over and over. Lots of sets with a fairly decent weight for 5 to 20 reps. You could do less reps but then it becomes dangerous and bodybuilders

have to avoid injuries at all costs. If you can bench press 200 pounds for 10 reps you will be a certain size. If the same guy can do 300 for 10 reps he will be much bigger.

Most of those massive powerlifters have huge muscles.

[The True Adonis]

I state it quite clearly. You need big muscles to move a reasonably heavy resistance many times over and over. Lots of sets with a fairly decent weight for 5 to 20 reps. You could do less reps but then it becomes dangerous and bodybuilders

have to avoid injuries at all costs. If you can bench press 200 pounds for 10 reps you will be a certain size. If the same guy can do 300 for 10 reps he will be much bigger.

Most of those massive powerlifters have huge muscles.

What about Paul Dillet?   Light weights, extremely lazy, long rests?

[Master Blaster]

The bodybuilder look is not the product of strength or reps or any kind of rep range strategy. It is just drugs.

For all of G15's shortcomings, at least he kept us all honest. Here we are arguing about different lifting strategies, it's so pathetic.

Any way, it's resistance training: "heavy" weights, time under tension, rep speed, repetition duration, rest periods are all forms of resistance strategies. the main element to look good in all of them is 10% diet and 90% genetics. ( and 100% drugs)

Also I think Adonis might be trolling that Basille guy at this point...

[Vince B]

The bodybuilder look is not the product of strength or reps or any kind of rep range strategy. It is just drugs.

For all of G15's shortcomings, at least he kept us all honest. Here we are arguing about different lifting strategies, it's so pathetic.

Any way, it's resistance training: "heavy" weights, time under tension, rep speed, repetition duration, rest periods are all forms of resistance strategies. the main element to look good in all of them is 10% diet and 90% genetics. ( and 100% drugs)

Also I think Adonis might be trolling that Basille guy at this point...

Guys like you think you know everything but I doubt you are an expert. We are discussing hypertrophy without any artificial sweeteners. If hypertrophy was easy to sustain then everyone training hard in gyms would be huge but that isn't true.

The drugs and genetics arguments are excuses when one fails to do the right thing to grow. No one insists we increase the frequency. I say that is not enough and resistance and special exercises and protocols are required.

To answer Adonis, whatever the true theory of hypertrophy it has to explain ALL growth and all NON growth from serious training for hypertrophy. Dillett had to be doing things right to get that big. Perhaps he was gifted in many ways and took

supplements which helped a lot.

[pellius]

You and Basile were saying something the stronger one is, the bigger the muscle has to be.

Actually, it was that all else being equal the bigger the muscle the stronger the muscle. No One said the same thing.

Measuring strength on a performance level, moving heavy objects, is another thing entirely and many factors come into play besides pure muscle contractile force.