[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Isn’t there an article on elite fts about knowing when you are huge. If I remember correctly it was funny
Also to those that think you can’t get damn big and be athletic, powerful ect. Strongman competitors I think are the poster boys (giants) for that. They are jacked. Strong, powerful, have endurance, flexibility pretty damn well rounded I would say. [/quote]
abso-fucking-lutely[/quote]
I guess this comes down to ‘athletic’ being subjective, but you absolutely lose athleticism gaining size. You can still be a beast at large sizes, but there’s a reason that a DB who runs a 4.6 is slow and an interior lineman who runs sub 5 is ‘a great athlete at the position.’ I respect the shit out of the power some big guys can generate, and they can still have solid->great conditioning, but as a former ‘skill’ guy I’m clearly biased on my interpretation of the word.[/quote]
I can almost guarantee you those big buys at a lighter weight still wouldn’t be running a 4.6 or below. They just aren’t built for it. People have to remeber that. Oh I am staying smaller so I can run a sub 4.6 and dunk when they are barely breaking 4.7 and barely nick the rim at 200 (just an example) them putting on some weight then training there won’t hurt that much and dropping wont hurt that much because at 200 you should be able to do both of those if you are going to be able,to at all.
I know a former NFL lineman that at 300 ran almost a 4.7. I would imagine him dropping to 250 wouldn’t shave that much time off. I feel like I am rambling and making no sense. Basically you either have it and you don’t. Someone who played a skill position will always be pretty fast. A lineman will never be that fast. Basically
I think the simple fact is none of us will ever feel we are “too big”. We are all here for the same reason and we all started this game for the same reason. Can we all remember our first weight goal, mine was to get to 180 from 150. I thought when i got to 180 i would be having to turn sideways to get through doors and batting girls off all day. when i got to 180, was i?
obviously not, was 180 enough for me, definitley not. my next goal was a lean 200lbs, at this weight i thought i would be happy, id be able to take my foot off the gas with the eating and just maintain that for a while. Now, sitting at 200lbs (not big by any standards), 50lbs heavier than when i first started, i feel the need to gain weight more than ever. This will never stop.
When was the last time any of us looked in the mirror and can honestly say they were happy with everything? Never in my case. There have been obvious improvements but the list is never ending. We are all wired the same here and will never be contempt with what we present ourselves with. thats why we do what we do.
On the opposite hand i feel people have a distorted view of what big really is. I show pictures of klokov to people to show what my dream physique would be, and more often than not i get “hmm, i like to be abit bigger” “his arms could do with being bigger” “yer, i like to be him but with a bigger chest” . THE GUYS WEIGHT NEARLY 240LBS!! That is a weight that 98% of us will probably never reach in his condition.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Isn’t there an article on elite fts about knowing when you are huge. If I remember correctly it was funny
Also to those that think you can’t get damn big and be athletic, powerful ect. Strongman competitors I think are the poster boys (giants) for that. They are jacked. Strong, powerful, have endurance, flexibility pretty damn well rounded I would say. [/quote]
abso-fucking-lutely[/quote]
I guess this comes down to ‘athletic’ being subjective, but you absolutely lose athleticism gaining size. You can still be a beast at large sizes, but there’s a reason that a DB who runs a 4.6 is slow and an interior lineman who runs sub 5 is ‘a great athlete at the position.’ I respect the shit out of the power some big guys can generate, and they can still have solid->great conditioning, but as a former ‘skill’ guy I’m clearly biased on my interpretation of the word.[/quote]
I can almost guarantee you those big buys at a lighter weight still wouldn’t be running a 4.6 or below. They just aren’t built for it. People have to remeber that. Oh I am staying smaller so I can run a sub 4.6 and dunk when they are barely breaking 4.7 and barely nick the rim at 200 (just an example) them putting on some weight then training there won’t hurt that much and dropping wont hurt that much because at 200 you should be able to do both of those if you are going to be able,to at all.
I know a former NFL lineman that at 300 ran almost a 4.7. I would imagine him dropping to 250 wouldn’t shave that much time off. I feel like I am rambling and making no sense. Basically you either have it and you don’t. Someone who played a skill position will always be pretty fast. A lineman will never be that fast. Basically[/quote]
Just like saying that speed is largely predetermined, I also believe that the ability to carry size is as well. In your example the 300lb lineman probably would not gain much speed dropping to 250, although I am not totally sure about that but I can agree with the premise. In that same vein, a 190lb CB is probably not going to run a 4.3 if he becomes a 235lb CB. His body is just not meant to carry that much weight efficiently. I used the example earlier, but do you think that Usain Bolt would be as fast if he gained 30-40lbs of LBM??
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Isn’t there an article on elite fts about knowing when you are huge. If I remember correctly it was funny
Also to those that think you can’t get damn big and be athletic, powerful ect. Strongman competitors I think are the poster boys (giants) for that. They are jacked. Strong, powerful, have endurance, flexibility pretty damn well rounded I would say. [/quote]
abso-fucking-lutely[/quote]
I guess this comes down to ‘athletic’ being subjective, but you absolutely lose athleticism gaining size. You can still be a beast at large sizes, but there’s a reason that a DB who runs a 4.6 is slow and an interior lineman who runs sub 5 is ‘a great athlete at the position.’ I respect the shit out of the power some big guys can generate, and they can still have solid->great conditioning, but as a former ‘skill’ guy I’m clearly biased on my interpretation of the word.[/quote]
I can almost guarantee you those big buys at a lighter weight still wouldn’t be running a 4.6 or below. They just aren’t built for it. People have to remeber that. Oh I am staying smaller so I can run a sub 4.6 and dunk when they are barely breaking 4.7 and barely nick the rim at 200 (just an example) them putting on some weight then training there won’t hurt that much and dropping wont hurt that much because at 200 you should be able to do both of those if you are going to be able,to at all.
I know a former NFL lineman that at 300 ran almost a 4.7. I would imagine him dropping to 250 wouldn’t shave that much time off. I feel like I am rambling and making no sense. Basically you either have it and you don’t. Someone who played a skill position will always be pretty fast. A lineman will never be that fast. Basically[/quote]
Just like saying that speed is largely predetermined, I also believe that the ability to carry size is as well. In your example the 300lb lineman probably would not gain much speed dropping to 250, although I am not totally sure about that but I can agree with the premise. In that same vein, a 190lb CB is probably not going to run a 4.3 if he becomes a 235lb CB. His body is just not meant to carry that much weight efficiently. I used the example earlier, but do you think that Usain Bolt would be as fast if he gained 30-40lbs of LBM??[/quote]
I have no idea. No one will know until they try
[/quote]
I like to think that it’s a combination of:
genetics (insertions, levers, physiology and such)
skill/talent (mastering the bio mechanics involved in running efficiently at such high speeds)
Physics (how heavy are you, how much force can your muscle produce, aerodynamics, friction etc).
Bolt seems to have a stellar combination of ALL 3 of the above imo. So adding weight could possibly maximize force, but also the mass that the force is being applied to. He seems to be balanced. I think the same would apply for most sports. Masters of their craft seem to have adapted to the position that they are genetically pre-disposed to play (lol now i think i’m the one who’s rambling).
I have no idea. No one will know until they try
[/quote]
I like to think that it’s a combination of:
genetics (insertions, levers, physiology and such)
skill/talent (mastering the bio mechanics involved in running efficiently at such high speeds)
Physics (how heavy are you, how much force can your muscle produce, aerodynamics, friction etc).
Bolt seems to have a stellar combination of ALL 3 of the above imo. So adding weight could possibly maximize force, but also the mass that the force is being applied to. He seems to be balanced. I think the same would apply for most sports. Masters of their craft seem to have adapted to the position that they are genetically pre-disposed to play (lol now i think i’m the one who’s rambling). [/quote]
If I understand correctly, I think this along the lines of what I believe. There is a definite balance based off of each persons skeletal and muscular structure that when reached, certain physical attributes are maximized. Now changing that structure could maximize other attributes but you will be at a sub maximal levels for others.
I have no idea. No one will know until they try
[/quote]
I like to think that it’s a combination of:
genetics (insertions, levers, physiology and such)
skill/talent (mastering the bio mechanics involved in running efficiently at such high speeds)
Physics (how heavy are you, how much force can your muscle produce, aerodynamics, friction etc).
Bolt seems to have a stellar combination of ALL 3 of the above imo. So adding weight could possibly maximize force, but also the mass that the force is being applied to. He seems to be balanced. I think the same would apply for most sports. Masters of their craft seem to have adapted to the position that they are genetically pre-disposed to play (lol now i think i’m the one who’s rambling). [/quote]
If I understand correctly, I think this along the lines of what I believe. There is a definite balance based off of each persons skeletal and muscular structure that when reached, certain physical attributes are maximized. Now changing that structure could maximize other attributes but you will be at a sub maximal levels for others.[/quote]
I don’t think Bolt is a good example because he is a freak.
He has a 200-400m build but dominates at the 100 (the 2 as well but I digress)
Most sprinters are quite muscular and take advantage of maximizing force scenario but Bolt doesn’t quite fit into that mold because of his height/stride.
He most definitely would not be faster of he gained 40 pounds.
Not a chance.
I have no idea. No one will know until they try
[/quote]
I like to think that it’s a combination of:
genetics (insertions, levers, physiology and such)
skill/talent (mastering the bio mechanics involved in running efficiently at such high speeds)
Physics (how heavy are you, how much force can your muscle produce, aerodynamics, friction etc).
Bolt seems to have a stellar combination of ALL 3 of the above imo. So adding weight could possibly maximize force, but also the mass that the force is being applied to. He seems to be balanced. I think the same would apply for most sports. Masters of their craft seem to have adapted to the position that they are genetically pre-disposed to play (lol now i think i’m the one who’s rambling). [/quote]
If I understand correctly, I think this along the lines of what I believe. There is a definite balance based off of each persons skeletal and muscular structure that when reached, certain physical attributes are maximized. Now changing that structure could maximize other attributes but you will be at a sub maximal levels for others.[/quote]
Well put. I also think it works the other way though. A persons muscular structure will adapt to optimally benefit what it is they want to do. I believe that the reason a sprinter doesn’t have fat on his body is not because he was a naturally born sprinter, but because it doesn’t help them sprint. Hence why athletes will chase performance and aesthetics are often a bonus.
I have no idea. No one will know until they try
[/quote]
I like to think that it’s a combination of:
genetics (insertions, levers, physiology and such)
skill/talent (mastering the bio mechanics involved in running efficiently at such high speeds)
Physics (how heavy are you, how much force can your muscle produce, aerodynamics, friction etc).
Bolt seems to have a stellar combination of ALL 3 of the above imo. So adding weight could possibly maximize force, but also the mass that the force is being applied to. He seems to be balanced. I think the same would apply for most sports. Masters of their craft seem to have adapted to the position that they are genetically pre-disposed to play (lol now i think i’m the one who’s rambling). [/quote]
If I understand correctly, I think this along the lines of what I believe. There is a definite balance based off of each persons skeletal and muscular structure that when reached, certain physical attributes are maximized. Now changing that structure could maximize other attributes but you will be at a sub maximal levels for others.[/quote]
I don’t think Bolt is a good example because he is a freak.
He has a 200-400m build but dominates at the 100 (the 2 as well but I digress)
Most sprinters are quite muscular and take advantage of maximizing force scenario but Bolt doesn’t quite fit into that mold because of his height/stride.
He most definitely would not be faster of he gained 40 pounds.
Not a chance.[/quote]
Precisely. The points of diminishing returns can be reached at both ends. In some cases, gaining some size and strength cand and WILL help propel athleticism. But there is a definite limit to the gaining being beneficial. Same is true in reverse. Everyone has an optimal performance. That weight will vary based on what you’re trying to perform.
What’s too big? Marcus Ruhhhhlllllll!!!
That dude would walk on stage, and ill get this strange look on my face–
Kinda like when dogs try to understand english.
He was an incredibly massive man.
When my legs get too big that I can’t go balls deep. Since legs are my “difficult” muscles to grow, that’s my guideline. I don’t see that ever happening, so I don’t foresee an issue.
[quote]SavagedNatiion wrote:
What’s too big? Marcus Ruhhhhlllllll!!!
That dude would walk on stage, and ill get this strange look on my face–
Kinda like when dogs try to understand english.
He was an incredibly massive man.[/quote]
So true he is an absolute behemoth as is Dennis Wolf. Both from Germany. Makes me wonder what Hitler had his scientists put in the water years ago.
I can’t post pictures while at work… bodybuilding websites (except strangely this and bb) are listed as “personal/relationship/mature.” I guess its the half naked, well oiled men. No visits from IT yet, heh. Can’t go to google images either, its blocked by default regardless of search method.
But yes, Roman Fritz is a beast. Germany has always been known to be some of the best engineers - maybe their bio-medical ones found something exciting, heh.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Germany has always been known to be some of the best engineers - maybe their bio-medical ones found something exciting, heh.[/quote]
It actually kind of surprises me that there aren’t more huge Russian bodybuilders… considering what the Soviets did with all the other German research.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Germany has always been known to be some of the best engineers - maybe their bio-medical ones found something exciting, heh.[/quote]
It actually kind of surprises me that there aren’t more huge Russian bodybuilders… considering what the Soviets did with all the other German research.[/quote]
