[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
you may not have noticed it but I have not posted in this thread prior to my statement nor have I said that bodybuilders (or any other sub-group of lifters) only have one or the other of a type of hypertrophy. …
but what I do stand by is that adding 2 inches of sarcoplasm is not the same as 2 inches of actual muscle fibre. …
That isn’t what I asked you. WHO ON THIS PLANET IS SIMPLY ADDING “SARCOPLASMIC HYPERTROPHY” IN INCHES and how do you know this? X-ray vision? Psychic visions? No biopsy needed, huh? Where are you getting your info from?[/quote]
dont be so dense. …
re-read my post… . nor have I said that bodybuilders only have one or the other of a type of hypertrophy. …
I think youll find that bodybuilders have a much larger amount of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than powerlifters due to their routines alone… . for the sake of clarity (ahahah) we aint going to get into powerbuilding etc. …
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
I think youll find that bodybuilders have a much larger amount of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than powerlifters due to their routines alone.
[/quote]
Damn it, PROVE THIS. It is a fucking theory, not fact yet that won’t stop you from spreading this info as if bodybuilders are more likely to have “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” as if this is different than REAL FUCKING MUSCLE.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am all for truth telling, but what you just wrote is utter bullshit and shows you don’t even have basic knowledge as far as over the counter drugs that you take. Could you list the drugs taken that produce an effect so rapidly, that they can be taken right before a workout and the lifter’s numbers will skyrocket.[/quote]
So it’s a few hours before the workout, what’s the difference? Their size and strength are both drug induced and a large portion of the mass is not functional because if it were they would be twice as strong as any weightlifter.
WTF? I’M NOT SAYING BBERS ARE WEAK, BUT THEY ARE FAKE AND THERE’S NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. ALL THEY ACHIEVE IS DUE TO ROIDS. PROBODYBUILDING IS A JOKE. THEY’RE UGLY, UNHELATHY AND THE CONTESTS ARE SET UP. IT’S A ZOO AND IT DOESN’T DESERVE RESPECT. PEOPLE WHO REALLY WOULD LIKE TO LOOK LIKE RONNY COLEMAN HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER OR SMALL PENIS OR LOW SELF ESTEEM…Screw the cultworshiping already.
[quote]Majin wrote:
THEY ARE FAKE AND THERE’S NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. ALL THEY ACHIEVE IS DUE TO ROIDS. [/quote]
Sweet - I’ll stop working out and just shoot roids all day.
So are you saying that powerlifters suck ass, too? They use roids. Shit, baseballers are fake as well, with all their roid taking. Don’t forget long distance bikers, with their damn EPO and what not.
How about you grow up a little, and experience a little more? Then your high horse won’t be as high.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Sure, bodybuilders can pull off some numbers, but that’s after geting jacked a few hours before the workout. There are no professional strength athletes who have this much muscle mass. If someone had this much actual functional mass they would be stronger than anyone on earth, which they aren’t.
They take steroids before workouts and in general - insane amounts - and that’s what is responsible for their strength and size, period. If you get a shot of juice before a workout your strength will skyrocket - that’s not being strong, that’s like putting on a strap-on and claiming that you’re able to have wood for 40 hours straight.
Why are people so concerned with this issue? Bodybuilders are supposed to be big, everyhting else is secondary. People want to see ugly repulsive freaks full of chemicals not someone getting a good bench press. And I don’t give a shit what kind of hard work they put into it - they have money and roids. As long as there’s some skinny bastard who’s putting in all his efforts and is still frustrated at why he can’t get big the efforts of pro-bblders don’t mean shit - it’s still the easier route.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
I think youll find that bodybuilders have a much larger amount of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than powerlifters due to their routines alone.
Damn it, PROVE THIS. It is a fucking theory, not fact yet that won’t stop you from spreading this info as if bodybuilders are more likely to have “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” as if this is different than REAL FUCKING MUSCLE.[/quote]
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle?s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, ?bodybuilder-type? training (3).
Fruitarians who claim to live off only orange juice and avocados and “don’t believe in that calorie and protein stuff” are much more real than those silly bodybuilders.
Fruitarians who claim to live off only orange juice and avocados and “don’t believe in that calorie and protein stuff” are much more real than those silly bodybuilders.[/quote]
JMB’s ideal can be found on…oh wait, it can’t be found because, as usual, he has nothing to add.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Majin wrote:
Sure, bodybuilders can pull off some numbers, but that’s after geting jacked a few hours before the workout…
They take steroids before workouts and in general - insane amounts - and that’s what is responsible for their strength and size, period. If you get a shot of juice before a workout your strength will skyrocket - that’s not being strong, that’s like putting on a strap-on and claiming that you’re able to have wood for 40 hours straight.
I am all for truth telling, but what you just wrote is utter bullshit and shows you don’t even have basic knowledge as far as over the counter drugs that you take. Could you list the drugs taken that produce an effect so rapidly, that they can be taken right before a workout and the lifter’s numbers will skyrocket?
Did you know that the athletes most prone to take anything at all (sometimes in the form of epi-pens) right before a competition are powerlifters? Epinephrine would be the only drug that would have an immediate effect on awareness, focus and possibly strength.
Agreed
That is one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen in a while. Someone who clearly doesn’t know about steroids, giving “advice” about steroids.
[/quote]
What do you expect from original “bodybuilders are weak” guy. He just keeps rolling out the bullshit.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
I think youll find that bodybuilders have a much larger amount of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than powerlifters due to their routines alone.
Damn it, PROVE THIS. It is a fucking theory, not fact yet that won’t stop you from spreading this info as if bodybuilders are more likely to have “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” as if this is different than REAL FUCKING MUSCLE.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle?s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, ?bodybuilder-type? training (3).
[/quote]
Do you know what a study is? Please show the study that proves that bodybuilders are big because of greater amounts of sarcoplasm and not an actual increase in fiber size. That is a freaking article you just quoted and not one study was even referenced. Do some of you just blindly follow anything you read as long as an author wrote it here? To do a study like that, you would actually have to take huge bodybuilders and biopsy muscle tissue and compare it to lifters of similar profiles and training experience who were much smaller. This has not been done making his statements a THEORY and not fact that bodybuilders have huge muscles because of “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am all for truth telling, but what you just wrote is utter bullshit and shows you don’t even have basic knowledge as far as over the counter drugs that you take. Could you list the drugs taken that produce an effect so rapidly, that they can be taken right before a workout and the lifter’s numbers will skyrocket.
So it’s a few hours before the workout, what’s the difference? Their size and strength are both drug induced and a large portion of the mass is not functional because if it were they would be twice as strong as any weightlifter.
WTF? I’M NOT SAYING BBERS ARE WEAK, BUT THEY ARE FAKE AND THERE’S NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. ALL THEY ACHIEVE IS DUE TO ROIDS. PROBODYBUILDING IS A JOKE. THEY’RE UGLY, UNHELATHY AND THE CONTESTS ARE SET UP. IT’S A ZOO AND IT DOESN’T DESERVE RESPECT. PEOPLE WHO REALLY WOULD LIKE TO LOOK LIKE RONNY COLEMAN HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER OR SMALL PENIS OR LOW SELF ESTEEM…Screw the cultworshiping already. [/quote]
A few hours? Are you claiming that intramuscular injections produce huge increases in strength in “a few hours”? Enough to be measurably different at a workout soon afterwards?
[quote]Majin wrote:
randman wrote:
You haven’t made one fucking point on this subject since you’ve decided to start posting your ignorance on this topic.
Then you have no reason to flame because if there weren’t any points I made then that leaves you with nothing to flame me for.[/quote]
You are getting flamed for making shit up and then writing it here.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
A few hours? Are you claiming that intramuscular injections produce huge increases in strength in “a few hours”? Enough to be measurably different at a workout soon afterwards?[/quote]
I’m saying that there are performance drugs as well as the ones building mass. And I’m saying that a huge portion of their strength is a product of substances.
I’m also saying that they should be laughed at(any ghost wolf comes to mind). How could you possibly take pro-bodybuilding or Mr Olympia seriously?