Nobody argued that body recomp isn’t possible, so shut up about that.
you said that you can gain size without gaining weight. more muscle=more weight. less fat=less weight. you didn’t mention losing fat, and of course its possible, everyone has done it.
the real point here is that you look weak because you do weak shit. and you are posting in the strength sports section. go away.
You asked for an anecdote…
Two guys I sometimes train with entered a competition where the person who completed the most reps wins.
The bar is loaded with your bodyweight. The lifts are Squat, Bench and Deadlift.
The only training these guys did for 6 weeks, 4 days a week, was the 3 lifts. 3 sets to failure for each lift per session.
Both were experienced trainees, 20 years of age, no AAS.
To keep the weight on the bar to a minimum they stopped using protein supplements and reduced their food intake. Their plan was to lose weight.
Both actually increased scale weight, and visually they appeared to have lost fat. One of the guys put on 6kg (~13lb) over the 6 weeks.
After the competition (1st and 3rd place in the under 21s), they were burned out on Squat, Bench and DL so they did mostly isolation exercises and resumed heavy eating and protein supplementation (i.e trained like “body-builders”)
Over the next 4 weeks both lost weight, the one who had put on 6kg actually lost 4kg. They were training and eating hard (as they always do).
Personally, I have lost 11kg scale weight over the last 18 months. My pants are loose around the waist and tight around the thighs. Some of my shirts no longer fit around the chest.
I am training for competitive powerlifting. While I do some isolation exercises, the majority of lifts are compounds and the majority of both compound and isolation exercises are free weights and cables.
I cannot use machines for anything involving my shoulders. I really only use the chest-supported row machine and calf-raise machine, and every so often I use the chest press machine with a narrow grip for triceps and the leg press.
I have no aspirations for any sort of aesthetic symmetry or balance, but if I did I would use more isolation exercises to target certain muscles, not because they are “better for hypertrophy”.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Are you telling me that you feel your pecs more on a bench than on a fly machine? Or the quads more on a squat than on a leg press? If so, you’d be pretty unique in that regard.[/quote]
I’d first like to point out that you didn’t address the most important parts of my reply to your previous assertions.
But yes, I feel my quads more on front squat than on leg press with the same stance. Not that this is relevant unless you have a very limited understanding of what causes hypertrophy.
Nothing, except that I’m a powerlifter and this is the Strength Sports forum.
Arm days can be a waste of time though, your arms will only ever get to a certain proportion of the rest of your body. They are only useful if you are below that point.
I never do TBT by the way.
What makes you insist that you need to? Hypertrophy is one of the body’s responses to an imposed demand. Bench doesn’t put much stress (imposed demand) on the lateral deltoid but I’m yet to see a powerlifter with small lateral deltoids.
Perhaps more amazingly, I’m yet to see a powerlifter with small biceps. I know a lot of powerlifters who never do curls, and some don’t even do chins.
Now, if they wanted to step on stage with the correct proportions they would need to work specifically on the biceps with an isolation exercise - but don’t tell me they don’t get hypertrophy without isolation and exhaustion!
I only ever get joint problems when I use machines.
But this is where your argument relies on a premise that is patently false - you do NOT need to go to failure to stimulate hypertrophy.
Apart from that, if your stabilisers are so weak that you can’t induce hypertrophy in the prime movers using free weights then that is a VERY good argument for doing more free weight exercises. I can’t think of a dumber reason not to.
If you can’t lift a barbell or a dumbell without stressing the prime movers you have bigger issues than a quest for size. You need to look at your priorities.
It’s no wonder your 1 year of compounds didn’t do anything for you, you weren’t able to lift enough to make a difference. You found a way to “solve” the problem (by minimising reliance on stablisers with machines) and got growth. Good for you.
What do you mean by “stress again”? I’m not going to go back through 4 pages of posts, but I’m pretty sure you’re changing your argument mid-stream here.
[quote]
1/100th of a second muscular contractions do NOT cause microtrauma.[/quote]
What?!? For a start, if you can lift 150kg overhead in 1/100th of a second you are not human. Have you ever watched any Olympic lifting? That is a seriously flawed observation.
Apart from that, of course you can cause micro-trauma in 1/100th of a second, especially if you do a lot of reps - like a sprinter. If you want high intensity, high volume and high TUT, watch a world-class 100m sprinter train. Then envy their legs.
[quote]gi2eg wrote:
Nobody argued that body recomp isn’t possible, so shut up about that.
you said that you can gain size without gaining weight. more muscle=more weight. less fat=less weight. you didn’t mention losing fat, and of course its possible, everyone has done it.
the real point here is that you look weak because you do weak shit. and you are posting in the strength sports section. go away.[/quote]
You’re wrong. Shut the hell up.
[quote]Lindow wrote:
Or you just shut up and measure your legs to see who’s bigger since both of you has defenition (coudlnt watch your leg so I wouldnt know, but it seems like you’re some fittness 6pack guy)
Seriously, evryone that benches more then 200 and squats over 220 is genetic freaks to you. And top sport men is born that good, and would be better of competing in bodybulding.
And if you want to be good at chins and still get as strong as possible (= gain weight) you’re stupid as hell and should be doing machines instead. Cross training is impossible ofcourse.[/quote]
I’ve got more definition than he does.
But I’m not some “fitness 6 pack” guy. Abs are an afterthought in my training routine. I’d kill to look like Kevin Levrone or Dennis Wolf. That is my ideal physique.
I’m just a person who tries to get the most out of what he has to work with.
Who said anything about chins? I don’t care about chins. I don’t do them or pullups or dips, for that matter. All of them are hard on the structure of the shoulder and can lead to dislocation. Particularly when you’re doing them with added weight.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
I’d first like to point out that you didn’t address the most important parts of my reply to your previous assertions.[/quote]
I’ve no idea what I failed to address.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
But yes, I feel my quads more on front squat than on leg press with the same stance. Not that this is relevant unless you have a very limited understanding of what causes hypertrophy.[/quote]
It’s entirely relevant. You will get hypertrophy in the areas where you felt the exercise. Hypertrophy does not occur magically. If you don’t feel it, you don’t get it.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Nothing, except that I’m a powerlifter and this is the Strength Sports forum.
Arm days can be a waste of time though, your arms will only ever get to a certain proportion of the rest of your body. They are only useful if you are below that point.[/quote]
How on earth would you know, in advance, what that point is? Bodybuilders have massive arms in proportion to the rest of their bodies.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
What makes you insist that you need to? Hypertrophy is one of the body’s responses to an imposed demand. Bench doesn’t put much stress (imposed demand) on the lateral deltoid but I’m yet to see a powerlifter with small lateral deltoids.[/quote]
I haven’t seen many PLers at 15% BF or lower. You can’t judge a person’s physique very well when they aren’t lean. I’ve seen Dave Tate lean and he had the full, rounded delts of a bodybuilder. But he incorporated bodybuilding training to achieve that look. How come you keep using absolute terms? You won’t get anywhere with that.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Perhaps more amazingly, I’m yet to see a powerlifter with small biceps. I know a lot of powerlifters who never do curls, and some don’t even do chins.[/quote]
Nobody who weighs 250 lbs. has “small biceps”. The question is, whose arm would look better when dieted down, a PLer or bodybuilder’s?
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Now, if they wanted to step on stage with the correct proportions they would need to work specifically on the biceps with an isolation exercise - but don’t tell me they don’t get hypertrophy without isolation and exhaustion![/quote]
I’m still telling you that they don’t get hypertrophy without isolation and exhaustion.
To the extent that they get any hypertrophy at all from their training, it’s directly caused by the level of isolation and exhaustion they use.
Isolation and exhaustion can occur on ANY exercise to SOME degree, including a heavy compound movement. It’s just machine isolation exercises, rep for rep, are better at achieving this. You will get SOME isolation from a bench press as well as SOME exhaustion. This WILL lead to hypertrophy.
You will get MORE isolation and MORE exhaustion from an isolation movement. This will lead to MORE hypertrophy. Get it? It’s not black and white. It’s a matter of degrees and determining what works best.
People can, and have, built impressive physiques using sub-par training methods. There’s no reason why you can’t do it. But it will take more time and you won’t reach your full potential.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
I only ever get joint problems when I use machines.
[/quote]
Which machines? Lever Pec Fly? Seated lateral Raise? Hammer Strength Iso Curl? Those are the ones I use.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
But this is where your argument relies on a premise that is patently false - you do NOT need to go to failure to stimulate hypertrophy.[/quote]
Ah, so you disagree with Dave Tate, and just about every pro bodybuilder since the 1960’s. You need to break down the muscle. So long as you are capable of lifting the weight, you haven’t broken down anything. Any bodybuilder who deliberately stops short of failure is a bonehead. There are no such bodybuilders.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Apart from that, if your stabilisers are so weak that you can’t induce hypertrophy in the prime movers using free weights then that is a VERY good argument for doing more free weight exercises. I can’t think of a dumber reason not to.[/quote]
Lol, it has nothing to do with “weak stabilizers” and everything to do with physics. Holding a heavy barbell above your chest or on your back requires a huge amount of stabilization and structural integrity. There is nothing you can do to change this.
Every single newton of force that gets shifted onto a stabilizer muscle decreases your hypertrophy potential by that much. You take the stabilizers out of the equation and hypertrophy shoots through the roof.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
If you can’t lift a barbell or a dumbell without stressing the prime movers you have bigger issues than a quest for size. You need to look at your priorities. [/quote]
The exercise determines which muscle group is stressed, not the lifter.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
It’s no wonder your 1 year of compounds didn’t do anything for you, you weren’t able to lift enough to make a difference. You found a way to “solve” the problem (by minimising reliance on stablisers with machines) and got growth. Good for you.[/quote]
Wait a minute, do you realize what you’ve just said? I was lifting at a high level of my max. 80-90%. Here you go again with the absolute terms. Are you suggesting that a person can’t make gains lifting at 90% of 1RM if his max happens to be below 300? That is completely ludicrous.
What’s “heavy enough” supposed to mean. Isn’t “heavy” a relative term? If I could only lift 100 lbs. as my max, wouldn’t that, theoretically, be just as effective as someone doing 300 for their relative max?
Stop. Using. Absolute. Terms.
Define EVERYTHING on a relative basis or I won’t speak to you.
You are making the most elementary mistake, over and over again.
Boy, this thread is getting painful. I don’t think I’ll be here much longer.
Continually stunned that anyone cares what the OP has to say…
Lee Priest has larger arms than Mike Miller.
This dude has very small arms compared to his thighs:
http://www.webberchiropractic.com/articles/PowerliftingMagazine[cover].jpg
So much for compounds “building muscle all over”. If you can’t build big forearms doing deadlifts, then what, exactly, are you going to build?
This guy is pretty fat:
http://www.irrigationfestival.com/images/stories/Events/strongman_640.jpg
Would not look impressive at all if he cut down to the point where he actually didn’t have a gut.
The two on the left look like over-sized fat boys. They have a lot of blubber on them and not a lot of muscle shape underneath that blubber. When Ronnie Coleman gets up to 18% BF, you can see his muscle mass underneath the fat. These guys don’t have that. They only have blubber. They lift heavy shit day in and day out and they’re fat and blubbery. Yes they are. No, I’m not talking about Mario.
http://pics.livejournal.com/bullneck/pic/000s9gyr
This guy has some muscle shape udnerneath the fat but still less than most bodybuilders. At low BF%, he would look like your average muscular guy. Nothing impressive.
Mike Miller again, with his gut clearly outsizing his arms and pecs, despite wearing a belt.
I bet this guy was pretty strong. Doesn’t look like much though. He’s no Arnold.
Just having some fun with google image. Feel free to do the same.
Bodybuilders off season:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/144881/480/Picture-Box/image002.jpg
Not a single one of them could be mistaken for a powerlifter or strong man.
Except maybe Jay Cutler, lol:
But even at his fattest ever, he still has muscle separation between his arms and shoulders.
Look at the size of his arms compared to his chest and gut. Notice that the gut does NOT protrude past the chest, unlike 98% of all heavyweight strength athletes.
Pro Bodybuilders destroy everybody else when it comes to hypertrophy. Clear as day. If lifting heavy resulted in hypertrophy then the strongest lifers would also be the best bodybuilders.
Blah, Blah, Same Bullshit info, Blah, Blah, Blah…
Note that Ronnie Coleman, whom you love to use as an example, has a huge chest and does nothing for it except bench presses.
Oh, he also trained as a powerlifter and got huge doing it before he started bodybuilding.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
DragnCarry wrote:
I’d first like to point out that you didn’t address the most important parts of my reply to your previous assertions.
I’ve no idea what I failed to address.[/quote]
That’s right.
[quote]
It’s entirely relevant. You will get hypertrophy in the areas where you felt the exercise. Hypertrophy does not occur magically. If you don’t feel it, you don’t get it.[/quote]
If you eat a horse every day you will get hypertrophy and never ‘feel it’ in any muscle.
Err… stop.using.absolute.terms.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Nothing, except that I’m a powerlifter and this is the Strength Sports forum.
Arm days can be a waste of time though, your arms will only ever get to a certain proportion of the rest of your body. They are only useful if you are below that point.
Nominal Prospect wrote:
How on earth would you know, in advance, what that point is?[/quote]
Poliquin would be able to explain that to you with some precision. One of the guys I train with would be able to tell you what happened to his arms when I got him to start squatting regularly. Have you ever noticed the “curlers” with small arms at your gym?
[quote]
I haven’t seen many PLers at 15% BF or lower. You can’t judge a person’s physique very well when they aren’t lean.[/quote]
Yes you can. You might not be able to judge symmetry or proportion very well, but you know if the guy has a lot of muscle.
BTW, powerlifting does have weight classes other than SHW. Some competitors are very lean. Ange Galati set the world record bench-press in his weight class while in contest shape for bodybuilding. He is a former Mr Australia several times over.
You wouldn’t believe me if I told you how he trains.
I don’t think I’ll get anywhere anyway. I’m using far less “absolute terms” than you in any case.
[quote]
Nobody who weighs 250 lbs. has “small biceps”. The question is, whose arm would look better when dieted down, a PLer or bodybuilder’s?[/quote]
If you were reading anything I wrote with any objectivity you would already know I would answer “bodybuilder”. Show some respect when you have a discussion. My very next sentence answers that question, you shouldn’t need to ask -
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Now, if they wanted to step on stage with the correct proportions they would need to work specifically on the biceps with an isolation exercise - but don’t tell me they don’t get hypertrophy without isolation and exhaustion![/quote]
At first you maintained that you don’t get hypertrophy with compounds. Then you changed your argument to “you don’t get hypertrophy with free weights”.
Stop.Using.Absolute.Terms.
You might get more hypertrophy by going to failure, but you still get hypertrophy without going to failure.
[quote]
I’m still telling you that they don’t get hypertrophy without isolation and exhaustion.
To the extent that they get any hypertrophy at all from their training, it’s directly caused by the level of isolation and exhaustion they use.[/quote]
That is incorrect. Stop.using.absolute.terms. And stop contradicting yourself -
[quote]
People can, and have, built impressive physiques using sub-par training methods. There’s no reason why you can’t do it. But it will take more time and you won’t reach your full potential.[/quote]
Well, I’m training in powerlifting to correct weaknesses within my structure. Getting my biggest isn’t what I consider to be reaching my potential. Nor would it be the potential of anyone serious about participating in the Strength Sports forum.
[quote]
DragnCarry wrote:
But this is where your argument relies on a premise that is patently false - you do NOT need to go to failure to stimulate hypertrophy.
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ah, so you disagree with Dave Tate, and just about every pro bodybuilder since the 1960’s. You need to break down the muscle. So long as you are capable of lifting the weight, you haven’t broken down anything.[/quote]
Stop putting words into other people’s mouths. I’m sure Dave Tate and Mike Robertson wouldn’t appreciate it.
So long as you are capable of lifting the weight, you haven’t broken down anything? That is absurd. Capable of lifting what weight? I can always lift something no matter how many reps I do.
Olympic lifters very, very rarely go to failure and do minimal isolation work, they all seem pretty jacked to me!
[quote]
Lol, it has nothing to do with “weak stabilizers” and everything to do with physics. [/quote]
It’s not a good idea to debate physics with me. By your argument if your stabilisers are weak it should put more stress on your prime movers or target muscle groups and be more effective at stimulating hypertrophy.
[quote]
The exercise determines which muscle group is stressed, not the lifter. [/quote]
That is incorrect. You are way off.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
It’s no wonder your 1 year of compounds didn’t do anything for you, you weren’t able to lift enough to make a difference. You found a way to “solve” the problem (by minimising reliance on stablisers with machines) and got growth. Good for you.
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Wait a minute, do you realize what you’ve just said? I was lifting at a high level of my max. 80-90%. Here you go again with the absolute terms. Are you suggesting that a person can’t make gains lifting at 90% of 1RM if his max happens to be below 300? That is completely ludicrous. [/quote]
If you can’t bench enough to stimulate your prime movers because your stabilisers are too weak, then you have a problem. If your chest can push 200lb but you can’t bench 150lb, then 80-90% of a 150lb bench-press isn’t going to do much for your chest.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps the best example is the front squat (an exercise you are probably not familiar with). If you have a weak core you will not be able to use much weight and you will probably not get any training effect in your legs at all, it becomes a core strengthening exercise.
Once your core is very strong, the front squat will stimulate your quads very effectively.
[quote]
Define EVERYTHING on a relative basis or I won’t speak to you.
You are making the most elementary mistake, over and over again.
Boy, this thread is getting painful. I don’t think I’ll be here much longer.[/quote]
We can only hope.
I don’t think you are in a position to judge my argument to contain elementary mistakes. If you weren’t so hell bent on having an argument instead of a discussion you wouldn’t have made that comment.
I’m sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier in this thread. I was far too generous.
I did, however, realise my error eventually and then just thought I’d see how far you would go. You are definitely one strange cat.
[quote]
Who said anything about chins? I don’t care about chins. I don’t do them or pullups or dips, for that matter. All of them are hard on the structure of the shoulder and can lead to dislocation. Particularly when you’re doing them with added weight.[/quote]
It was an example of cross training.
[quote]Lindow wrote:
Who said anything about chins? I don’t care about chins. I don’t do them or pullups or dips, for that matter. All of them are hard on the structure of the shoulder and can lead to dislocation. Particularly when you’re doing them with added weight.
It was an example of cross training. [/quote]
Which I advocate against.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Note that Ronnie Coleman, whom you love to use as an example, has a huge chest and does nothing for it except bench presses.
Oh, he also trained as a powerlifter and got huge doing it before he started bodybuilding.[/quote]
He does flyes as well.
www.bodybuildingpro.com/ronniecolemanunbelievabledvd.html
Of course, he also does DB kickbacks for triceps in his video. I am not a fan of his training methods. The reason he can “train like a powerlifter” is because he is so massive in the off season that his leverage is phenomenal. You have to get big before you can move big weight. And the way to get big is with a big diet and isolation training and anabolics, if that’s what you’re after.
In the workout videos, you often see pro’s throwing around heavy weights with atrocious form. I’m pretty sure they do this just to appear “hardcore” and give the viewers something to see. I do not believe they train like this all the time, or that they got to their current stage by training that way. There are so many boneheads in every gym around the country who train by “throwing heavy shit around” that if that method worked, there would be far more pro-sized guys walking around than there are today.
Isolation exercises don’t look as impressive as compounds. Machines aren’t as impressive as free weights. But they work better, in each case.
DragnCarry,
When you are talking about universal laws or principles, you use absolute terms.
When you are making comparative statements, you use relative terms.
I have adhered to these rules in all of my posts. I suggest you do the same. Do not try to feed my own advice back to me. I know what I’m doing.
“It’s not a good idea to debate physics with me. By your argument if your stabilisers are weak it should put more stress on your prime movers or target muscle groups and be more effective at stimulating hypertrophy.”
No it shouldn’t. It will limit the amount of weight you can use because stabilizers, along with structural integrity, are THE limiting factors in free weight exercises. This goes right back to Boyle’s statement.
NP, google “powerlifting”. Plenty of us are lean. Weightcalsses ensure it.
I could find dozens of jacked as hell powerlifters, but you can too. And I’m not wasteing my time on it.
PLEASE end this thread and agree to disagree.
The OP can remain smug and wonder about genetics.
Those who want to get big and strong can continue lifting big and, as if by magic, improve their genetics.
I don’t think there was ever any possibility that we were going to agree (although actually, we DO agree on several points). I was just fucking with him.
It constantly amuses me how people who would never take an attitude with you in person would pretend to be the tough-guy genius on-line.
Levrone is a pressing machine in freeweight movements
Wolf does one arm db rows
They need to be more jacked guys.
You have to get big to move big weight, eh? I think this man would disagree.
Lol this whole thread, and arguement remind me off a saying my grandmother always used to use, " Don’t argue with an idiot… he’ll bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience."
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
"It’s not a good idea to debate physics with me.
[/quote]
You’ve got the least idea about physics of anyone I’ve ever met. “Can increase mass without weight” is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in my life space cadet.
Are you trying to rewrite the laws of the universe as well as weight training?
