223980 Bullies, 4429 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 41 to 50 of 152
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345 678915 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 5:53am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    It's a one way street. Task specific skill development (aka "speed training) has no bearing on strength training neccesarily. Not unless the weight lifting is an atheltic endeavor in and of itself.
    Thats what Multijoint lifting is all about . Its about Body Connectivity , and using Strength in an Athletc Endeavour .
  2. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 6:10am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    However, in order to develop, for lack of a better word, "generic" strength, which applies to any undertaking unrelated to the neurologic pathway in which it was developed, one simply needs more muscle tissue.

    If someone consciously intends to build size, he can't help but get stronger. That's what a larger muscle will neccesarily be. That kind of strength isn't metaphysical. If someone trains for strength for one specific task, he can do by way of better coordinating the neuromuscular response without even having to make any visceral changes in the tissue itself....though he probably will by mere happenstance.
    This is a Crock . "More" muscle does not mean that you are Stronger . Mosr Specifically , it dosent mean that you aare as Strong as you COULD BE . And THAT is what is of greatest Import . Its not a 1:1 . not even when just considering the same body . the way that you get Biggest is NOT the way that you get STRONGEST . And it never HAS been .


    Let's not forget about the role of genetics in those who call themselves "bodybuilders". People tend to stick with that which their latent tendencies accomodate. People who easily grow will get hyooooj and attribute that to all their hard work and knowledge. The thin wiry guy, though he might want to get hyooj, CAN'T. So he plays off his percieved lack of success as sour grapes: "I'm not training for size anyway..."
    Twaddle . Thats why you do Researh . You CAN change your Body Frank Zane was an Ectomorph , as was Charles Atlas , Franco Colombu , and Jack Lalane . All of them came up with FINE Physiques , and WITHOUT the "Genetics" cry being Applicable . No one that sticks to the principles of Growth fails to Grow .

    If bodybuilding routines did differ markedly from strength training ones (as far as the muscle tissue is concerned) then every 15 year old who reads the rags would look like a bodybuilder. Am I right?
    What ? Thats the most Fucked-Up "If-Then-Statement" that Ive heard in a WHILE . Appearance Changes take YEARS . A Pro BB will have a DECADE of Training MINIMUM under His/Her belt before they get their Pro Card . It takes a LONG TIME to get your Body to be where you Need it to be . These Changes dont happen in a Year .
  3. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 9:27am

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Djimbe,

    Let's start by saying you've missed a very important point; namely that I've never asserted that strength training takes the place, or is the same as skill development. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. On to the details...

    A Bodybuilder is ANY person that Uses Progresive Resistance Training for the Cosmetic Improvement of their Bodies .
    And in the process of of doing so, they just happen to become stronger relative to themselves. That shouldn't be a surprise.

    Wow ,Who told you this lie ? (re: skill specific development)
    It's kind of the cornerstone of athletic training. Specifity. How'd ya miss that one?

    What you are referring to here is called "Muscle memorey" , and is a function of Co-Ordination , not Strength . the type of Nervous System Recruitment that we discuss in Strength Training terms has nothing to DO with that type of thing .
    Ok, but I'm not talking about muscle memory (there's another kind, btw). I'm talking about an untrained someone who, hypothetically, tests his strength in 3 pressing movements. Bench, dip, and overhead press. He undertakes a program involving just the dip. After X amount of time and strength gain in the dip, whadda ya know....he tests stronger on the OHP and bench press too.

    "Acumen" is SUCH a Loose Term . Usually it is used to mean Skill . Weight Lifting will not Produce more Accuracy , nor Co-Ordination , nor Timing with your Punches .
    Uh, no kidding. That's my damn point. Quote me where I claimed otherwise.

    [/quote]It SURE AS **** WILL Produce more Punching POWER (Force) AND Speed , however . [/QUOTE]

    Are you talking about weight lifting here? If so, I don't know who the hell you're even talking to...presumably someone who disagrees with this. I'm guessing, however, you're referring to the kind of weight lifting (in this case, bench press) where you're assuming there's some sort of meaningful neurlogic overlap between the respective skills and joint function of the bench press, and punching. Now that's a crock.

    Weight Training has nothing to DO With Martial Skills , other than giving you more Force to use your Tools with . This alone , is Enough to Warrant it as a VERY High Priority , however .
    Again, I'm not sure you're responding to...because I whole heartedly agree witht his.

    What you SHOULD be asking is "What do I need to do to produce the OPTIMUM Adaptation ?" Not just SOME , but the MOST .
    Fair enough. But can this be validly substantiated...


    THAT is why you need Sets , and Reps . Because you CANNOT Fully Tax your Muscles Properly in one Set , or in one Rep . If my body needs to "Hear The Signal" to Adapt 15 Times (5 sets of 3 reps) before it acknowledges it and Responds then thats how many times Im going to Send it . If my body will Adapt BETTER because it hears the signal more times , then I am going to Send it more Times .
    Now that's a load of crap. We're back to the superstitious nonsense of static, magical numbers.

    #1. What is the taxation of a muscle?
    #2. What is this signal?
    #3. Where did those magical numbers come from?
    #4. Why does the body need to hear that signal so many times?
    #5. What's the magical rep cadence?

    Reps are about Contractility over a Range of Motion and Proper Form . Not Time . I can do HALF of my Max rep forever and NEVER get oiut of it what I will get out of doing 3 Reps at 95% of my 1RM .
    Contractality? You do realize a muscle can contract while lengthening (or neither lengthening nor shortening). Sure, you can do half of your max rep forever and not get as much out of it as doing your 1RM, as far as that particular movement is concerned. But then we're back to the mystical process by which strength can be applied elsewhere...and that doesn't involve the neurlogic benefit you've derived from the bench press FOR the bench press. It's a tangible process.

    You do realize that any given muscle fiber either contracts fully or it doesn't at all. The stimulus to contract, as far as any given fiber is concerned, is completely anonymous and out of context...unless each one has a little brain and some sort of hook-up to our conscious thought process.

    Actually , its more about Mechanical Work than anything else .
    You've got to be kidding me. Our bodies are not scale models of eachother. We don't all run on the same 5 horsepower engine which is simply hooked up to pulleys and levers which merely differ in length.

    Easy way to prove me wrong. Perform a chin-up and hang with your arms at a 90 degree angle and stay there. You should be able to continue that indefinitly since ZERO mechanical work is being performed.

    Move the Largest Possible Weight from Here to there , along XXX Arc , without Allowing Hinge YYY to move . That IS what its about .
    In the context of athletic performance, yes. In the context of non-task specific conditioning of the muscle tissue...not neccesarily.

    You have so many Misconceptions about the way Muscles work in the real World that Im puzzled as to where to Start fixing them .:
    Likewise.

    [/quote]Metabolic Output has SO VERY LITTLE to do with it that its not even funny .[/quote]

    Let's take a real world example then. Cinching a choke hold requires little to no mechanical work. Why, then, does it fatigue the arms?

    Oh , and Time Under Load is NOT quite Applicable here . Why ? Because while you MUST spend SOME measurable amount of time Lifting , they are not Scaleable uantities , and you get FAR more in terms of Strength lifting 85-95% of your Max for 2-5 reps than you will 75% for 10 Reps .
    You take for granted that I know what kind of reps you even do. Someone tells me that do 5 reps of 200 pounds...I say so what? What kind of reps? How do reps differ? Well, one way to measure a rep is by way of time.

    This is WAY off . There are SO many more factors than just the one here :
    That's why I wrote "etc". Making a comprehensive list was beyond the scope of the point.

    Dude , you Do your Forms ,
    Again, I never disagreed. The sprinter analogy was how NOT to do his equivolent of "forms", that is, under significant load similar to the seperate and distinct activity of skill development.

    Thats what Multijoint lifting is all about . Its about Body Connectivity , and using Strength in an Athletc Endeavour .
    Multijoint lifting is not an athletic endeavor in and of itself. Body connectivity, yes...supposed to resemble real-world performance, force, speed etc? No.

    "More" muscle does not mean that you are Stronger .
    But it does...not in a strict linear sense though.

    Mosr Specifically , it dosent mean that you aare as Strong as you COULD BE .
    See, now that's true in the context of specificity.

    Its not a 1:1 . not even when just considering the same body the way that you get Biggest is NOT the way that you get STRONGEST . And it never HAS been .
    Don't forget context. I never said it was a 1:1. Just because a bicep is twice as large doesn't mean it's twice as strong...and vice versa....but it is neccesarily stronger. Is that strength ALWAYS desirable and/or applicable to a real work task? Not neccesarily.

    I would also like to thank you for the time you took to respond. Discussions arent worth much if everyone just nods in agreement and calls it quits.
    :)
    Last edited by Nid; 10/26/2003 9:08pm at .
  4. The Wastrel is offline
    The Wastrel's Avatar

    Such as thou art, sometime was I.

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,620

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 11:59am

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiujitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    This sounds like a pretty decent write-up to me. And it seems to suggest that you are both right. Thoughts?

    http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm

    Muscle Size Does Not Necessarily Represent Muscle Strength

    One day when you're in the gym, a freak of nature walks in. This guy has massively ripped muscles from head to toe. As you watch the specimen, he approaches the squat rack. You begin to get excited as he loads the bar in the squat rack. You are wondering how much this guy squats. He begins going through his warm-up sets. He starts with 135 and then 225. He puts 295 on the bar and begins his decent. Guess what? He is stuck at the bottom.


    The next day at the gym you notice a short chubby guy walk in that you have not seen before. You watch as he approaches the squat rack. He begins to go through his warm-up sets. He starts his warm-up sets with 135 then 225 and then 315. You are very suprised. This guy's physique development does not even come close to the level of the freak that was in the gym yesterday. This guy is now squatting 405 with ease. Eventually he moves up to 500lbs. for 3 reps. This is a common scenario.

    How do we explain the chubby guy squatting more than the lean muscular machine?

    The same way we would explain the comparison of powerlifters to bodybuilders.

    There is a noticeable difference in physique development. The bodybuilders show supreme muscular and physique development in comparison to the powerlifters; but powerlifters are usually stronger.

    There are numerous factors that contribute to the supreme strength displayed by the powerlifter. These factors include mechanical advantages such as limb length and tendon insertions. A higher rate of fast twitch muscle fibers and better neural efficiency can also contribute to the disparity of strength between the two athletes.

    In this article we will look at sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and myofibrillar hypertrophy.

    Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (common in bodybuilding) involves the growth of the sarcoplasm (fluid like substance) and non contractile proteins that do not directly contribute to muscular force production. Filament area density decreases while cross-sectional area increases, without a significant increase in strength. Myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs due to an increase in myosin-actin filaments. Contractile proteins are synthesized and filament density increases (Zatsiorsky 1995). This type of hypertrophy leads to increased strength production. Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy Muscle fibers adapt to high volume training by increasing the number of mitochondria (organelles in the cell that are involved in ATP production) in the cell. This type of training also leads to the elevation of enzymes that are involved in glycolytic and oxidative pathways. The volume of sarcoplasmic fluid inside the cell and between the cells are increased with high volume training.

    This type of training contributes little to maximal strength while it does increase strength endurance due to mitochondria hypertrophy. Growth of connective tissue is also present with sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

    Myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs due to increases in the number of myosin/actin filaments (sarcomeres) inside the cell. This leads to increased strength and size of the contractile unit of muscle.

    Ultimately this means greater force production. This is often referred to as functional muscle, while sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is referred to as non-functional muscle. ATP and Muscular Growth As we said earlier, increasing the number of mitochondria in the cell means increased ATP production.

    ATP is required for protein synthesis to occur. Low levels of ATP will halt muscular growth as well as inhibit other metabolic functions that take place inside the muscle cell. Siff and Verkhoshansky have shown that it is possible to increase your muscles contractile unit faster than the mitochondria’s ability to compensate for this growth. When actin/myosin filaments out grow the number of mitochondria, growth of elements besides the sarcomere is inhibited. The insufficient quantity of ATP results in the bodies inability to promote protein synthesis.

    In general, bodybuilders are more muscular than powerlifters, but powerlifters are stronger.

    How does training with weights that are 90% of 1RM develop strength and power, but do very little for hypertrophy?

    Studies have shown an intense set of 5 reps involves more fibers than an intense set of 1rep. Research has shown that using loads in the 90% range causes failure to occur before a growth stimulus has been sent to the cells. Therefore other factors besides muscle fiber fatigue result in termination of the set. The muscle simply does not have sufficient time under tension to stimulate the growth process. High rep training produces high levels of phosphate and hydrogen Ions which enhance the growth process.

    Research has shown heavy lifting enhances neural efficiency ( improved motor recruitment, and firing rates) which enhances strength , but does not necessarily result in muscular growth.

    With this information you can see why the strength, and size levels are different between bodybuilders and powerlifters. There are powerlifters that possess muscularity comparable to bodybuilders. There are also bodybuilders who have equal or greater strength than powerlifters. Do not misinterpret this article to mean there is no relationship between strength and size. If you gain 30lbs. of lean tissue you will probably become stronger. The basic idea presented in this article is there is a relationship between size and strength , but strength increases can occur due to other reasons. Just as size increase can occur with a non-linear strength increase.



    References

    The Weight Trainer(2001)
    Muscle Growth part 1811: Why, And How Does A Muscle Grow and Get Stronger?
    http://weightrainer.virtualave.net/
    training/growth/.html
    Zatsiorsky,V.(1995) Science
    and Practice of Strength
    Training. Human Kinetics.


    Jamie Hale, author of Optimum Physique owner of Total Body Fitness, a complete state-of-the-art gym facility in Winchester, KY, may be contacted at Jamie Hale or his through his popular website (www.halesoptimumphysique.com)
    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
  5. 9chambers

    Guest

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 6:27pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I find it ironic that on the 4th page of this thread ronin posted a picture of Johnson to illustrate why big muscles help you do better in sports. Johnson had to use steroids and performance enhancing drugs to win in the Olympics over smaller guys. He got disqualified.

    Karl Lewis, not big.
    Last edited by 9chambers; 10/26/2003 6:32pm at .
  6. The Wastrel is offline
    The Wastrel's Avatar

    Such as thou art, sometime was I.

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,620

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 6:34pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiujitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    9Chambers,
    If you think Johnson was the only one using, you're mistaken. From all reports, Olympic competition is such that in most sports, if you're NOT using, you're the exception.
    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
  7. TigerFly is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    314

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 6:41pm


     Style: Big Cans O' Whoopass!

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    People who know "just enough" to sound intelligent are the scariest ones.

    The very idea that the number of reps/sets you do doesnt affect your gains is totally ridiculous.

    Even the Greatest and most talented fitness guru's, while they may not agree EXACTLY on how many reps/sets should be done - at least agree it MATTERS and that results vary based on how many sets/reps you do.

    Basically, your body WILL adjust to the weight that you are doing AND the number of reps. That is why Drop sets, partial reps, cheat reps and assisted reps are a NECESSARY evil to get your muscles to respond to the stimulus you are placing on them. Not to mention that your body will even get used to ONE of those things if you use it regularly. It is imperative to change it up regularly. I use mostly Drop sets and partial reps mainly because Djimbe BEAT good form into me and I can BARELY ever perform a cheat rep.
  8. 9chambers

    Guest

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 6:49pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Wastrel,

    Wow, that's sad. I always thought of the Olympics as more of a holy and pure event than professional sports. Little did I know that it is drug infested.

    That's kind of like Sosa and the corked bat. I wonder if McGuire was using one too. It could explain the big jump in homers they got ~ which was really good for baseball ~ maybe it was a conspiracy to get ratings. Freaking nazis!

    Steroids and boob jobs are so common anymore. We are the bionic generation.
  9. TigerFly is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    314

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 6:57pm


     Style: Big Cans O' Whoopass!

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    but you gotta admit Johnson looks good. I got a widdle woodie when I saw the pic! YAY 4 Steroids!
  10. 9chambers

    Guest

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 7:08pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    When someone promotes one type of training over another type they need to divorce steroids from the equation. When you take steroids, it isn't the type of training you are doing that is getting you those results. It's the drugs. You could take steroids and roll balls of cheese around all day and gain mass. Your muscles didn't come from wisdom, they came from a needle.

    To tell someone else that they will get those same results if they adopt your routine is missleading if they don't know that you are pumping yourself full of drugs to get those gains.

    I'm not talking to anyone in particular or saying who is right about the topic of this thread. I am just saying, you can't point to a guy who is a freak of nature because he has pumped steroids into himself for 10 years and say, "See, there is evidence for this or that." Those guys can't prove your point. Prove your point by showing results in a natural body.
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345 678915 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.