You must read starting strength unreal. The reasoning behind doing squats for explosive strength is quite logical.
Power = force x velocity
—> increase force, increase power
How to most efficiently increase force? Heavy weights, low reps to increase mass. Then train power cleans to learn to accelerate with the new gained strength.
I still don’t buy it. Heavy squats are exhausting. Boxers need to ration training as to not overdo it. Overtraining is difficult, but boxing is FUUUCCCCMIIINNG hard to begin with.
In aware power = force X velocity, though I don’t see the rationale behind training like a powerlifter if you’re a boxer.
Want to increase leg strength in a way that may be more advantageous for a boxer? Unilateral exercises for legs would probably do a great deal more (balance, extra core stabilisation, less weight used = less spinal compression)
I could leg press around 600lbs for slow reps with full ROM when I couldn’t squat 225 (the squatting movement felt very awkward and I have nerve damage in my ankle amongst other things I have to deal with). There are other ways to strengthen legs that don’t require excess spinal compression/CNS exhaustion. Prior to my surgery I could probably squat like 315 for 1, deadlift in the very high 400s and probably bench around 120kg for 1. My total was certainly in the “1000lb club” and it might still be if I were to try and risk it all (probably end up in the ER by tearing my hernia mesh lol).
Still, 13 y/o me at like 120lbs could probably kick harder and throw a more forceful punch than I can now. At age twelve I had like 5 years martial arts (including contact sparring) + boxing training under my belt. I’m going by those who were being punched by me during playful her vigorous rough-housing (apparently it hurt like a motherfucker), coupled with how I was able to make a heavy bag move with my kicks/strikes.
I remember at the time I was able to take kids down (wrestling) who weighed 50-60lbs more than I did. I did lift weights and could bench around my BW for say 5 reps. I didn’t squat/DL. Did SLDL instead, eventually got up to 100kgx6-7 at age 13. Though 13-14 is when everything started going south health wise. I believe I have reasonably good genetics regarding pound for pound strength, I don’t have to try very hard or train in a structured routine to continually set PR’s; hence one of the many reasons as to why having a connective tissue disorder is such a bummer. My father was able to bench press 90kg at a BW of around 50kg when he was 18-19. He trained, but never ate or took it seriously. This carried over to his ability to defend himself as he was able to take/wrestle down kids far, far larger than he was.
I can see perhaps a benefit to metabolic conditioning mediated through mid/high rep squats (15-20 reps to failure for 1-2 sets). But I really don’t think a boxer needs to squat 3x BW. Set a goal, say 1.5-2xBW… if you squat at all. Beyond that I think it detracts from the goal at hand, getting into a ring and pummeling someone.
Very very inefficient.
That’s why nobody does leg press for strength. The leg press is completely obsolete. To LP 3-5x what you squat is not out of the ordinary.
Definitely could do that instead of DL. DL would be slightly more efficient.
Yes I agree. I think beyond a certain point it’s probably not useful anymore. But the bench press/ Press (OHP) would be beneficial to improve as much as possible without risking injury. There’s something to be said about lower weight (I mean low in relation to what would be possible, <85% 1 RM) being less risky for non-PLers.
I’ve been reading quite a bit about cardarine lately, and I’ve actually seen that it’s AMES negative. Do have a source for this I can read?
spiceweasel did you happen to watch the ryan ankrom cardarine video? I would like to hear your thoughts on it. I have been taking 20mg/day of cardarine when blasting for the last 4 years. I blast twice a year Spring and Winter.
I had not watched anything from him before, so I just watched it. He’s a funny guy. He basically says what others are saying, which agrees with what I have found reading a lot of literature: yes, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Ligand pulled the plug on this drug, but the animal testing methodology raised some red flags.
The Han Wistar rats used in the study were administered the equivalent of ~55 mg/day (HED for a 110 kg male (using my weight in the equation given and the lowest dose that caused tumor growth, 3 mg)) for about 2/3 of their average lifespan, which is just under 3 years. Han Wistar rats are very prone to the development of adenocarcinomas in their old age, which would be their natural cause of death if left alone:
It’s really no surprise that these rats developed tumors - they would have anyway.
I’m not saying that cardarine is definitely safe. I would say that, given all of the studies performed, it doesn’t seem to deserve the stigma that’s been attached to it. It seems to have very positive cardiovascular benefits, which, in an obesity-riddled country like America, would be incredibly beneficial.
Do I know why GSK abandoned this “miracle” drug? No. But having worked for a big pharma company for a while now, I can safely say that it’s because they would have potentially lost money. Whether that’s by continuing clinical testing just to ultimately be denied approval by the FDA, or because of losing income from other medicines used to treat the same conditions which cardarine would fix. If 3 medicines are used by 1 million customers, that’s 3 million prescriptions, which would be used until death (most likely, given the nature of these diseases). If cardarine fixed the issues these 3 medicines treated, that’s 1 million prescriptions, which would probably be used for a shorter amount of time. That’s quite a substantial monetary loss for GSK.
Again, I’m not advocating the use of cardarine. What I’m saying is that, considering what I’ve read (scientific literature and anecdotal evidence), it doesn’t seem to be nearly as bad as what some people say.
Thanks. I plan to continue using it at 20mg/ day when cycling. Anything that has a good chance of helping the bad side effects of AAS and excessive T is worth it to me.
Do you notice any side effects from it? I always feel “off” when I try to take it. I give up after a week or so
I don’t know if this holds.
Theres the point that GSK with their effective medicine would make a lot of money from it while it would put mainly OTHER companies out of business. Which any business would like.
This would only happen if Cardarine would fix the issue permanently. The chances of this happening are absolutely minimal.
I don’t see evidence of big Pharma holding medicines back because they work too well. The better they work, the more expensive you can sell them. See for example HepC medication. Gives the issue permanently, gets sold for 20.000$ per month for three months treatment. They get their money, this way or another way.
This was pure speculation on my end, based on my experience with pharma. I was trying to make sense of something that doesn’t seem right. I obviously don’t know the real reason, but it has to be financial in nature.
I agree with your first point. It would definitely hurt other companies, but it could also hurt their own wallets. It would be a balancing act. From what I’ve seen in pharma - while there is some competitiveness between companies - the main focus is that company’s profits, and not necessarily hurting others’ profits.
As for your second point, that’s why I said “if cardarine fixed the issues… shorter amount of time.” I’m definitely not insinuating that it would fix the issue, but if it’s effective, taking the medication shouldn’t be a lifelong commitment, as long as the condition does not reverse after treatment.
If it hurts their bottom line, I believe they would hold back a medication. Some of the shady - although technically legal - shit I’ve seen behind closed doors would indicate that this absolutely would happen.
I guess so. But my point is, it wouldn’t. Glaxo would cash in all the money that currently all its competitors are making off of generics and off of new metabolic syndrome medication. A wonderdrug that would fix the issue would be their biggest blessing, except for it it’s just a wonder drug but wouldn’t quite fix it. That would be even better.
I don’t think the decision was because it would be too good. I think they would have it never gotten approved for human use and then they would have wasted money.
It’s very possible that they knew it would not be approved. It’s also possible that it would hurt their bottom line. If a drug fixed the issues, then yes, they would make a metric shitton of money short-term, but it’s not a sustainable moneymaker like medicines that treat conditions instead of fixing them. That’s based on the assumption that it would actually fix it.
Confounding the issue is that some of the people who make these decisions are not the best for the job (Peter’s Principle and all that). Some very bad, BIG decisions are made more frequently than I would have expected. It’s very possible that some higher-up in charge of making the decision misinterpreted/misunderstood the data (or thought it might hurt profits for reasons already explained) and decided to prematurely pull the plug.
It may seem far-fetched and seem like I’m grasping at straws; I honestly can’t argue with you on that. The truth is that I really don’t know, but from everything I’ve read, the decision to stop clinical trials makes me wonder… a lot. The scientists performing these trials are not stupid; they knew what they were doing, and they knew what the data meant. Knowing this makes me wonder even more…
@lordgains have you had a chance to read about cardarine? I would really like your opinion/input on the data.
Edit: I also meant to tag @anon18050987 about your input on cardarine.
(We could start a new thread to stay on topic.)
But if it was because of monetary reasons I’m sure, some university research lab would have invented a patent prof alternative as for them it would be the biggest thing ever. They would also probably get a Nobel prize for it. I know a few labs and people in them who do such compound research. They hold on to every straw that could make decent money.
The only logical explanation I can find, is that it wouldn’t get approved.
I have not read into it deeply enough that I can tell you why you should use it. I don’t like drugs that mess with PPARs. Until now, nothing really good came out of that. Side effects are usually not pleasant or rather long term problems. I hope I can find the time to get into some of the topics here in June (this thread and the cardarine is on my list now)
Thanks! I have reading material for tonight. I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to access one of the earlier ones you posted (we have ACS access at work, but I left my laptop there today).
No infact I have a lot more stamina at the gym when I take it. Some morning I will forget to take it and notice right away when working out.
Hello, may i ask again that did you notice any degree of nose growth/ fattening due to HGH usage?
And how long did you use the HGH? Im doing 6iu eod for 24 days now.
Dptfit reports he had hand growth and maybe nose growth with 2iu’s in 2 months, it sounds weird honestly on such a low dose. I don’t want those side effects. Thanks.
@Coopper It wasn’t over two months, I’ve been on it over a year at this point. Yes facial changes noticeable, I compared pictures this year to last. Again, if you’re taking it for medical reasons, this is the least of your worries. Let it go man, I’m sure you’ll still look like a supermodel after a few months lol.
I just bought it for my health issues and paid over 1200K for it. @dptfit
So i started using it in the hopes for AR upregulation on my prostate. I am not using it for my face or whatever. I am already a good looking guy, so im actually scared of facial changes. I don’t want my nose to get wider/ more fat.
I have never heard from anyone except you to experience facial changes due to HGH in such a short time- dose.
If you are ok with it, i would like to see a before and after picture of yourself too for the sake of science and curiosity. You can block your eyes and leave your nose visible only if you want, i have a sharp eye (painter) to catch real changes.
And btw, are you sure it is not a water retention causing your nose to look bigger?
Oh and according to science you must have at least 400+ more of IGF-1 levels in order to see that kind of am change? Do you have any bloodwork you did on HGH?
You really sound like my girlfriend with that silly obsession about a milimeter of nose here or there. Jesus, you are a man, not a girl… 