So there is no benefit to the fluid increase inside the muscle cells that takes place when loading creatine? Its a generally held belief that the improved leverage due to the extra intracellular volume allows more space for mucle to move allowing better contraction = more hypertrophy.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You don’t seem to be reading what I say according to what it actually says.
I am discussing the specific point of LEVERAGE, not of differing weights with same leverage.
Go use, for example, a different plate-loaded machine (not that I am saying machines are better, but as an example) that uses different leverage and thus allows more plates.
Do you get more growth?
Faulty analogy. In your scenario, I am actually lifting LESS weight since more is counter-weighted depending on the machine used and the angle. In the scenario of a bigger lifter lifting more, that person is still doing ALL of the work on the SAME EXERCISE.
No, it isn’t. One given plate-loaded machine absolutely could be designed to give leverage allowing more plates to be used for same force at the handle. You are responding to something different than what I wrote.
As to whether there is any relevance, the reason there is the question is not exact same conditions but different weight, but a claim that if internal mechanical conditions are changed by fat, not by increased developed muscle tension, yielding a leverage difference – a mechanical sort of change, if one may refer to things in the body that way, in the physics sense – that increase achieved from this mechanical effect must improve growth.
My illustration is that mechanical change, such as leverage, is the cause of differing weight lifted, then one cannot assume more growth must necessarily occur.
Mechanical factors making a lift easier don’t necessarily mean growing better.
[/quote]