[quote]RomanianRock wrote:
YES a relatively smaller powerlifter would get pretty big faster than most doing hypertrophy training imo[/quote]
That what I think too. Lets say a dude is squat 495. Good chance after 3 month of BB style he could reps 405 easy, thus working in a hypertrophy rep range with a heavy ass weigth= big fukin muscle…[/quote]
? It isn’t that simple. The guys with the best genetics are the ones who are HUGE as powerlifters…not the ones who stay small with huge weights.[/quote]
i may be mis reading what your saying, but are you saying that just because a powerlifter is small he has shit genetics for bodybuilding? if so how did you come to that conclusion?
despite your continuous immature jabs at me can we have a an actual discussion about this.
op are aussie? the 2 powerlifter you posted are martin and fuzzy. martin is the best teen powerlifter in the 66 or 74kg weight class in austalia. fuzzy is a beast and i think was pulling like 700lb as a teen. lol just weired that there the 2 you happend to post.
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
It’s all about rep ranges, sets under 5 make you strong but build no muscle. Sets of 8–12 get you huge and sort of strong. Sets of 15–20 works your endurance fibers, everyone knows this[/quote]
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
Big weights, don’t build mass
Big reps, don’t build mass
Big weights x big reps, builds mass
So a powerlifter, becoming a BB should have some advantage [/quote]
I’m somewhat on the fence about this. I think there are cases where really high rep combined o with low weights and low rest periods can cause growth. I’m not talking about just “pump” either. Could be that this relates to the smaller muscle groups like Bi’s ,tri’s and delts … Many have benefited from Poundstone curls…
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
^ I assumed he was joking…? Or maybe that’s too much benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
Well, let’s be honest here. When an OP is starting out with gems such as:
[quote]GTFOmyPowerRack wrote:
Cause lets say they benchpress 305x8 and the other dude bench 225x8, the stress on their chest would feel the same? dont know if you understand what I mean. Would the first guy will just only need more weigth too grow than the other guy?
[/quote]
can you really blame anyone from thinking that he might just not be a Rhodes Scholar? The man is basically asking if a stronger person (size being equal) will see greater hypertrophy gains. Call me crazy, but if someone who thinks that warrants a post in a bodybuilding forum, well, he probably doesn’t have Mensa knocking down his door with a membership application.
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
Big weights, don’t build mass
Big reps, don’t build mass
Big weights x big reps, builds mass
So a powerlifter, becoming a BB should have some advantage [/quote]
I agree with this to some extent, did you ever see the vid of Tom Platz squatting 500lb for 23 reps? That man had legs
With regard to the OP yes I think in general, any under developed powerlifter would benefit from more traditional bb type training just from the drastic change in stimulus and added TUT if nothing else
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
^ I assumed he was joking…? Or maybe that’s too much benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
Well, let’s be honest here. When an OP is starting out with gems such as:
[quote]GTFOmyPowerRack wrote:
Cause lets say they benchpress 305x8 and the other dude bench 225x8, the stress on their chest would feel the same? dont know if you understand what I mean. Would the first guy will just only need more weigth too grow than the other guy?
[/quote]
can you really blame anyone from thinking that he might just not be a Rhodes Scholar? The man is basically asking if a stronger person (size being equal) will see greater hypertrophy gains. Call me crazy, but if someone who thinks that warrants a post in a bodybuilding forum, well, he probably doesn’t have Mensa knocking down his door with a membership application.[/quote]
So you write all this shit for what? You could of just say than Im stupid, stop beating around the bush like a women… ohyeah , forgot that you would be actually one without your weekly boost.
Anyway I dont see why I could not ask such a question in a bodybuilding forum. And someguy have a different opinion than you on the subject.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
^ I assumed he was joking…? Or maybe that’s too much benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
Well, let’s be honest here. When an OP is starting out with gems such as:
[quote]GTFOmyPowerRack wrote:
Cause lets say they benchpress 305x8 and the other dude bench 225x8, the stress on their chest would feel the same? dont know if you understand what I mean. Would the first guy will just only need more weigth too grow than the other guy?
[/quote]
can you really blame anyone from thinking that he might just not be a Rhodes Scholar? The man is basically asking if a stronger person (size being equal) will see greater hypertrophy gains. Call me crazy, but if someone who thinks that warrants a post in a bodybuilding forum, well, he probably doesn’t have Mensa knocking down his door with a membership application.[/quote]
So you write all this shit for what? You could of just say than Im stupid, stop beating around the bush like a women… ohyeah , forgot that you would be actually one without your weekly boost.
[/quote]
If you thought that was beating around the bush, you may be worse than I thought.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
^ I assumed he was joking…? Or maybe that’s too much benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
Well, let’s be honest here. When an OP is starting out with gems such as:
[quote]GTFOmyPowerRack wrote:
Cause lets say they benchpress 305x8 and the other dude bench 225x8, the stress on their chest would feel the same? dont know if you understand what I mean. Would the first guy will just only need more weigth too grow than the other guy?
[/quote]
can you really blame anyone from thinking that he might just not be a Rhodes Scholar? The man is basically asking if a stronger person (size being equal) will see greater hypertrophy gains. Call me crazy, but if someone who thinks that warrants a post in a bodybuilding forum, well, he probably doesn’t have Mensa knocking down his door with a membership application.[/quote]
So you write all this shit for what? You could of just say than Im stupid, stop beating around the bush like a women… ohyeah , forgot that you would be actually one without your weekly boost.
[/quote]
If you thought that was beating around the bush, you may be worse than I thought.
You’re stupid.[/quote]
Again, a free statement. If you have nothing constructive to bring to this thread, GTFO. Are your hormone in check? E2 raising too high? cause your acting like a straigth up bitch right now. I would hate to be around you when you don’t didn’t take you little test shot, must be a fucking pain in the ass.
[quote]GTFOmyPowerRack wrote:
Again, a free statement. If you have nothing constructive to bring to this thread, GTFO. Are your hormone in check? E2 raising too high? cause your acting like a straigth up bitch right now. I would hate to be around you when you don’t didn’t take you little test shot, must be a fucking pain in the ass. [/quote]
I’m always amazed at the number of people on this website, with whom I’ve never had any prior interactions, always go out of their way to find everything they can about me. Makes me feel good–kinda like a mini-celebrity!
And you would hate to be around me regardless of my medication status, because if you talked to me like that without the cover of the internet to protect you, you would get punched in the fucking face.
Why would they want to? If they are strong for their body weight. For instance squat 400 at 135. Then when they “explode” to 180 or even just 160 they are not going to be as relatively strong, a little above average. Yes, they will have a better muscular base to total more, but they could have already been doing very well in the 135 weight class.
I see your point, they will be able to work with more weight, but it does not work like that. If anything they are at a disadvantage. Their CNS will be very efficient with those weight so that they would have to use 325 to get myofibril hypertrophy where a new lifter would only have to use 135 to 185. Your body does not understand how much weight is on your back, it just knows that it has to lift this, “HEAVY ASS WEIGHT!” But heavy is of course relative your strength.
As for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, they would have to learn to really feel their muscles, and if they are only 135 then they probably have never focused on feeling the muscle, so they would be on an almost equal playing field with a new lifter.
The main take away is that CNS efficiency is crappy for hypertrophy.
neural efficiency, leverage, ligament nd bone density ect… all play a more important role than muscle size in determining strength.
I find that muscle hypertrophy is a different ball game. It is rare to see combination of both like Franco, JJ, Ronnie and a few other strong bber.
The biggest guys at my gym bench in the range of 225-275 for multiple reps/sets
[quote]Jayk wrote:
Uh, I skipped a lot, but here is my input.
Why would they want to? If they are strong for their body weight. For instance squat 400 at 135. Then when they “explode” to 180 or even just 160 they are not going to be as relatively strong, a little above average. Yes, they will have a better muscular base to total more, but they could have already been doing very well in the 135 weight class.
I see your point, they will be able to work with more weight, but it does not work like that. If anything they are at a disadvantage. Their CNS will be very efficient with those weight so that they would have to use 325 to get myofibril hypertrophy where a new lifter would only have to use 135 to 185. Your body does not understand how much weight is on your back, it just knows that it has to lift this, “HEAVY ASS WEIGHT!” But heavy is of course relative your strength.
As for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, they would have to learn to really feel their muscles, and if they are only 135 then they probably have never focused on feeling the muscle, so they would be on an almost equal playing field with a new lifter.
The main take away is that CNS efficiency is crappy for hypertrophy.[/quote]
This post wins thread. Ya mean someone out there can think analytically and not just throw out anecdotes?
[quote]GTFOmyPowerRack wrote:
Again, a free statement. If you have nothing constructive to bring to this thread, GTFO. Are your hormone in check? E2 raising too high? cause your acting like a straigth up bitch right now. I would hate to be around you when you don’t didn’t take you little test shot, must be a fucking pain in the ass. [/quote]
I’m always amazed at the number of people on this website, with whom I’ve never had any prior interactions, always go out of their way to find everything they can about me. Makes me feel good–kinda like a mini-celebrity!
And you would hate to be around me regardless of my medication status, because if you talked to me like that without the cover of the internet to protect you, you would get punched in the fucking face.[/quote]
Can’t stay mad
Frank yang talked about this recently and believes this is why he’s getting big so fast. Supposebly , the stronger you are , the more efficient your cns is. If u can recruit more muscles it does make sense youd be able to build more.
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
Frank yang talked about this recently and believes this is why he’s getting big so fast. Supposebly , the stronger you are , the more efficient your cns is. If u can recruit more muscles it does make sense youd be able to build more.[/quote]
oh hey look, another anecdote. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that he’s pounding like 6000+ cals/day.
