[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
Once again, I apologise for all of my shortcomings. Thank you for setting me straight. I will no longer bother anyone here with my presence. All the best.[/quote]
^^what happened to this??
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
Once again, I apologise for all of my shortcomings. Thank you for setting me straight. I will no longer bother anyone here with my presence. All the best.[/quote]
Once he became a grammar Nazi in the other thread and started quoting his academic achievements, I new all was lost for him. It’s like that Bruce Lee guy all over again.
[quote]HiFiBoy wrote:
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
Once again, I apologise for all of my shortcomings. Thank you for setting me straight. I will no longer bother anyone here with my presence. All the best.[/quote]
Once he became a grammar Nazi in the other thread and started quoting his academic achievements, I new all was lost for him.[/quote]
LMAO,
oh man my sides!
[quote]Legal Lifter wrote:
Sarcoplasm is part of the muscle fiber. It is the fluid surrounding myofibrils, containing glycogen stores and mitochondria to provide ATP. Myofibrils are the cylinder-shaped filaments that contract to create movement. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which supposedly doesn’t exist, is an increase in the volume of sarcoplasm, adding primarily size and some strength to the muscle. Myofibrillar hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an increase in the number of myofibrils, adding primarily strength and some size to the muscle. Although either form of hypertrophy rarely occurs without the other, the growth can be in favor of one or the other.
[/quote]
Yes, I know that. But there is no such thing as “sarcoplasmic MUSCLE”. The lolz in my original post were directed at the more intelligent of the two options (ie: I hoped he had made a simple typo). The clear implication of that was, as much as he might try to deny it, that bodybuilders were just bags of sarcoplasm with no percieved “real” strength or “real” muscle fiber hypertrophy.
Obviously when he then said “i never referenced sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” I knew hope was lost.
type 1 if you masturbate to the UFC weigh-ins!!!
[quote]adarqui wrote:
type 1 if you masturbate to the UFC weigh-ins!!!
2.[/quote]
haha you typed it you fool
what a crap of thread
[quote]yoitspmart wrote:
im not talking abotu the chubby heavyweights im talking about gsp urijah faber matt hughes type of fighter, And what do they do differently because they have to cut weight as well to make weight but yet they fight and not just get tired after posing like bodybuilding?[/quote]
BB’s get leaner
Cut for the beach and cut for the stage are two different things. I set of abs is not stage cut. Matt hughs would look smooth up onstage. Seriously, you have no clue to what you are talking about.
[quote]HiFiBoy wrote:
Once he became a grammar Nazi in the other thread and started quoting his academic achievements, I new all was lost for him. It’s like that Bruce Lee guy all over again.[/quote]
It’s “knew”, not “new” you ignoramus! I have a degree from Yale, goddamnit!
Maybe because Ronnie Coleman weighed around 300 pounds on stage and Urijah Faber fights at 135 or 145 you fucking retard.
oh no, here we go again.
How many times do i have to tell that Sergio Oliva and Ronnie would curl MMA fighters and crush them?