[quote]irishpowerhouse wrote:
But the only way to build muscle is to break it down by using weights[/quote]
Or puberty, or stretching, or rehydrating/renourishing, or drugs like T3 or, in some cases, GH. One important thing that keeps kind of reverberating around here is that weights don’t build muscle.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
irishpowerhouse wrote:
But the only way to build muscle is to break it down by using weights
Or puberty, or stretching, or rehydrating/renourishing, or drugs like T3 or, in some cases, GH. One important thing that keeps kind of reverberating around here is that weights don’t build muscle.
[/quote]
Good luck building muscle with stretching…or T3 for that matter…or GH without the use of anabolics…and as for the last sentence, what are you talking about?
[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
Good luck building muscle with stretching…or T3 for that matter…or GH without the use of anabolics…and as for the last sentence, what are you talking about?[/quote]
Did you read CW’s article about mechano-growth factor? Stretching has been shown to be equivalent to loading in eliciting a MGF response. In cases of a HGH deficiency, rHGH is far more anabolic than any weight will ever be.
I’ve said this on other threads, weights don’t build muscle, testosterone doesn’t build muscle, muscles grow without weights or testosterone. You can lift weights and have/take testosterone and not grow. Just because you break your muscles down doesn’t mean you’ll grow.
Ribosomes, tRNA, MGF, etc., these build muscle, without them, no muscle. Anything that activates them, weights or no, causes growth.
As for the last sentence, maybe you’ll recognize “You don’t grow in the gym.”
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Mr. Bear wrote:
Good luck building muscle with stretching…or T3 for that matter…or GH without the use of anabolics…and as for the last sentence, what are you talking about?
Did you read CW’s article about mechano-growth factor? Stretching has been shown to be equivalent to loading in eliciting a MGF response. In cases of a HGH deficiency, rHGH is far more anabolic than any weight will ever be.
I’ve said this on other threads, weights don’t build muscle, testosterone doesn’t build muscle, muscles grow without weights or testosterone. You can lift weights and have/take testosterone and not grow. Just because you break your muscles down doesn’t mean you’ll grow.
Ribosomes, tRNA, MGF, etc., these build muscle, without them, no muscle. Anything that activates them, weights or no, causes growth.
As for the last sentence, maybe you’ll recognize “You don’t grow in the gym.”[/quote]
If you actually believe that growth hormone release and stretching ranks anywhere near the effects of anabolism created by increased caloric diets and weight training, you are delusional. In fact, most understand that stretching can actually decrease strength in muscle fibers wuich is why it is no longer indicated before weight lifting. Growth hormone isn’t going to cause anywhere near the level of muscle growth seen from regular weight training. In fact, past puberty, the effects are nearly immeasureable in terms of any anabolic effect alone. You sound like someone who read a little but thinks they know a lot.
Herschel Walker was about 220 at a pretty low level of bf. I read an interview in an old mag called “sport” or something like that where he said he did 1,000 pushups daily at different hand positions and he only ate 1 meal a day because “you can’t rely on proteins and vitamins. You gotta rely on hard work.”
I think it’s safe to say he was a freak.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you actually believe that growth hormone release and stretching ranks anywhere near the effects of anabolism created by increased caloric diets and weight training, you are delusional.[/quote]
The original question was “What level of muscularity can be achieved without lifting weights?”. The specific post I was replying too indicated that weights were the only way to hypertrophy, they’re not.
[quote]
In fact, most understand that stretching can actually decrease strength in muscle fibers wuich is why it is no longer indicated before weight lifting.[/quote]
Until 6 mo. to a year from now when a new T-Nation contributor does a different literature search than the others and it becomes en vogue to stretch again. Also, Once again, the Q was about hypertrophy, not necessarily strength. From the same Goldspink article CW referenced:
Stretch combined with electrical stimulation was found to induce very rapid hypertrophy of TA muscle in the adult animal. Increases of up to 30% wet wt were recorded in a period as short as 4 days. Both stretch and force generation are major factors in activating protein synthesis, and the combination of these stimuli apparently has a synergistic effect. Associated with this very significant increase in muscle size, there was a marked increase (up to 250%) in RNA content of the muscles that was found to peak after 2 days from commencement of stretch.
Look ma! No lifting!
[quote]
Growth hormone isn’t going to cause anywhere near the level of muscle growth seen from regular weight training. In fact, past puberty, the effects are nearly immeasureable in terms of any anabolic effect alone.[/quote]
What about before or during puberty, does GH have an effect then? For the average UNTRAINED individual and a good chunk of the trained individuals, they will never attain the rate of muscular anabolism and hypertrophy as seen in puberty. When was the last time you doubled your LBM?
[quote]
You sound like someone who read a little but thinks they know a lot. [/quote]
Yeah, well, you sound like someone trying to assert their dominance on an internet forum over someone else who is merely providing objective facts in response to queries and assertions issued.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
The original question was “What level of muscularity can be achieved without lifting weights?”. The specific post I was replying too indicated that weights were the only way to hypertrophy, they’re not.[/quote]
But resistance is. Are you simply caught up on the word “weights”?
[quote]
Until 6 mo. to a year from now when a new T-Nation contributor does a different literature search than the others and it becomes en vogue to stretch again. Also, Once again, the Q was about hypertrophy, not necessarily strength. From the same Goldspink article CW referenced:[/quote]
Gee, I don’t even read many of the articles here. I was commenting on this for nearly a decade while still in school in relation to Frank Starling’s Law of Muscle Contraction relating it to the possibility of the same effect in muscle tissue. That is the difference between those of us who actually went to school for this and those of us who simply read something on the internet and think we are experts.
[quote]
Stretch combined with electrical stimulation was found to induce very rapid hypertrophy of TA muscle in the adult animal. Increases of up to 30% wet wt were recorded in a period as short as 4 days. Both stretch and force generation are major factors in activating protein synthesis, and the combination of these stimuli apparently has a synergistic effect. Associated with this very significant increase in muscle size, there was a marked increase (up to 250%) in RNA content of the muscles that was found to peak after 2 days from commencement of stretch.[/quote]
And your source? Are you honestly going to hold onto the ridiculous notion that resistance training isn’t needed for muscle growth in terms of performance or hypertrophy on any scale above the microscopic level?
Look ma, no thinking!
Lean body mass is a combination of organ, bone and water weight. You can’t honestly be trying to associate the increase of “LBM” seen in growth in height with that seen from an increase in muscle weight alone, can you?
Any experience I have comes from an education and a background in medical training as well as personal training. I could care less if this “dominates” you. With the crap you are spreading, I only hope you don’t negatively affect some newbie unaware of what the truth is.
I gotta say, I knew a couple of kids in high school who were the strongest ones there but built there routines off of bw exercises. A good deal the gains that they experienced were probably genetic. My one friend was a vegetarian and could do numerous two finger pushups on one hand. He also got an iron cross on this first attempt. The interesting thing was that he had a twin he was more lean and muscular than people I knew who lifted weights in HS, despite him never doing ANY kind of training in his life. It’s the exception, not the rule
-Matt
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But resistance is. Are you simply caught up on the word “weights”?
[/quote]
The problem isn’t necessarily me being caught up on the word weights, and even if it were, MarcAnthony and irishpowerhouse limited us (me) to the term “weights”.
[quote]
Gee, I don’t even read many of the articles here. I was commenting on this for nearly a decade while still in school in relation to Frank Starling’s Law of Muscle Contraction relating it to the possibility of the same effect in muscle tissue. That is the difference between those of us who actually went to school for this and those of us who simply read something on the internet and think we are experts.[/quote]
I don’t know if you really read the articles or not, it’s really inconsequential. My point was that the “stretch to hypertrophy” debate oscillates both here at T-Nation and everywhere else.
As for Starling’s Law, you’re going to have to be a bit clearer on how mass transfer in cardiac equillibria translates to growth requirements of skeletal muscle. Especially since the mechanisms by which skeletal and cardiac muscle hypertrophy appear to be quite different.
[quote]
And your source? Are you honestly going to hold onto the ridiculous notion that resistance training isn’t needed for muscle growth in terms of performance or hypertrophy on any scale above the microscopic level?[/quote]
I think your confusing necessary and optimal. Also, let me say this (I think I’m beginning to see the misunderstanding, I could be wrong) Will individual A reach his potential with stretching alone? No. Can individual A grow larger than individual B while a does no “lifting” and B does? I’m saying yes.
BTW-Capability of seeing it with the human eye is kind of an arbitrary line to draw for mechanics or biophysics. Just because it’s true on the micro level means it’s not true on the macro level?
As for my citation, I don’t have it here at work with me. The quote I posted was an abstraction from an AACC meeting that I attended that quoted Geoffrey Goldspinks’ work. CW cites the same work, I’ve posted it previously. Lee Sweeney and others have confirmed it and similar results. I would think that someone who went to school for this would need little more than the researchers name to find the reams of work that they’ve published on the subject, but I’ll send you ecopies of the publications when I get to my laptop if you want.
[quote]
Lean body mass is a combination of organ, bone and water weight. You can’t honestly be trying to associate the increase of “LBM” seen in growth in height with that seen from an increase in muscle weight alone, can you?[/quote]
Sorry, you’re right, LBM was the wrong term, lean muscle mass is the more relevant term, but my point still stands, the average individual weightlifting or no will build more lean muscle mass from puberty than from lifting.
[quote]
Any experience I have comes from an education and a background in medical training as well as personal training. I could care less if this “dominates” you. With the crap you are spreading, I only hope you don’t negatively affect some newbie unaware of what the truth is.[/quote]
Now you just sound like a doctor with a god complex.
BTW- You ASSUME I haven’t studied this. You ASSUME that I just “read it off the internet”. You ASSUME I haven’t ordered, cultured, and transfected these cells in the lab. You ASSUME that I’m “not thinking” about this. At best your wasting electrons, at worst your making us both look stupid by turning an exchange of ideas into a name-calling contest. Look, IMO, we both have relevant points. If you want to be all you can be, lift. If you just want to be better than the next guy, lifting isn’t necessarily the answer. I’m laying down my sword at that and saying Merry Xmas.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Mr. Bear wrote:
Good luck building muscle with stretching…or T3 for that matter…or GH without the use of anabolics…and as for the last sentence, what are you talking about?
Did you read CW’s article about mechano-growth factor? Stretching has been shown to be equivalent to loading in eliciting a MGF response. In cases of a HGH deficiency, rHGH is far more anabolic than any weight will ever be.
I’ve said this on other threads, weights don’t build muscle, testosterone doesn’t build muscle, muscles grow without weights or testosterone. You can lift weights and have/take testosterone and not grow. Just because you break your muscles down doesn’t mean you’ll grow.
Ribosomes, tRNA, MGF, etc., these build muscle, without them, no muscle. Anything that activates them, weights or no, causes growth.
As for the last sentence, maybe you’ll recognize “You don’t grow in the gym.”[/quote]
Ok, you can stretch, and I’ll shoot test and lift weights, then we’ll meet up and compare notes.
No one was saying the weights themselves cause gains; everyone is aware that muscles need to be repaired in order to grow. This isn’t the topic of the thread anyway, though, so I’m really not sure why you brought up any of this. (Unless you really feel stretching is a proper alternative to weightlifting for someone who seeks hypertrophy.)
[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
Ok, you can stretch, and I’ll shoot test and lift weights, then we’ll meet up and compare notes.[/quote]
This wasn’t the issue that was proposed by MarcAnthony. A more fair approach would be that I practice a sport, stretch jump rope, run, eat right, and juice, etc. NO LIFTING WEIGHTS and you do equally with weights and we see who ends up more hypertrophied. My point was, given frequently observed genetic and physiological circumstances I come out better. And actually, my assertion was you train how you want to train as long as you lift, I’ll train without lifting weights, but I’ll use every diet, chemical and genetic manipulation trick known and we’ll see who wins.
[quote]
No one was saying the weights themselves cause gains[/quote]
You’re right irishpowerhouse wrote:
you may get some gains but not very much. Maybe if you did some circuit training.
But the only way to build muscle is to break it down by using weights
I added the emphasis, but you are correct, he’s saying you might gain some muscle by not lifting weights, but the only way to build muscle is to lift weights.
Clearly, I’m the one who’s confused and misinformed.
Arguably, Marcanthony rightly decides what is and isn’t the topic of the thread, it was his q that originated it. And, yes, this is the exact query, in my understanding. MA proposed “Given diet and exercise, how little lifting can I do and still see hypertrophy?” All I’m saying is that given the right or even close to proper chemical/genetic situation, a person can expect to see superior levels of hypertrophy based on getting out of bed in the morning and going about their day.
Look, I’m sure we all know guys who do one or two weightlifting workouts a week and are huge and ripped. I know Prof. X does, I know I could get the “huge” part. We all also know guys who do more than four to five times the amount of weightlifting workouts to achieve the same level (some of us are those people). Does that mean that the first guy’s program is 4-500% better at building/maintaining lean mass? Nope. Is any given program 4-500% better at building/maintaining lean mass than any other program? That depends on other factors. So when somebody asks “How do I maximize hypertrophy and minimize training time?” How do you legitimately say ‘lift weights’ when the correct answer is clearly that it “depends on other factors”. This is 100 level statistics stuff (I know, I’ve studied).
I’ll throw my 2 cents in here, for what it’s worth.
I’m not sure you can ever get “big” with out weights, you can get cuy, generate some good lean muscle, and get really strong tho.
Diet is number 1 in this, and as far as being cut so is genetics. However, by doing high intensity body weight exercises for an hour or so 7 days a week you can get plenty strong. I know a lot of skinny guys who have more functional strength than most body builders (note in this since I mean functional as in something like wrestling, not in bench pressing) however they don’t have very good physiques. and the strength is limited, a body builder who trained in the same exercises for probaly only half the time would be able to out wrestle any of them in only a couple of weeks.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I don’t know if you really read the articles or not, it’s really inconsequential. My point was that the “stretch to hypertrophy” debate oscillates both here at T-Nation and everywhere else.[/quote]
Who cares where it “oscillates” at in terms of debate?
[quote]
As for Starling’s Law, you’re going to have to be a bit clearer on how mass transfer in cardiac equillibria translates to growth requirements of skeletal muscle. Especially since the mechanisms by which skeletal and cardiac muscle hypertrophy appear to be quite different.[/quote]
You are missing the point. Frank Starling’s law of muscle contraction effectively means that the force of contraction will increase as the heart is filled with more blood and is a direct consequence of the effect of an increasing load on a single muscle fibre. The force that any single muscle fibre generates is proportional to the initial sarcomere length, and the stretch on the individual fibres is related to the end-diastolic volume of the ventricle.
HOWEVER, Frank Starling’s law also points out that increased stretch of the elastic heart muscle increases its recoil within limits. If these limits are exceeded, when the elastic heart muscle fibers are stretched beyond a certain point, the heart muscle loses its recoil or elasticity. You can compare this to a spring that has been stretched too far and now cannot recoil like it used to.
That means that if the muscle fibers are stretched beyond their natural range, they actually create LESS contractile strength. This has been shown to be the exact same thing that happens in skeletal muscle tissue. I simply related it to cardiac muscle early on because the muscle contractile units are very similar meaning the relation was possible.
[quote]
I think your confusing necessary and optimal. Also, let me say this (I think I’m beginning to see the misunderstanding, I could be wrong) Will individual A reach his potential with stretching alone? No. Can individual A grow larger than individual B while a does no “lifting” and B does? I’m saying yes.[/quote]
And, again, I am saying you would have to be less than illuminated to think that stretching would promote muscle growth anywhere near the level that is seen with regular weight training and increased caloric intake. This is common sense. I am amazed that anyone on this site is trying to push the notion that weights (or resistance) aren’t necessary to reach above average levels of muscle mass.
[quote]
BTW-Capability of seeing it with the human eye is kind of an arbitrary line to draw for mechanics or biophysics. Just because it’s true on the micro level means it’s not true on the macro level?[/quote]
Seeing it is arbitrary? That is like saying scientific studies are arbitrary. We see massively built bodies in the gym daily. I want you to find me one that was built by stretching alone.
[quote]
As for my citation, I don’t have it here at work with me. The quote I posted was an abstraction from an AACC meeting that I attended that quoted Geoffrey Goldspinks’ work. CW cites the same work, I’ve posted it previously. Lee Sweeney and others have confirmed it and similar results. I would think that someone who went to school for this would need little more than the researchers name to find the reams of work that they’ve published on the subject, but I’ll send you ecopies of the publications when I get to my laptop if you want.[/quote]
So, my time should be spent supporting your argument?
[quote]
Sorry, you’re right, LBM was the wrong term, lean muscle mass is the more relevant term, but my point still stands, the average individual weightlifting or no will build more lean muscle mass from puberty than from lifting. [/quote]
You can’t even make a blanket statement like that. Why would you assume that all people grow the most in their lives during puberty? I have gained over 100lbs since I was a freshman in college. By your own claim, this should not be possible because puberty would be the limit. What books have given you this idea?
[quote]
Now you just sound like a doctor with a god complex.
BTW- You ASSUME I haven’t studied this. You ASSUME that I just “read it off the internet”. You ASSUME I haven’t ordered, cultured, and transfected these cells in the lab. You ASSUME that I’m “not thinking” about this. At best your wasting electrons, at worst your making us both look stupid by turning an exchange of ideas into a name-calling contest. Look, IMO, we both have relevant points. If you want to be all you can be, lift. If you just want to be better than the next guy, lifting isn’t necessarily the answer. I’m laying down my sword at that and saying Merry Xmas.[/quote]
I hope your Christmas was quite merry as well. I also hope you quit spending all of your time stretching with the false belief that this can take the place of weight training.
This is a picture of my buddy, with whom I sometimes train.
In this pic, he’d been training for 4 months. He weighed 220 lbs, had 18.5" upper arms and 28" upper legs.
Raf studies informatics and computer technologies, so he pretty much sits on his ass all day. Outside of that, he ate.
He ate a lot.
Mostly healthy meals at home, but a lot of crap in between as well, like potatoe chips and such.
Starting his third year in high school, he was unbeaten by both students and teachers in armwrestling and short-distance sprinting, and uptil now I’ve seen no one beat him.(except then yours truly in the sprinting department)
On his first day in the gym, he benched 225 and curled 50lb db’s.
Now, I realise my buddy is more the exception than the rule, but 20-30 years ago, people ate well, and were(for non-bodybuilders)well-muscled.
They worked hard on the land and ate lots of nutritious meals.
Point is, you CAN gain a lot of muscle(and strength, although that’s probably more because of a mechanical advantage if all you do is sit on your ass)by eating a lot and eating well.
Diet is the most important factor in gaining muscle. If you eat well, and you eat enough, you can gain muscle and strength by doing pretty much any demanding physical labor.
If you keep progressing in both hard labor and food intake(quality, frequency and amount), you gain muscle and strength.
[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
Point is, you CAN gain a lot of muscle(and strength, although that’s probably more because of a mechanical advantage if all you do is sit on your ass)by eating a lot and eating well.
Diet is the most important factor in gaining muscle. If you eat well, and you eat enough, you can gain muscle and strength by doing pretty much any demanding physical labor.
[/quote]
How you gain weight is largely genetic. I have frat brothers who don’t lift weights on a regular basis at all but carry more mass on their frames than some of the pics I have seen posted on this site. They wouldn’t pass for “bodybuilders” to those of us in the gym daily, but they are carrying even more mass than the pic you posted along with being leaner. They generally only play basketball. Of course, that isn’t all of them, but the genetics are there.
The bottom line is, yes, I agree that resistance training is what will maximize any genetics initially given to a particular trainer. That doesn’t mean that everyone will be able to bench over 200lbs just by sitting on their ass at work and eating, however, regardless of how “demanding” they might think their personal labor is. Genetics will determine how your body responds to what you do to it. Training is what will maximize that effect.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Who cares where it “oscillates” at in terms of debate?[/quote]
Because I assume we both would want to get to the ‘right’ answers and not just ‘today’s’ answers.
[quote]
You are missing the point. Frank Starling’s law of muscle contraction effectively means that the force of contraction will increase as the heart is filled with more blood and is a direct consequence of the effect of an increasing load on a single muscle fibre. The force that any single muscle fibre generates is proportional to the initial sarcomere length, and the stretch on the individual fibres is related to the end-diastolic volume of the ventricle.
HOWEVER, Frank Starling’s law also points out that increased stretch of the elastic heart muscle increases its recoil within limits. If these limits are exceeded, when the elastic heart muscle fibers are stretched beyond a certain point, the heart muscle loses its recoil or elasticity. You can compare this to a spring that has been stretched too far and now cannot recoil like it used to.
That means that if the muscle fibers are stretched beyond their natural range, they actually create LESS contractile strength. This has been shown to be the exact same thing that happens in skeletal muscle tissue. I simply related it to cardiac muscle early on because the muscle contractile units are very similar meaning the relation was possible.[/quote]
I asked, because I’ve heard Starling’s law used in favor of muscle strecthing, and, if I’m not mistaken, it is the major reason why stretch is included with contraction in muscular growth/repair studies. Namely, you’re correct, excessive stretch leads to contractile protein damage which, in the short term, leads to strength decreases. However, much like resistance training, appropriately timed damage/repair cycles can lead to hypertrophy as well as increasing contractile length for increased force generation (after appropriate repair and innervation). Additionally, stretch (not all stretch all the time) prepares non-contractile tissues as well, muscle fascia, spindle fibers, tendons, ligaments, etc.
[quote]
And, again, I am saying you would have to be less than illuminated to think that stretching would promote muscle growth anywhere near the level that is seen with regular weight training and increased caloric intake. This is common sense. I am amazed that anyone on this site is trying to push the notion that weights (or resistance) aren’t necessary to reach above average levels of muscle mass.[/quote]
And, again, I’m not saying that stretching alone would promote muscle growth near what weightlifting and diet does. I think ideally a person would do all three. What I’m saying is that person A busts his ass in the gym and at the dinner table to weigh a lean 225 and person B need only bust his ass at the dinner table and let gravity do the work. You won’t ever be a pro-bodybuilder, but a lean 225 gets you in the ballpark.
[quote]
Seeing it is arbitrary? That is like saying scientific studies are arbitrary. We see massively built bodies in the gym daily. I want you to find me one that was built by stretching alone.[/quote]
No, visually seeing how muscle cells grow is arbitrary, unless you think that all of the science that’s been done since Hooke is arbitrary. What I’m saying is nutrition works on the sub-microscopic level, lifting works on the microscopic and sub-microscopic level, steroids work on the sub-microscopic level, so to say that something works on the microscopic level and doesn’t extend to the macroscopic level is kind of arbitrary, yes.
As for the massively built bodies we see in the gym daily, my point (and Marcanthony’s to a degree) is that we see massively built muscles and bodies outside the gym as well, and the point wasn’t necessarily stretching alone, the point was diet, sport exercise, and stretching, could get you where you want to be both on and off the court/field.
Maybe some of your frat brothers (who probably aren’t the gold standard of diet, sport, AND genetics) could weigh in?
[quote]
So, my time should be spent supporting your argument?[/quote]
“Know thine enemy, know thyself” - Sun Tzu
Especially when your enemy is discussing a topic you clearly enjoy partaking in, i.e. I’m sure you’ll feel free to correct my interpretation/understanding of Starling’s Law, and I’m interested to hear it.
[quote]
You can’t even make a blanket statement like that. Why would you assume that all people grow the most in their lives during puberty?[/quote]
I didn’t say all, I said average. And given the discussion of both weight training vs. non-weight training, I’m including everyone. Maybe you should ask a doctor (Who ideally doesn’t lift weights, one who lifts will predispose himself to an answer and, as you have, exclude the non-lifter.) about the validity of my statement. Although, it occurs to me that you maybe right about strictly “puberty”, I’m using puberty and adolescence interchangeably.
[quote]
I have gained over 100lbs since I was a freshman in college. By your own claim, this should not be possible because puberty would be the limit. What books have given you this idea?[/quote]
I’ve not said that puberty (adolescence) represents any possiblity limit. Merely, that it represents a high level of anabolism that most won’t achieve otherwise/elsewhere, a probability limit. Further, that for the average person to go from being pre-pubescent with 70# of muscle to an adult with 170# of muscle over the course of a decade (13-23) is not phenomenal, but to put on 100# of mass strictly from lifting and diet alone over the following two decades (23-43) is phenomenal, not impossible, but not average. And this is where I’m drawing my point(s) from, someone who lifts no weights will gain more muscle mass from “growing up” than most will strictly by lifting weights (apparently yourself excluded). So to say that weights are the only answer is clearly wrong.
No books (strictly) have given me this idea, the most summary statement, IMO, is the CDC’s guidelines saying that a 68# 12 yr. old male is normal and a 202# 18 yr. old male is equally normal, and my numbers are conservative by those standards. Also, New Eng. Journal of Med. and Amer. Journal of Sport. Med. are rife with both primary and secondary-source articles denoting muscle growth without weight training, some using diet alone, some using androgens alone, some using both. So, once again, to say weights are the ONLY way to hypertrophy is clearly false, which is the main claim I was trying to rectify.
You keep putting words in my mouth and extending my claims beyond what I’ve said. I’m saying;
To Marcanthony,
If you feel your athletic skills are lacking or your hypertrophy is satisfactory or nearly so, then yes, minimal hypertrophy methods are the way to go. Depending on your genetic makeup, stretching and general athletic activity fall into this category.
To Ironpowerhouse,
Weights do induce hypertrophy and are often the preferred method, they are by far, not the only means, and depending on you genetic makeup with regard to Marcanthony’s inquistion they are not the only viable answer.
BTW- I know I said I was done arguing, but now that Xmas is over, I’ve got the time and I think there is more learning to be done here.
And it’s just IMO, but I liked the old avatar better. Not that the new one is bad, but one has got to finish second.
I assume this is the “meat” of what you spent many paragraphs relaying:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’ve not said that puberty (adolescence) represents any possiblity limit. Merely, that it represents a high level of anabolism that most won’t achieve otherwise/elsewhere, a probability limit. Further, that for the average person to go from being pre-pubescent with 70# of muscle to an adult with 170# of muscle over the course of a decade (13-23) is not phenomenal, but to put on 100# of mass strictly from lifting and diet alone over the following two decades (23-43) is phenomenal, not impossible, but not average. And this is where I’m drawing my point(s) from, someone who lifts no weights will gain more muscle mass from “growing up” than most will strictly by lifting weights (apparently yourself excluded). So to say that weights are the only answer is clearly wrong.[/quote]
You brought this issue up just to inform people that they grow during puberty? Yes, we all grow bone, skin, hair, organ weight, and various soft tissue during puberty. Does this relate at all to bodybuilding by itself? NO, it doesn’t. Some kid who weighs 70lbs in the 4th grade grows up to be a 150lbs skinny guy in high school. That means nothing in terms of weight lifting so I am not sure what the point was in this discussion. Attempting to even directly relate the growth seen during puberty to the growth seen directly from resistance training and subsequent anabolism from increased caloric intake leaves me wondering what the point is. Some people spend the majority of their time stretching in the gym. From what I’ve seen, this is generally women and guys who simply like to lay on the ground in spandex as opposed to lifting heavy. Stretching has benefits, however, they aren’t benefits at the expense of serious weight training. As far as resistance training is conerned, I would rather a trainer save stretching until after lifting or on off days as opposed to directly before training. I think warming up with a lighter weight for the target muscle group will do much more good in terms of a training session.
As far as my frat brothers, the point is still that genetics play the largest role in terms of what someone starts with in training. There are people who will never get their arms to 20" no matter how long they train or how hard. Others have calves that were huge without them even training them. None of this means anything by itself because that is what makes them who they are. No two people have the exact same starting place when it comes to training and no two will respond the same to the same stimulus unless they are identical twins. Therefore, you can’t ignore the genetic aspect of this and only focus in on how big someone was before training as if this means you need to stretch more (or whatever your point truly was).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You brought this issue up just to inform people that they grow during puberty? Yes, we all grow bone, skin, hair, organ weight, and various soft tissue during puberty. Does this relate at all to bodybuilding by itself? NO, it doesn’t. [/quote]
So, the single most anabolic event in the average person’s life muscular or otherwise isn’t important to bodybuilding? interesting.
[quote]
Some kid who weighs 70lbs in the 4th grade grows up to be a 150lbs skinny guy in high school.[/quote]
Once again, you’re distorting what I said. You’re talking total mass, I was talking muscle mass.
[quote]
That means nothing in terms of weight lifting so I am not sure what the point was in this discussion. Attempting to even directly relate the growth seen during puberty to the growth seen directly from resistance training and subsequent anabolism from increased caloric intake leaves me wondering what the point is.[/quote]
I’m not trying to draw a correlation although I’m sure there are those that do with much success. I’m merely saying that the weights you lift are far from the single determining factor in your muscular growth success, a fact to which you’ve agreed.
[quote]
Some people spend the majority of their time stretching in the gym. From what I’ve seen, this is generally women and guys who simply like to lay on the ground in spandex as opposed to lifting heavy. Stretching has benefits, however, they aren’t benefits at the expense of serious weight training. As far as resistance training is conerned, I would rather a trainer save stretching until after lifting or on off days as opposed to directly before training. I think warming up with a lighter weight for the target muscle group will do much more good in terms of a training session.[/quote]
What about ROM? I’m sure someone asking about sports practice in favor of hypertrophy has other priorities on their mind than just weights. Apparently you can’t see that.
[quote]
As far as my frat brothers, the point is still that genetics play the largest role in terms of what someone starts with in training. There are people who will never get their arms to 20" no matter how long they train or how hard. Others have calves that were huge without them even training them. None of this means anything by itself because that is what makes them who they are. No two people have the exact same starting place when it comes to training and no two will respond the same to the same stimulus unless they are identical twins. Therefore, you can’t ignore the genetic aspect of this and only focus in on how big someone was before training as if this means you need to stretch more (or whatever your point truly was).[/quote]
You have more than proven my point that genes, ribosomes, tRNA, and hormones determine your success and that stretch has been shown to adequately stimulate these mechanisms, and while stretching isn’t the total answer, neither is weights. I still await your response to “my” assertions about Starling’s Law.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
OK
What about the John Riggins myth.
Drank ALOT of beer and wasn’t much for ANY type of off season workouts.
[/quote]
I highly highly doubt that john riggins could even compete in todays era of 250 lb linebacking freaks who run 4.5’s…In fact, I dont think he could even start at fullback for most NFL teams at all. Its like the whole babe ruth thing…could the babe even compete today? Even start on a team?
Hmmm…what gains would a regimen composed of one arm push ups and chin-ups, levers, planches and planche push ups deliver? Add something for your posterior chain (sandbags and some manual labor or something…or head stand leg raises or reverse hypers on a bench, etc.) I must wonder how many people can do one-arm push ups with legs straight and at shoulder width…
Vlad
