Dudes that have been lifting for years have much better MMC …thus can activate MORE motor units…thus can benefit much better from 30Lbs DB curls and lowered weight in general. There’s been tons of articles touching on this concept from the pros already.
So sorry, not buying it, the 150 Lbs kid needs progressive overload (get stronger) over time. Or you’ll look like the skinny fit “beach” dude at the commercial gym still popping a vein with 25s.
[quote]giograves wrote:
So sorry, not buying it, the 150 Lbs kid needs progressive overload (get stronger) over time. [/quote]
With a bodybuilding routine
[quote]giograves wrote:
Dudes that have been lifting for years have much better MMC …thus can activate MORE motor units…thus can benefit much better from 30Lbs DB curls and lowered weight in general. There’s been tons of articles touching on this concept from the pros already.
So sorry, not buying it, the 150 Lbs kid needs progressive overload (get stronger) over time. Or you’ll look like the skinny fit “beach” dude at the commercial gym still popping a vein with 25s. [/quote]
On the other hand, I bet you if we did the curls my way you couldn’t even do 25’s… It’s not that simple
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
You will always hear about how some of the ‘best’, or thickest bodybuilders all started out as powerlifters. I myself trained amongst powerlifters and in the manner of chasing #s and lifting hard n heavy for a very long time and yet didn’t come anywhere near achieving a bodybuilder caliber physique.
While a lot of more experienced competitors and judges than myself have attributed the ‘denseness’ of my contest condition to those years spent moving heavy poundages, I can easily point to seriously world class athletes who will readily admit to not being especially strong (Brian Whitacre comes to mind, and he’s arguably one of the best in the world).
While training to get stronger, and see your weights lifted improve when you first begin your training is a very good way to track progress (still too much of a newb to go by less measurable variables), it’s not the be-all-end all to building a physique as far as I’m concerned.
S
[/quote]
Whitacre’s deadlifted 585 for reps, that’s pretty stong! I have no idea what his other lifts are though. Not that it really matters as he won his class yet again at the Worlds this year.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
[quote]giograves wrote:
Dudes that have been lifting for years have much better MMC …thus can activate MORE motor units…thus can benefit much better from 30Lbs DB curls and lowered weight in general. There’s been tons of articles touching on this concept from the pros already.
So sorry, not buying it, the 150 Lbs kid needs progressive overload (get stronger) over time. Or you’ll look like the skinny fit “beach” dude at the commercial gym still popping a vein with 25s. [/quote]
On the other hand, I bet you if we did the curls my way you couldn’t even do 25’s… It’s not that simple[/quote]
Still doesn’t matter that you can make an exercise harder with pauses, angles, ROMs ,etc. What matters is that the 15s I could probably do with your variation, will be 25s NEXT year. Same as if I replaced my normal chins, with MUCH harder Gironda chins. (Given this progression is not possible for the advanced BBer, so he needs to look elsewhere)
Tis the reason why people keep note of RMs for different exercise variations, sometimes with straps/no straps. Same reason why in Wendlers (or was it DC?) you are told too not switch up your lift technique too much
I certainly appreciate how important “burn” work is for the advanced BBer. But there simply isn’t a one size fits all solution to all bodies, to all genetic types, to all levels of development
Yo Elliot! hit on this point pretty dam good. Yes, I’m aware his roots is powerlifting though he’s going for aesthetics now.
[quote]Kooopa wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
here we go again[/quote]
i wonder what percentage of your posts actually has content. single digits at best is my guess.
feel free to throw random ad hominems at me chief[/quote]
lol
feel free to check my post history.
my poor wittle feewings are hurt! Buhuuhuuhuhu
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
You will always hear about how some of the ‘best’, or thickest bodybuilders all started out as powerlifters. I myself trained amongst powerlifters and in the manner of chasing #s and lifting hard n heavy for a very long time and yet didn’t come anywhere near achieving a bodybuilder caliber physique.
While a lot of more experienced competitors and judges than myself have attributed the ‘denseness’ of my contest condition to those years spent moving heavy poundages, I can easily point to seriously world class athletes who will readily admit to not being especially strong (Brian Whitacre comes to mind, and he’s arguably one of the best in the world).
While training to get stronger, and see your weights lifted improve when you first begin your training is a very good way to track progress (still too much of a newb to go by less measurable variables), it’s not the be-all-end all to building a physique as far as I’m concerned.
S
[/quote]
Whitacre’s deadlifted 585 for reps, that’s pretty stong! I have no idea what his other lifts are though. Not that it really matters as he won his class yet again at the Worlds this year.[/quote]
Oh it’s certainly no weight to laugh at, but Brian himself will always point out that compared to some of the guys who are constantly trying to get higher #s, he’s not necessarily a “strong” guy. The point is that as a bodybuilder, he USES the weights to achieve his goals, and his goals aren’t always to lift the most weight that he can. You can find a hell of a lot of wannabe bodybuilders who can deadlift more than Whitacre, but compare their physiques with his.
That’s all I’m getting at, that the goal is what needs to be kept in mind. I like to think I had some respectable lifts before I really started focusing on MMC and making the muscles work instead of worrying about how strong I looked, or how badass I felt after dropping the big DBs on the floor after a set. Still, in hindsight, I don’t think it affected how I look now. I will say though that if you do anything repeatedly for a good duration, you will get better at it.
So MMC aside, I think that anyone who trains for a few years will undoubtedly get stronger whether they’re obsessively glued to their training notebook or not (provided they actually realize when a weight feels too light and make adjustments).
S
High reps + low reps + compound exercises + isolation exercises + body split → bigger & stronger
everybody wins
mind-blowing stuff, I know.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
High reps + low reps + compound exercises + isolation exercises + body split → bigger & stronger
everybody wins
mind-blowing stuff, I know.[/quote]
You don’t even…KNOW!
Many bb’rs are strong. These are not mutually exclusive training methods. BB training can really teach you how to feel a muscle working. I have used bb methods to learn to engage my lats and back particularly. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of people on this board who have posted solid routines for physique, and have the results to show for it.
Eat, get bigger, get stronger, follow a solid routine, and dont major in the minors.
I feel like it’s silly to compare strength levels of different individuals. There are so many uncontrollable factors like leverages, limb lengths and muscle insertions to name a few that can have a profound effect on displayed strength.
One person might be able to move the same or more weight than another but the “weaker” person could possibly have bigger muscles because their muscles have to work harder to move the same weights due to aforementioned variables (not to mention technique).
I’m a pretty firm believer that the strongest YOU (in rep ranges conducive to hypertrophy using good technique to place emphasis on the target muscle group) is always going to be the biggest YOU. No need to compare numbers with anyone else, just worry about getting YOUR numbers as high as possible within those parameters and you’ll be the biggest you can be.
I think if your a bodybuilder and not getting stronger something is wrong. Maybe I’m making an ass out of myself but I would assume Kai can out bench and squat anybody who has posted so far. So maybe people should rethink their idea of strength. Powerlifters seemed to get automatically grouped into strength category. Frankly I’ve come across many that aren’t that strong. So I would say this to the OP do you mean strength? or high powerlifting numbers and ratios?
P.S. I’m not trying to say all powerlifters are weak just that their main focus should be the three lifts for a one rep max, and doing that can leave “weak” in other categories.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I think if your a bodybuilder and not getting stronger something is wrong. Maybe I’m making an ass out of myself but I would assume Kai can out bench and squat anybody who has posted so far. So maybe people should rethink their idea of strength. Powerlifters seemed to get automatically grouped into strength category. Frankly I’ve come across many that aren’t that strong. So I would say this to the OP do you mean strength? or high powerlifting numbers and ratios?
P.S. I’m not trying to say all powerlifters are weak just that their main focus should be the three lifts for a one rep max, and doing that can leave “weak” in other categories.[/quote]
To use the word “stronger” is very general. More muscle - without neural adaption - can lift more weight, thus mean that you’re stronger, but when I’m talking about strength, I mean neural strength.
I perhaps should’ve rephrased my points to say whether it was a good idea to primarily build a foundation of NEURAL strength, and THEN focus on myofibrillar hypertrophy in the long run.
By the way, as far as I know, based on scientific evidence, I believe that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is hugely overrated and is vastly a matter of temporal size increase.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
I feel like it’s silly to compare strength levels of different individuals. There are so many uncontrollable factors like leverages, limb lengths and muscle insertions to name a few that can have a profound effect on displayed strength.
One person might be able to move the same or more weight than another but the “weaker” person could possibly have bigger muscles because their muscles have to work harder to move the same weights due to aforementioned variables (not to mention technique).
I’m a pretty firm believer that the strongest YOU (in rep ranges conducive to hypertrophy using good technique to place emphasis on the target muscle group) is always going to be the biggest YOU. No need to compare numbers with anyone else, just worry about getting YOUR numbers as high as possible within those parameters and you’ll be the biggest you can be.[/quote]
this. especially the last bit.
[quote]labean wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I think if your a bodybuilder and not getting stronger something is wrong. Maybe I’m making an ass out of myself but I would assume Kai can out bench and squat anybody who has posted so far. So maybe people should rethink their idea of strength. Powerlifters seemed to get automatically grouped into strength category. Frankly I’ve come across many that aren’t that strong. So I would say this to the OP do you mean strength? or high powerlifting numbers and ratios?
P.S. I’m not trying to say all powerlifters are weak just that their main focus should be the three lifts for a one rep max, and doing that can leave “weak” in other categories.[/quote]
To use the word “stronger” is very general. More muscle - without neural adaption - can lift more weight, thus mean that you’re stronger, but when I’m talking about strength, I mean neural strength.
I perhaps should’ve rephrased my points to say whether it was a good idea to primarily build a foundation of NEURAL strength, and THEN focus on myofibrillar hypertrophy in the long run.
By the way, as far as I know, based on scientific evidence, I believe that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is hugely overrated and is vastly a matter of temporal size increase. [/quote]
My point is if your lifting weights 5-6 days a week your going to have neural adaptation, and muscle and be stronger.