PLer Muscle vs BBer Muscle?

Training Powerlifting
21

[quote]BCP27 wrote:

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
All things being equal, a larger muscle has the potential to produce more force. This is the exact reason why competitions have weight classes.

The answer to your question is yes. And also, no. Muscle size (regardless of what kind of hypertrophy) is one of the few qualities of strength training that is 100% genetic. For me, personally, I could do curls everyday for the rest of my life and they will never be bigger than what they are now. I just am not predisposed to that trait. On the other hand, I have been able to dunk a basketball since middle school (before I even started training for anything). Maybe a big reason why I have a hard time with true hypertrophy work is because I am inherently type II fiber dominant. That would definitely explain why it has taken me 14 years to get to the upper 200’s in bodyweight.

So, the problem with “wanting to train for bodybuilding, powerlifting, and strongman?” What the hell is your goal? If you just want to be big, stop counting reps and start focusing on time under tension and timed sets. Or, train for 14 years. [/quote]

If you legitimately have more type II fibers than normal, you should still be able to induce growth in them. Just do more muscular endurance work, that’s how a lot of guys get their calves to grow.
[/quote]

Why on earth would I do that? Even though the heavy chains stay the same no matter what, light chains can take on opposit fiber characteristics in response to training stimulus. Yes, type II fibers can hypertrophy, it just takes a long ass time. But, I will never train for “muscualr endurmance” because my sport only requires about 5 seconds of work every 10 minutes.

22

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
Muscle size (regardless of what kind of hypertrophy) is one of the few qualities of strength training that is 100% genetic. For me, personally, I could do curls everyday for the rest of my life and they will never be bigger than what they are now. I just am not predisposed to that trait.[/quote]

Not sure if serious…[/quote]

Muscle size. Not the ability to starve down to “p90X” yourself into “looking fucking jacked brah.” I mean actual muscle growth mechanisms are genetic. Yes, training can help. But, it takes a while.

23

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
Muscle size (regardless of what kind of hypertrophy) is one of the few qualities of strength training that is 100% genetic. For me, personally, I could do curls everyday for the rest of my life and they will never be bigger than what they are now. I just am not predisposed to that trait.[/quote]

Not sure if serious…[/quote]

Muscle size. Not the ability to starve down to “p90X” yourself into “looking fucking jacked brah.” I mean actual muscle growth mechanisms are genetic. Yes, training can help. But, it takes a while.[/quote]
I don’t think there was any confusion as to what you meant. The only confusion was as to whether you had actually convinced yourself that your mediocre muscle size is not your fault or if you just felt like spouting random garbage on the internet.

Not everybody needs to have 20 inch arms and I won’t dispute that big arms are easier for some than others. But to suggest that the size of a person’s arm muscles (or any muscles) is predetermined at birth regardless of what he does or eats is so asinine and counter to the idea of resistance training that I’m not sure how you got here.

24

[quote]The Hoss wrote:
So Tim, in regards to your first point, would it be right to say that in the process of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the muscle adapts to the stress placed on it by adding non-contractile elements, but also chemicals and compounds to increase the contractile force of the muscle for next time? Or have I misinterpreted that?

And assuming that, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be something to be considered when aiming to increase strength, as the contractile elemtents accumulated from the ‘bodybuilding’ work work symbiotically with the neural adaptations of heavy weights?

Thanks.[/quote]

I think I understand what you are saying but just to clarify sarcoplasmic hypertrophy - sometimes called non contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges but there isn’t a significant increase in strength associated with that. Myofibrillar hypertrophy - sometimes called contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges and there is also an increase in strength.

Almost everyone gets some of both - BBers will get both but sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is fine for them as they are not judged on performance. OLers get mainly myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Having said all of that my opinion is that it really comes down to how you measure strength. Most bodybuilders are actually quite strong if you use the exercises they use in training to test strength. Imagine testing them on a leg press or smith machine squat or a dumbbell incline press, if those were your standards they would do very well. But instead we tend to test with free weight exercises, mainly PL or OL stuff, and so they don’t do as well. We then attribute their big muscles to not being very strong but in my opinion it is really a matter of neuromuscular coordination - how well you use what you have for the given task.

I am decently strong at the bench press, but if you measured my ‘strength’ by my ability to pitch a baseball I would suck ass and then you would look at my muscles and say “oh, he must have sacroplasmic hypertrophy because those muscles aren’t that functional” but they are functional in 1 sense - during the bench - and they aren’t very useful in another - pitching the ball.

When it comes to training I try to simplify things and look at 2 basic things. If you are much stronger than you look then you already have good neuromuscular coordination for that activity and you could likely stand to add some mass so incorporate a bit more BB style training - lower frequency, higher volume, short rest, etc, that in turn may help you lift more weight.

If you are not as strong as you look then you need to improve your neuromuscular coordination so include so more PL or OL type training - high frequency, low reps, master technique, etc and don’t worry as much about adding mass at that point.

That got long, hope it made some sense.

25

I am laughing at all the people being condescending to StormTheBeach.

26

makes sense to me…according to youtubes the best natural bodybuilders are training very much like powerlifters

27

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am laughing at all the people being condescending to StormTheBeach.[/quote]
Same lol. Especially at this:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The only confusion was as to whether you had actually convinced yourself that your mediocre muscle size is not your fault or if you just felt like spouting random garbage on the internet.
[/quote]
Never heard someone the size of STB described as having “mediocre muscle size” lol.

28

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am laughing at all the people being condescending to StormTheBeach.[/quote]
Same lol. Especially at this:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The only confusion was as to whether you had actually convinced yourself that your mediocre muscle size is not your fault or if you just felt like spouting random garbage on the internet.
[/quote]
Never heard someone the size of STB described as having “mediocre muscle size” lol.[/quote]
I have no idea who STB is in real life. What he said was ridiculous and false. Muscle size is not predetermined by genetics. It may be that STB is not weak, but saying that the size of your arms is predetermined and there is nothing you can do about it sounds like an excuse to me.

29

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am laughing at all the people being condescending to StormTheBeach.[/quote]
Same lol. Especially at this:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The only confusion was as to whether you had actually convinced yourself that your mediocre muscle size is not your fault or if you just felt like spouting random garbage on the internet.
[/quote]
Never heard someone the size of STB described as having “mediocre muscle size” lol.[/quote]

Agreed. Quite comical.

2 things about STB I find impressive.

  1. He is a smart strong lifter. You don’t just put up weight like that by accident.
  2. Some of his advice has literally changed my miserable life for the better. FOR FREE
    Advice he has given me helped me more than my physical therapists did.

So if I always seem quick to defend him or “be on his dick” or whatever, it is because I have nothing but respect for the man.

People on here critiquing him are laughable. Post some stats and videos proving him wrong.

30

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]The Hoss wrote:
So Tim, in regards to your first point, would it be right to say that in the process of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the muscle adapts to the stress placed on it by adding non-contractile elements, but also chemicals and compounds to increase the contractile force of the muscle for next time? Or have I misinterpreted that?

And assuming that, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be something to be considered when aiming to increase strength, as the contractile elemtents accumulated from the ‘bodybuilding’ work work symbiotically with the neural adaptations of heavy weights?

Thanks.[/quote]

I think I understand what you are saying but just to clarify sarcoplasmic hypertrophy - sometimes called non contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges but there isn’t a significant increase in strength associated with that. Myofibrillar hypertrophy - sometimes called contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges and there is also an increase in strength.

Almost everyone gets some of both - BBers will get both but sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is fine for them as they are not judged on performance. OLers get mainly myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Having said all of that my opinion is that it really comes down to how you measure strength. Most bodybuilders are actually quite strong if you use the exercises they use in training to test strength. Imagine testing them on a leg press or smith machine squat or a dumbbell incline press, if those were your standards they would do very well. But instead we tend to test with free weight exercises, mainly PL or OL stuff, and so they don’t do as well. We then attribute their big muscles to not being very strong but in my opinion it is really a matter of neuromuscular coordination - how well you use what you have for the given task.

I am decently strong at the bench press, but if you measured my ‘strength’ by my ability to pitch a baseball I would suck ass and then you would look at my muscles and say “oh, he must have sacroplasmic hypertrophy because those muscles aren’t that functional” but they are functional in 1 sense - during the bench - and they aren’t very useful in another - pitching the ball.

When it comes to training I try to simplify things and look at 2 basic things. If you are much stronger than you look then you already have good neuromuscular coordination for that activity and you could likely stand to add some mass so incorporate a bit more BB style training - lower frequency, higher volume, short rest, etc, that in turn may help you lift more weight.

If you are not as strong as you look then you need to improve your neuromuscular coordination so include so more PL or OL type training - high frequency, low reps, master technique, etc and don’t worry as much about adding mass at that point.

That got long, hope it made some sense.[/quote]

Yes you definitely made a lot of sense thank you!

31

All because of questions about biceps.

32

I wouldn’t mean to be condescending. I just couldn’t understand why a muscle wouldn’t grow if you trained it constantly. I don’t really understand fiber dominance, never heard of it. I hope he/she didn’t feel that way, if so I’m sorry. Really I don’t like it how forums always seem to turn into a pecking party. My intention is to discuss with people that have more knowledge than I do. So thank you for your posts!

33

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am laughing at all the people being condescending to StormTheBeach.[/quote]
Same lol. Especially at this:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The only confusion was as to whether you had actually convinced yourself that your mediocre muscle size is not your fault or if you just felt like spouting random garbage on the internet.
[/quote]
Never heard someone the size of STB described as having “mediocre muscle size” lol.[/quote]
I have no idea who STB is in real life. What he said was ridiculous and false. Muscle size is not predetermined by genetics. It may be that STB is not weak, but saying that the size of your arms is predetermined and there is nothing you can do about it sounds like an excuse to me. [/quote]
He’s one of the best 275 lifters in the country. His strength and muscle size is certainly not mediocre.

34

[quote]Silyak wrote:
It may be that STB is not weak[/quote]
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

35

[quote]sokomatsumura wrote:
I wouldn’t mean to be condescending. I just couldn’t understand why a muscle wouldn’t grow if you trained it constantly. I don’t really understand fiber dominance, never heard of it. I hope he/she didn’t feel that way, if so I’m sorry. Really I don’t like it how forums always seem to turn into a pecking party. My intention is to discuss with people that have more knowledge than I do. So thank you for your posts![/quote]

There’s a small group of regular posters that don’t really have anything else to do with their time but hang out here and incite arguments. It’s really sad to see that kind of behaviour in adults. My advice is to ignore people like Csulli and Twpunisher who try to take things off-topic and personal. There are plenty of other people here who have useful things to say, as you can see in this thread alone.

36

[quote]Caltene wrote:

[quote]sokomatsumura wrote:
I wouldn’t mean to be condescending. I just couldn’t understand why a muscle wouldn’t grow if you trained it constantly. I don’t really understand fiber dominance, never heard of it. I hope he/she didn’t feel that way, if so I’m sorry. Really I don’t like it how forums always seem to turn into a pecking party. My intention is to discuss with people that have more knowledge than I do. So thank you for your posts![/quote]

There’s a small group of regular posters that don’t really have anything else to do with their time but hang out here and incite arguments. It’s really sad to see that kind of behaviour in adults. My advice is to ignore people like Csulli and Twpunisher who try to take things off-topic and personal. There are plenty of other people here who have useful things to say, as you can see in this thread alone.[/quote]

I too am a fan of irony.

37

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]The Hoss wrote:
So Tim, in regards to your first point, would it be right to say that in the process of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the muscle adapts to the stress placed on it by adding non-contractile elements, but also chemicals and compounds to increase the contractile force of the muscle for next time? Or have I misinterpreted that?

And assuming that, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be something to be considered when aiming to increase strength, as the contractile elemtents accumulated from the ‘bodybuilding’ work work symbiotically with the neural adaptations of heavy weights?

Thanks.[/quote]

I think I understand what you are saying but just to clarify sarcoplasmic hypertrophy - sometimes called non contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges but there isn’t a significant increase in strength associated with that. Myofibrillar hypertrophy - sometimes called contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges and there is also an increase in strength.

Almost everyone gets some of both - BBers will get both but sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is fine for them as they are not judged on performance. OLers get mainly myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Having said all of that my opinion is that it really comes down to how you measure strength. Most bodybuilders are actually quite strong if you use the exercises they use in training to test strength. Imagine testing them on a leg press or smith machine squat or a dumbbell incline press, if those were your standards they would do very well. But instead we tend to test with free weight exercises, mainly PL or OL stuff, and so they don’t do as well. We then attribute their big muscles to not being very strong but in my opinion it is really a matter of neuromuscular coordination - how well you use what you have for the given task.

I am decently strong at the bench press, but if you measured my ‘strength’ by my ability to pitch a baseball I would suck ass and then you would look at my muscles and say “oh, he must have sacroplasmic hypertrophy because those muscles aren’t that functional” but they are functional in 1 sense - during the bench - and they aren’t very useful in another - pitching the ball.

When it comes to training I try to simplify things and look at 2 basic things. If you are much stronger than you look then you already have good neuromuscular coordination for that activity and you could likely stand to add some mass so incorporate a bit more BB style training - lower frequency, higher volume, short rest, etc, that in turn may help you lift more weight.

If you are not as strong as you look then you need to improve your neuromuscular coordination so include so more PL or OL type training - high frequency, low reps, master technique, etc and don’t worry as much about adding mass at that point.

That got long, hope it made some sense.[/quote]
Cheers Tim, that explained a lot.

38

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am laughing at all the people being condescending to StormTheBeach.[/quote]
Same lol. Especially at this:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The only confusion was as to whether you had actually convinced yourself that your mediocre muscle size is not your fault or if you just felt like spouting random garbage on the internet.
[/quote]
Never heard someone the size of STB described as having “mediocre muscle size” lol.[/quote]
I have no idea who STB is in real life. What he said was ridiculous and false. Muscle size is not predetermined by genetics. It may be that STB is not weak, but saying that the size of your arms is predetermined and there is nothing you can do about it sounds like an excuse to me. [/quote]

There is plenty that you CAN do about. But, there are plenty moral and legal issues around that. And I didn’t say that muscle size is 100% predetermined. The mechanisms for hypertrophy just take a shit load more volume/longer period of time than others.

It has taken me 14 years to go from 160 to 280+. I know guys whose arms seem to get bigger after they squat heavy a couple times. This is not scientific by any means but I find it very hard to believe that everyone is born with the same efficiency in cellular growth, transcription/translation, insulin resistance, etc. There are a million factors that go into size. Yes, training, consistancy and time can help but for a lot of lifters, it is a small step above futile.

39

[quote]T800Model10188 wrote:
All because of questions about biceps.[/quote]

Yea, in the powerlifting section. Then I respond with an answer backed by over a decade of training myself and others and also with one of the main topcis of study for my Master’s degree. Somehow that makes ME the asshole. Fuck the internet.

40

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]The Hoss wrote:
So Tim, in regards to your first point, would it be right to say that in the process of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the muscle adapts to the stress placed on it by adding non-contractile elements, but also chemicals and compounds to increase the contractile force of the muscle for next time? Or have I misinterpreted that?

And assuming that, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy should be something to be considered when aiming to increase strength, as the contractile elemtents accumulated from the ‘bodybuilding’ work work symbiotically with the neural adaptations of heavy weights?

Thanks.[/quote]

I think I understand what you are saying but just to clarify sarcoplasmic hypertrophy - sometimes called non contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges but there isn’t a significant increase in strength associated with that. Myofibrillar hypertrophy - sometimes called contractile protein hypertrophy - is when the muscle cell enlarges and there is also an increase in strength.

Almost everyone gets some of both - BBers will get both but sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is fine for them as they are not judged on performance. OLers get mainly myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Having said all of that my opinion is that it really comes down to how you measure strength. Most bodybuilders are actually quite strong if you use the exercises they use in training to test strength. Imagine testing them on a leg press or smith machine squat or a dumbbell incline press, if those were your standards they would do very well. But instead we tend to test with free weight exercises, mainly PL or OL stuff, and so they don’t do as well. We then attribute their big muscles to not being very strong but in my opinion it is really a matter of neuromuscular coordination - how well you use what you have for the given task.

I am decently strong at the bench press, but if you measured my ‘strength’ by my ability to pitch a baseball I would suck ass and then you would look at my muscles and say “oh, he must have sacroplasmic hypertrophy because those muscles aren’t that functional” but they are functional in 1 sense - during the bench - and they aren’t very useful in another - pitching the ball.

When it comes to training I try to simplify things and look at 2 basic things. If you are much stronger than you look then you already have good neuromuscular coordination for that activity and you could likely stand to add some mass so incorporate a bit more BB style training - lower frequency, higher volume, short rest, etc, that in turn may help you lift more weight.

If you are not as strong as you look then you need to improve your neuromuscular coordination so include so more PL or OL type training - high frequency, low reps, master technique, etc and don’t worry as much about adding mass at that point.

That got long, hope it made some sense.[/quote]

Tim, you have got to get this commons sense stuff out of here before someone reports you.