[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Al Shades, could you please post more about how you think you’re immortal? It’s a shame that giant thread was deleted - it was pretty fun to read.
I wish I took up that offer to train with you when I had the chance.[/quote]
I’m not immortal, but I believe that nanochemistry will soon develop the capacity to eliminate aging and disease. I’m a supporter of progressive medicine, life extension, biological self-determination, and transhumanist theories.
I think the goal of drastic human life extension will be realized before long. However, it will be preceded by a great cataclysm of human origins which is going to wipe out the majority of earth’s population, starting with the third world. This is likely to be accomplished by mass sterilization, techniques for which have already been developed. The problem of overpopulation must be surmounted before significant life extension means become viable for all of mankind.
This period of strife will be marked by the final clash between the Aryan and Semitic races, whereby one shall prevail and exterminate the other.
I predict that the 21st century will belong to Russia as the 20th belonged to America. Within that nation lies the last, best hope for Aryan civilization to triumph over International Zionism and Satanism.
The “immortality” debacle was intended as a thought experiment related to empiricism and nominalism.
It’s a take-off of the “brain in a vat” scenario.
Essentially, I contend that there can be no true “knowledge” outside of empirical awareness. Nothing can be known for certain other than of which one is immediately aware.
Therefore, mortality can be assumed, but cannot be known. Every single person can be thought of as immortal until they die. There is no guarantee that anyone who is alive today will die. There is no guarantee that anyone will continue to live. There are absolutely no guarantees about any single thing in existence. That is the essence of empirical nominalism, to which I subscribe.
Reality operates on a set of probability axioms.
Discoveries made in high level physics have since confirmed such metaphysical theories.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
However, it will be preceded by a great cataclysm of human origins which is going to wipe out the majority of earth’s population, starting with the third world. This is likely to be accomplished by mass sterilization, techniques for which have already been developed. The problem of overpopulation must be surmounted before significant life extension means become viable for all of mankind.
This period of strife will be marked by the final clash between the Aryan and Semitic races, whereby one shall prevail and exterminate the other.
I predict that the 21st century will belong to Russia as the 20th belonged to America. Within that nation lies the last, best hope for Aryan civilization to triumph over International Zionism and Satanism.
[/quote]
Please start a thread in the Politics and World Issues forum about this in more detail.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
And for any one out there who had a grandfather or distant relative in the Nazi movement or any other movement based on hatred, I don�??t care what your heritage is. If your grandpa was a pedophile would you look at kiddy porn and molest kids? It�??s a weak argument for what you are doing yourself.
[/quote]
I did not have a grandfather who supported such a movement.
But I intend to become a grandfather who supports such a movement.
That way, my grandchildren will be able to say about me, what I couldn’t say about my own grandfather (whom I never knew).
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Please start a thread in the Politics and World Issues forum about this in more detail.
[/quote]
They wouldn’t like me rocking the boat any more than I do already. Perhaps you should start the thread. If you do, I’ll join in. Rest assured, I would never report you or anyone else to the mods for anything because I think that civic forums should be self-regulated.
Blake, you are woefully misinformed about the nature and purpose of national socialism as it existed in Germany more than half a century ago.
First and foremost, you must understand that it was a wholly life-affirming philosophy.
I don’t completely agree with what Lorisco said either. Yeah, recovery is what builds muscle, but your body must first have a damn good reason to rebuild your muscles bigger and stronger. And it’s usually not going to do that unless you put your muscles through a very intense workout, which will most likely break down your muscles, causing soreness.
Intense in relation to your previous workout, yes, but not intense to the point of DOMS every workout. If so, you are limiting the force production you will be able to apply to the load the next workout and thus limiting your ability to progress.
“Delayed-onset muscular soreness (DOMS), the sensation of pain and stiffness in the muscles that occurs from 1 to 5 d following unaccustomed exercise, can adversely affect muscular performance, both from voluntary reduction of effort and from inherent loss of capacity of the muscles to produce force. This reduction in performance is temporary; permanent impairment does not occur.” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1984 Dec;16(6):529-38.
[/quote]
The best “cure” for DOMs is to train right through it. DOMs has never stopped me from working out and it shouldn’t stop anyone else, either. Certainly not on an isolation routine. If you were doing squats 3-4 times a week, different story. But that’s why you don’t do squats 3-4 times a week.
You realize that with a well designed isolation split, you will NOT be hitting the same muscle group twice in one week?
That is why everything hinges on isolation exercises. You can’t do this shit with compounds. I’m surprised that people are still trying.
Also: Mobility drills are the most powerful weapon in your arsenal for coping with DOMs. Get the new blood in, get the waste products out. Soreness goes away. I have walked into the gym feeling like a cripple and felt like a new man after a 45 minute, full body mobility warmup.
Read the statement carefully, youngblood!
I am not referring to satellite cells and all that shit, the mechanism of what ACTUALLY happens or HOW. I am talking about what CAUSES it.
The Henneman’s size principle and motor unit recruitment theories are being tossed out, yes!
We know how to recruit the motor units and in what order. W eknow we have to fatigue the MUs. We also have the general idea what happens when hypertrophy occurs biochemically.
Somewhere in between is the answer. Where frequency of loading, muscle TUT, volume per session, recovery, hormones and nutrition…all THESE dictate hypertrophy beyond motor unit recruitment.
I;m not sure if youre clear about what I;m talking about, but I;ll say this. its NOT as cut and dry as you assume it is…if it was ONLY about HTMU recruitment and fatigue, we would have mass monsters walking around with neurobiology degrees and little to no assistance.
All we really have is a giant set of anecdotal evidence on the general protocols (nutritional, “supplements”, training) that worked for a variety of people. Thats why its important to keep your eyes open…and when theyre open you see that strength GAINS with (sufficient lifting volume) are highly correlated with LBM gains when there is an increase in scale weight. Will that work for you, not guaranteed…but its worth a shot.
[quote]Varanid wrote:
UkpairehMombooto wrote:
I’d go so far as to say as no one really knows EXACTLY WHAT causes muscular hypertrophy.
No offense UkpaireMombooto, but I wouldn’t go that far.[/quote]
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I could not disagree with this more. If you want to develop balance and coordination, nothing will get you there faster than doing bodyweight exercises.
[/quote]
I don’t know about that. I’m not saying that bodyweight exercises don’t build balance and coordination, but unless you’re talking about high level gymnastics exercises I don’t see how bodyweight exercises would be superior to weighted exercises.
For instance, it takes a tremendous amount of strength, balance, coordination, flexibility to be able to rip a super heavy barbell off the ground, pull yourself underneath it and catch it at full arms extension overhead and then stand up with it still over head (BB snatch).
Also, I’m not suggesting that doing maximal lifts in and of itself is the best method to develop optimal levels of balance and coordination, just that the strength gained from those lifts will aid in one’s pursuit of balance and coordination.
Yes, training with high reps is a good method for developing muscular endurance, but once again, improving your maximal strength will improve your muscles ability to lift a submaximal weight for more repetitions.
A few years ago I got really into grip strength training. I got introduced to the COC grippers by my marital arts instructor (who has the freakiest hand strength I’ve ever seen). He has everything from the trainer to the #4 (and can close everything but the #4 easily).
When I first started training with them I was unable to close the #1, but able to close the trainer about 6 times with my right hand and 5 with my left. I practiced with the trainer and eventually got up to the point of being able to close it 12 times with my right hand and 10 times with my left, but I was still a ways away from being able to close the #1 with either hand.
So, I decided to try a different approach and started training with the #1. I did forced reps, negatives, maximal attempts, partials etc… but what I credit with finally allowing me to close the #1 was performing maximal close attempts multiple times a day 5-6 days a week. Eventually I was able to close the #1 consistently with either hand.
Just for kicks I then picked up the trainer and decided to max out on it. Low and behold I got 26 reps with my right hand and 25 reps with my left. In other words my strength endurance had increased dramatically (doubled) without doing any high rep sets.
What I’m saying is that if your max on bench is 50 lbs, then you’re probably only going to be able to lift 40 lbs a few times. But, if your max on bench is 400 lbs, then you’re probably going to be able to lift 40 lbs a whole bunch of times. Therefore, increased maximal strength will improve strength endurance.
I was never arguing otherwise. Still though, if the load is relatively light in comparison to your maximal strength it will place less stress on the heart as well.
Once again, using explosive movements is how you specifically train for speed, but to suggest that maximal strength doesn’t improve speed is ignoring literally decades of research and results in the athletic arena.
Strict isolation exercises on machines would work for active flexibility, not arguing against that. But are you suggesting that increasing maximal strength in the necessary muscles won’t help improve active flexibility? Because that’s all I was trying to point out.
I agree with support gear (though many manual laborers use back braces, which are similar to lifting belts), but to suggest that adding hundreds of pounds makes something less function is still baffling to me. Maybe you’ve never worked an intense physical job before, so you just don’t have any experience with it. But being able to lift hundreds of lbs is very beneficial for people who actually have to lift heavy things repeatedly throughout their day.
Those are some weak movers then. No offense, but it’s true. There are some movers at my gym as well and I’ve seen them deadlift 400+ as well as bench 300+ on occasion, and these aren’t max lifts (though I have seen them max out before on a couple lifts).
I wouldn’t consider myself even close to powerlifter status and I routinely lift more than those numbers (I am also a carpenter and can tell you from personal experience that I have to lift heavy things quite often and move them). 250 on a deadlift is pretty damn weak, even in the 12 rep range.
Once again, spoken like someone who has never worked a physically intensive job.
What? Since when were we talking about what other people think as having any bearing on “functionality”? I don’t really care what other people think of what I lift, but that doesn’t make a shred of difference about the fact that my ability to deadlift 400+lbs has strengthened my posterior chain to allow me to safely lift and move heavy objects on a daily basis.
As far as powerlifting form, I’m not exactly sure what you mean. I’d actually say that people would be more likely to utilize powerlifting form than bodybuilding form in the real world, since generally powerlifting form is about maximizing leverages. If I had to lift something really heavy off my chest, then I’m going to do it in the way which allows me to lift if, which will most likely more closely resemble the tucked elbow powerlifting form of benching than the “iron cross” elbows flared bodybuilding form of benching.
Good to hear.
There you go, that little change makes the statement much more agreeable. I still don’t like absolutes, but that statement is much better than the first one.
Ok, but are you suggesting that load/weight has nothing to do with the intensity of muscular contraction? That’s what I was trying to get across with what I was saying. You said that you muscles don’t understand weight, sets, and repetitions, only TUT. My point was that weight, sets and repetitions are all inter-related to TUT, so your muscles actually do understand them.
You seem to be mixing up “constant tension” with “time under tension”, they are not the same thing. Time Under Tension (TUT) simply refers to the amount of time that your muscles are under tension. It doesn’t matter whether or not the tension is released or not, only the duration (and generally only the total TUT is what is looked at). So a marathon runner has a huge total TUT, while a sprinter has a much lower total TUT, but since the sprinters muscles must produce more force (higher loads) their legs wind up being much bigger.
Constant tension is as you say keeping a constant, unending tension on the muscles.
So, by your definition if I picked up a pink dumbbell and busted out 60 reps in minute, that would be more “intense” than if someone gutted out a maximal lift? I’ve heard people talk like that in the past (Power Factor training anyone? ), but it’s neither the commonly accepted definition of intensity (% of 1RM), nor even the less commonly accepted but still valid definition (HIT definition).
Skeletal structure and not the muscular structure? I’ve gotta say that that I really disagree with your hypothesis then. Yeah, the joints and tendons do certainly get stressed during maximal lifting, but to suggest that the muscles don’t as well (since bone cannot move itself) is just, well…wrong.
I do agree though that doing enough volume is important.
As for guys with big skeletons veering towards powerlifting, it’s generally because they have the best potential for both mass and leverages, thus making them naturally stronger/better suited to maximal strength activities (i.e. powerlifting).
And I’d agree that increased leverage improves strength. But to suggest that you aren’t going to gain muscle if you are constantly overloading your muscles with weight once again ignores a whole crap load of empirical evidence.
Also, fat cannot contract. So while it can help to increase leverage, gaining a whole crap load of fat without also gaining muscle along with it isn’t going to allow you to continually lift heavier weights. Otherwise those people who are so fat that they literally can’t get out of bed would be unbelievably strong. Yet in reality they usually don’t even have the strength to lift themselves out of bed.
Also, the increased leverages allow the muscles to be exposed to greater forces, thus allowing them to be overloaded even more. Hence the reason why BB’ers “bulk up” in the off season.
That is a huge over generalization. And very few (if any) people have ever gotten the amount of muscle mass that the high level bodybuilders have by avoiding compounds.
Wow. Dude, that is such a ridiculous statement.
First, yeah, they were gifted, just like every other professional bodybuilder. If you think that anyone is going to make it to that level without being genetically gifted, regardless of training program, then you’re living in a fantasy world.
Second, ever see pictures of Ronnie when he started out? Or Justin Harris? Or Kevin Levrone (heck just look at him now)? Not particularly big guys to begin with. Heavy lifting absolutely does make people big (combined with good nutrition and rest of course).
Support gear, if used for the purpose of overloading the muscles can be beneficial IMO (such as straps), as well as if it’s used for safety (knee/elbow wraps and lifting belt for example). I do agree that things like bench shirts, or squat suits aren’t all that beneficial if muscle mass is your primary goal though.
Momentum can be beneficial if you use it properly to overload a muscle, but I do agree that making the muscle do the work is important.
I also haven’t argued that soreness is a good indicator of whether or not you’ve damaged the muscle. But I think that other criterion, such as load progression (using good/the same form), or volume progression, are also good. I do agree also that all that really matters in the end is whether or not you are building muscle. If you are, then what you are doing is working. If not, then you need to adjust things until it starts working.
Or, more muscular perhaps?
I’m not arguing against training to failure by any means. So I agree with you there.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Intense in relation to your previous workout, yes, but not intense to the point of DOMS every workout. If so, you are limiting the force production you will be able to apply to the load the next workout and thus limiting your ability to progress.
[/quote]
If you were doing a total body program then I could see where this might be a problem. But if you’re doing a split (especially a body part split), then I don’t really see DOMS as being counterproductive. If your arms are still so sore 7 days after you train them that it negatively affects your performance, then either your nutrition sucks or you are really, really overdoing it.
YOure deeply misguided.LEt me sum up what you should know by this point. Cliffs notes for the dummies.
Heavy lifting with hypercaloric intake causes fat hypertrophy but NO muscular hypertrophy whatsoever. MAke no mistake about it.
Powerlifters gain NO muscle through their low rep protocols, they already had the muscle and merely tRAINEd them in the basic lifts.
Compound lifts magically deflect the load away from the muscles and move them DIRECTLY to the skeletal structure.
Intensity is ALL about the time the muscles are under tension, the intensity of muscular contraction (magnitude of muscular tension) has NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.
If anyone claims to have gained muscle through heavy lifting, he either already HAD the muscle, OR he doesn;t really have any muscle but has powerfully hypertrophied fat cells and a magical skeleton with hydraulic nuclear-powered tendons that can lift massive weights with NO muscular involvement whatsoever.
At least one of the posters on this thread is immortal unless proven otherwise.
PM me if you want more information. You clearly have NO idea on how to build muscle.
I have grown approximately 12 kg of lean mass (fluids included, of course) since I started lifting. I very rarely get DOMS, and that’s usually when I start doing something new after a break (front squat instead of back squat, power cleans instead of rows). Make your own judgment.
The best “cure” for DOMs is to train right through it. DOMs has never stopped me from working out and it shouldn’t stop anyone else, either. Certainly not on an isolation routine. If you were doing squats 3-4 times a week, different story. But that’s why you don’t do squats 3-4 times a week.
You realize that with a well designed isolation split, you will NOT be hitting the same muscle group twice in one week?
That is why everything hinges on isolation exercises. You can’t do this shit with compounds. I’m surprised that people are still trying.
[/quote]
You do not appear to understanding the issue. The feeling of being sore is not the issue. So “training through soreness” is irrelevant. The issue is that the next time you work that muscle group you will not be able to apply as much or more force to the load than you previously did because the muscle damage was too severe to recover before working it again. And if you can’t apply as much or more force to your workout as before you will not be able to progress as quickly. So unless you are working a muscle group only every two weeks it’s not a god idea to train to always be sore if you want to make constant and rapid progress.
If you are referring to active or ballistic stretching, then I agree with that. However, if you are talking about static stretching then you are again incorrect. Static stretching causing a localized relaxation in the muscle being stretch and has been shown to decrease muscle force production for up to 20 minutes after stretching.
So static stretching before lifting just reducing the amount of force you can produce and thus reducing the load you can lift.
So ballistic stretching before the workout to open up the range of motion and static stretching AFTER the workout to relax the muscle and aid recovery.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Intense in relation to your previous workout, yes, but not intense to the point of DOMS every workout. If so, you are limiting the force production you will be able to apply to the load the next workout and thus limiting your ability to progress.
If you were doing a total body program then I could see where this might be a problem. But if you’re doing a split (especially a body part split), then I don’t really see DOMS as being counterproductive. If your arms are still so sore 7 days after you train them that it negatively affects your performance, then either your nutrition sucks or you are really, really overdoing it.
[/quote]
The issue is that it has been shown that force production is reduced for up to 10 days after DOMS. Meaning that even after the sore feeling is gone your muscles still cannot produce the same level of force again for almost two weeks. So unless you are using a split that allows you to work the same muscle only every two weeks, it is likely that you are limiting your progress.
Personally, I find that two different approaching work in this regard. Either training extremely hard and then rotate in less intense workouts to help the recovery (cycle), or train at a level that is just a little more intense (more weight or volume) than the previous workout and progress consistently. Either method works. But training balls to the wall constantly will just mean you will stop progressing quickly and will not be able to gain over the long haul.
[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:
YOure deeply misguided.LEt me sum up what you should know by this point. Cliffs notes for the dummies.
Heavy lifting with hypercaloric intake causes fat hypertrophy but NO muscular hypertrophy whatsoever. MAke no mistake about it.
Powerlifters gain NO muscle through their low rep protocols, they already had the muscle and merely tRAINEd them in the basic lifts.
Compound lifts magically deflect the load away from the muscles and move them DIRECTLY to the skeletal structure.
Intensity is ALL about the time the muscles are under tension, the intensity of muscular contraction (magnitude of muscular tension) has NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.
If anyone claims to have gained muscle through heavy lifting, he either already HAD the muscle, OR he doesn;t really have any muscle but has powerfully hypertrophied fat cells and a magical skeleton with hydraulic nuclear-powered tendons that can lift massive weights with NO muscular involvement whatsoever.
At least one of the posters on this thread is immortal unless proven otherwise.
PM me if you want more information. You clearly have NO idea on how to build muscle.
[/quote]
Slaps forehead in eureka moment
Damn! Thanks for clearing that up UK. I don’t know how I could have been so misguided.
[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:
YOure deeply misguided.LEt me sum up what you should know by this point. Cliffs notes for the dummies.
Heavy lifting with hypercaloric intake causes fat hypertrophy but NO muscular hypertrophy whatsoever. MAke no mistake about it.
Powerlifters gain NO muscle through their low rep protocols, they already had the muscle and merely tRAINEd them in the basic lifts.
Compound lifts magically deflect the load away from the muscles and move them DIRECTLY to the skeletal structure.
Intensity is ALL about the time the muscles are under tension, the intensity of muscular contraction (magnitude of muscular tension) has NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.
If anyone claims to have gained muscle through heavy lifting, he either already HAD the muscle, OR he doesn;t really have any muscle but has powerfully hypertrophied fat cells and a magical skeleton with hydraulic nuclear-powered tendons that can lift massive weights with NO muscular involvement whatsoever.
At least one of the posters on this thread is immortal unless proven otherwise.
PM me if you want more information. You clearly have NO idea on how to build muscle.
Sentoguy wrote:
[\quote]
[/quote]
Dude, you are so far out there I don’t know where to start. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain the fundamentals of muscle physiology to you and I don’t think sentoguy will either.
Come back after you have graduated from college and we’ll talk.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
UkpairehMombooto wrote:
YOure deeply misguided.LEt me sum up what you should know by this point. Cliffs notes for the dummies.
Heavy lifting with hypercaloric intake causes fat hypertrophy but NO muscular hypertrophy whatsoever. MAke no mistake about it.
Powerlifters gain NO muscle through their low rep protocols, they already had the muscle and merely tRAINEd them in the basic lifts.
Compound lifts magically deflect the load away from the muscles and move them DIRECTLY to the skeletal structure.
Intensity is ALL about the time the muscles are under tension, the intensity of muscular contraction (magnitude of muscular tension) has NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.
If anyone claims to have gained muscle through heavy lifting, he either already HAD the muscle, OR he doesn;t really have any muscle but has powerfully hypertrophied fat cells and a magical skeleton with hydraulic nuclear-powered tendons that can lift massive weights with NO muscular involvement whatsoever.
At least one of the posters on this thread is immortal unless proven otherwise.
PM me if you want more information. You clearly have NO idea on how to build muscle.
Sentoguy wrote:
[\quote]
Dude, you are so far out there I don’t know where to start. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain the fundamentals of muscle physiology to you and I don’t think sentoguy will either.
Come back after you have graduated from college and we’ll talk.
[/quote]
Apparently they didn’t teach you sarcasm in college.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The issue is that it has been shown that force production is reduced for up to 10 days after DOMS. Meaning that even after the sore feeling is gone your muscles still cannot produce the same level of force again for almost two weeks. So unless you are using a split that allows you to work the same muscle only every two weeks, it is likely that you are limiting your progress.
[/quote]
Shown where though, in laboratories? In the real world countless people get DOMS and still progress the next time that muscle comes around. I know I do.
Yes, both of those approaches would work. The thing with the second approach is, if you are already training very intensely and creating DOMS. Then adding weight or slightly more volume the next time around is still likely going to cause DOMS. So, the DOMS doesn’t seem to negatively affect progress. There are quite a few very successful programs which revolve around this approach, and yes they cause DOMS.
I was ready to fire up a big post to refute all of the ridiculous things this guy was saying, starting with this gem. Then I read the rest of the thread. Yikes.
Sentoguy and U. Mombooto, as 2 guys on here who actually know what they’re talking about - why are you even bothering to argue with this lunatic?
), but it’s neither the commonly accepted definition of intensity (% of 1RM), nor even the less commonly accepted but still valid definition (HIT definition).