[quote]imhungry wrote:
JimmyLee09 wrote:
I have a real life example from my own experience in the past. I wanted to get bigger so was trying differnt exercise programs to see how my body responds.
I did a pumping program where I used light weights and high volume to increase the size of my muscles. When I say light, I mean light: 45 pound lat pull downs, 50 pound BARBELL curls, 135 pound bench press and so on. The crazy thing is that my muscles got larger, I mean very large very quickly where people thoughtI was taking something.
My arms grew big fast where even I was getting nervous about the fast results. My point is that yes people everywhere I went constanlty commented on my size, yet I never wanted people to know how weak I actually was. When people needed help moving something big and heavy they would call me for help thinking it would be a piece of cake for me.
In reality I had so much trouble that they would have been better off without my help. From a physique stand point yes I looked good, but for the size I had, I was completely useless for helping others move. I say that gaining muscle mass without strength is pointless. Now I have the size and strength to back it up.
I have a very strange feeling that you just might be full of shit.
I could be wrong.
But, I don’t think so.[/quote]
I know it sounds like a joke or something but yes that actually happened. Keep in mind that the muscle gain from that kind of program was not an actual muscle fiber enlargement. That kind of training expands the muscle size because the lactic acid build up in the muscle release growth hormone and also shifts protein and water into the muscle making the muscle expand. It is like puming a balloon up with air.
I must say that as soon as I stopped traing with that program I lost all the size just as quick as I gained it. It is not something I would do again and would never advise anyone else to try that program. When I train with heavy weights its takes a few weeks of non lifting to lose size and not just missing one workout like with the light program mentioned above.
[quote]the_savage wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Competing bodybuilders are much stronger in the offseason when they are carrying more mass. It’s not like that same person will not regain the lost strength almost immeidiately when the calories are increased after the show. Bodybuilders don’t avoid getting stronger. It would be impossible to get bigger if you didn’t get stronger.
I apologize, I wasn’t implying that competing bodybuilders were weaker than other people who lift weights without competition or anything. I just meant that their goal is to win their competition by being the biggest and most ripped they can be, regardless of how much they lift. Just like powerlifters couldn’t care less about how they look, as long they are lifting as much weight as they can.[/quote]
Fair enough
I only brought it up because it sounded like you were saying that bodybuilders would deliberately avoid getting stronger if it means they can become bigger in the process, compared to getting bigger and stronger at the same time.
I don’t think any self respecting gym-goer wants to avoid becoming as strong as possible.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
imhungry wrote:
JimmyLee09 wrote:
I have a real life example from my own experience in the past. I wanted to get bigger so was trying differnt exercise programs to see how my body responds. I did a
pumping program where I used light weights and high volume to increase the size of my muscles. When I say light, I mean light: 45 pound lat pull downs, 50 pound BARBELL curls, 135 pound bench press and so on.
The crazy thing is that my muscles got larger, I mean very large very quickly where people thoughtI was taking something. My arms grew big fast where even I was getting nervous about the fast results. My point is that yes people everywhere I went constanlty commented on my size, yet I never wanted people to know how weak I actually was.
When people needed help moving something big and heavy they would call me for help thinking it would be a piece of cake for me. In reality I had so much trouble that they would have been better off without my help.
From a physique stand point yes I looked good, but for the size I had, I was completely useless for helping others move. I say that gaining muscle mass without strength is pointless. Now I have the size and strength to back it up.
I have a very strange feeling that you just might be full of shit.
I could be wrong.
But, I don’t think so.
Is the feeling really that strange?[/quote]
Not really, but, i’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.
[quote]JimmyLee09 wrote:
imhungry wrote:
JimmyLee09 wrote:
I have a real life example from my own experience in the past. I wanted to get bigger so was trying differnt exercise programs to see how my body responds.
I did a pumping program where I used light weights and high volume to increase the size of my muscles. When I say light, I mean light: 45 pound lat pull downs, 50 pound BARBELL curls, 135 pound bench press and so on. The crazy thing is that my muscles got larger, I mean very large very quickly where people thoughtI was taking something.
My arms grew big fast where even I was getting nervous about the fast results. My point is that yes people everywhere I went constanlty commented on my size, yet I never wanted people to know how weak I actually was.
When people needed help moving something big and heavy they would call me for help thinking it would be a piece of cake for me. In reality I had so much trouble that they would have been better off without my help. From a physique stand point yes I looked good, but for the size I had, I was completely useless for helping others move.
I say that gaining muscle mass without strength is pointless. Now I have the size and strength to back it up.
I have a very strange feeling that you just might be full of shit.
I could be wrong.
But, I don’t think so.
I know it sounds like a joke or something but yes that actually happened. Keep in mind that the muscle gain from that kind of program was not an actual muscle fiber enlargement. That kind of training expands the muscle size because the lactic acid build up in the muscle release growth hormone and also shifts protein and water into the muscle making the muscle expand. It is like puming a balloon up with air. I must say that as soon as I stopped traing with that program I lost all the size just as quick as I gained it. It is not something I would do again and would never advise anyone else to try that program.
When I train with heavy weights its takes a few weeks of non lifting to lose size and not just missing one workout like with the light program mentioned above.
[/quote]
Because obviously all massive guys a as weak as 13 yr old girls.
Come on, this is the internet. I could claim to squat a grand for 15 reps if i wanted, doesn’t make it so.
Unless your have the best damn genetics in the world, i doubt you put on any serious mass just from getting a pump.
[quote]aussie101 wrote:
I agree, but chances are if someone says you have big muscles then your probably going to be very strong anyway, so worrying about the actual strength to size ratio of your muscles isn’t really necessary. [/quote]
I guess the two go together and it’s just a matter of which one you pay more attention to and care about.
[quote]the_savage wrote:
aussie101 wrote:
I agree, but chances are if someone says you have big muscles then your probably going to be very strong anyway, so worrying about the actual strength to size ratio of your muscles isn’t really necessary.
I guess the two go together and it’s just a matter of which one you pay more attention to and care about.[/quote]
Where do some of you train/live to be surrounded by weak big guys?
Maybe I’m the freak, but I don’t see it.
All - no not ‘most’ but ‘all’ - the big guys at my gym are strong. Are they elite lifter or strong man competitor strong? No, but they still lift heavier weights than the small guys who are “strong for their size”.
Somewhere along the line “absolute” numbers were made to seem inferior to “relative” ones. It shouldn’t be the case. At least not for the vast “non-competing” population.
I am 46 yrs old. I sandblast and paint water towers. Up until 2 yrs ago I was actively doing the work. I have promoted myself to a more managerial position. I started working out to basically get stronger. I have noticed a significant difference in throwing 100# sand bags,etc. since I started lifting.
I still do some of the physical work but it alot easier now(not that it was hard before)
BTW: This is a fantastic site, have learned a great deal. Thanks to everyone who makes it possible.
I would like to clear up something. Muscle size is not directly proportional to strength. In fact there can be situations where there is an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength.
Just because you get stronger does not mean you will automatically get bigger. For example, if muscle size and strength are directly proportional then every last powerlifter would be bigger than bodybuilders. Strength is the result of the CNS learning how to send the proper impulses to the targeted muscles. In other words, your CNS becomes more efficient with the load you are presenting it. Muscle size has to do with the fiber fatigue. Muscles contract on a all or nothing basis.
It the load you are using is too heavy for the fibers, the CNS will simply take over by increasing the impulses being sent to the body part you are training. In essense it is making the load easier for the muscle which is the opposite of what you want.
[quote]JimmyLee09 wrote:
I would like to clear up something. Muscle size is not directly proportional to strength. In fact there can be situations where there is an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength. Just because you get stronger does not mean you will automatically get bigger.
For example, if muscle size and strength are directly proportional then every last powerlifter would be bigger than bodybuilders. Strength is the result of the CNS learning how to send the proper impulses to the targeted muscles. In other words, your CNS becomes more efficient with the load you are presenting it. Muscle size has to do with the fiber fatigue. Muscles contract on a all or nothing basis. It the load you are using is too heavy for the fibers, the CNS will simply take over by increasing the impulses being sent to the body part you are training. In essense it is making the load easier for the muscle which is the opposite of what you want.[/quote]
I’d like to see an example of an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength.
And if you are eating enough, you will get bigger if you get stronger (until you hit the absolute genetic peak). There is absolutely no denying that.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
JimmyLee09 wrote:
I would like to clear up something. Muscle size is not directly proportional to strength. In fact there can be situations where there is an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength. Just because you get stronger does not mean you will automatically get bigger. For example, if muscle size and strength are directly proportional then every last powerlifter would be bigger than bodybuilders. Strength is the result of the CNS learning how to send the proper impulses to the targeted muscles.
In other words, your CNS becomes more efficient with the load you are presenting it. Muscle size has to do with the fiber fatigue. Muscles contract on a all or nothing basis. It the load you are using is too heavy for the fibers, the CNS will simply take over by increasing the impulses being sent to the body part you are training. In essense it is making the load easier for the muscle which is the opposite of what you want.
I’d like to see an example of an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength.
And if you are eating enough, you will get bigger if you get stronger (until you hit the absolute genetic peak). There is absolutely no denying that. [/quote]
You want an example of an inverse relationship between mass and strength. To get stronger you would use a rep range of 1-3 for very low sets.
See what happens when a bodybuilder who trains in the 8-12 range for high sets changes to a system that only requires him to use 1-3 reps for low reps. I can gaurantee that he will lose muscle mass if he stays on that program for the long haul.
You want an example of an inverse relationship between mass and strength. To get stronger you would use a rep range of 1-3 for very low sets. See what happens when a bodybuilder who trains in the 8-12 range for high sets changes to a system that only requires him to use 1-3 reps for low reps. I can gaurantee that he will lose muscle mass if he stays on that program for the long haul.
[/quote]
Chuck disagrees. You wouldnt want to upset Chuck, would you?
Honestly though, there are very few people who get to elite levels of size without reaching elite levels of strength.
Find me one bodybuilder who got to 230+ lbs of lean mass on an average sized frame (5’7"-5’10") without getting strong as fuck all, and I will show you 1000 who got bigger by getting stronger.
If you disagree, then you havent been paying very good attention
You want an example of an inverse relationship between mass and strength. To get stronger you would use a rep range of 1-3 for very low sets. See what happens when a bodybuilder who trains in the 8-12 range for high sets changes to a system that only requires him to use 1-3 reps for low reps. I can gaurantee that he will lose muscle mass if he stays on that program for the long haul.
Chuck disagrees. You wouldnt want to upset Chuck, would you?
Honestly though, there are very few people who get to elite levels of size without reaching elite levels of strength. Find me one bodybuilder who got to 230+ lbs of lean mass on an average sized frame (5’7"-5’10") without getting strong as fuck all, and I will show you 1000 who got bigger by getting stronger.
If you disagree, then you havent been paying very good attention[/quote]
The fact of the matter is that using both a strength and size program will build incredible size. I am just saying show me the majority of big bodybuilders who can look you in the eye and say that they spent the past year traning only in the 1-3 rep range.
[quote]JimmyLee09 wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
JimmyLee09 wrote:
I would like to clear up something. Muscle size is not directly proportional to strength. In fact there can be situations where there is an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength. Just because you get stronger does not mean you will automatically get bigger. For example, if muscle size and strength are directly proportional then every last powerlifter would be bigger than bodybuilders.
Strength is the result of the CNS learning how to send the proper impulses to the targeted muscles. In other words, your CNS becomes more efficient with the load you are presenting it. Muscle size has to do with the fiber fatigue. Muscles contract on a all or nothing basis.
It the load you are using is too heavy for the fibers, the CNS will simply take over by increasing the impulses being sent to the body part you are training. In essense it is making the load easier for the muscle which is the opposite of what you want.
I’d like to see an example of an inverse relationship between muscle size and strength.
And if you are eating enough, you will get bigger if you get stronger (until you hit the absolute genetic peak). There is absolutely no denying that.
You want an example of an inverse relationship between mass and strength. To get stronger you would use a rep range of 1-3 for very low sets. See what happens when a bodybuilder who trains in the 8-12 range for high sets changes to a system that only requires him to use 1-3 reps for low reps. I can gaurantee that he will lose muscle mass if he stays on that program for the long haul.
[/quote]
BS
Where do you propose the 8-12 rep muscle disappears to? It’s not going to just vanish if the guy is eating maintenance calories.
I don’t even know why I’m still posting in this thread, to be honest.
[quote]JimmyLee09 wrote:
The fact of the matter is that using both a strength and size program will build incredible size. I am just saying show me the majority of big bodybuilders who can look you in the eye and say that they spent the past year traning only in the 1-3 rep range.
[/quote]
What you said is that you wont get big training with lower reps.
Did it ever occur to you that bodybuilders who have built their physiques in the 8-12 rep range would probably prefer to stick with what is already working?
Does this mean that because bodybuilders are unwilling to do something different than usual, that training with low reps doesnt have the ability to add size to an individual?
Of course not.
If I remember correctly, Pushharder has had a great deal of success putting on size using low reps for a high number of sets. Volume is a function of reps x sets, dont forget your basic arithmetic here, 3 x 10 and 10 x 3 both equal 30.
You want an example of an inverse relationship between mass and strength. To get stronger you would use a rep range of 1-3 for very low sets. See what happens when a bodybuilder who trains in the 8-12 range for high sets changes to a system that only requires him to use 1-3 reps for low reps. I can gaurantee that he will lose muscle mass if he stays on that program for the long haul.
Chuck disagrees. You wouldnt want to upset Chuck, would you?
Honestly though, there are very few people who get to elite levels of size without reaching elite levels of strength. Find me one bodybuilder who got to 230+ lbs of lean mass on an average sized frame (5’7"-5’10") without getting strong as fuck all, and I will show you 1000 who got bigger by getting stronger.
If you disagree, then you havent been paying very good attention
The fact of the matter is that using both a strength and size program will build incredible size. I am just saying show me the majority of big bodybuilders who can look you in the eye and say that they spent the past year traning only in the 1-3 rep range.
[/quote]
Even elite powerlifters leave the 1-3 rep range for parts of their training, please just stop posting =/
You want an example of an inverse relationship between mass and strength. To get stronger you would use a rep range of 1-3 for very low sets. See what happens when a bodybuilder who trains in the 8-12 range for high sets changes to a system that only requires him to use 1-3 reps for low reps. I can gaurantee that he will lose muscle mass if he stays on that program for the long haul.
Chuck disagrees. You wouldnt want to upset Chuck, would you?
Honestly though, there are very few people who get to elite levels of size without reaching elite levels of strength. Find me one bodybuilder who got to 230+ lbs of lean mass on an average sized frame (5’7"-5’10") without getting strong as fuck all, and I will show you 1000 who got bigger by getting stronger.
If you disagree, then you havent been paying very good attention
The fact of the matter is that using both a strength and size program will build incredible size. I am just saying show me the majority of big bodybuilders who can look you in the eye and say that they spent the past year traning only in the 1-3 rep range.
Even elite powerlifters leave the 1-3 rep range for parts of their training, please just stop posting =/[/quote]
I am starting to think that this topic will never be resolved LOL. I wish everyone the best in reaching your bodybuilding and competition goals and thank you for all of your responses. I enjoy hearing answers from different perspectives since I can not stand it when people just go along with what others say and not have a mind of their own. Take care!
