[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I can’t believe any of you were taking him seriously. He mentioned how great bb.com, said creatine caused his high blood pressure and called X fat. Those are the oldest tricks in the book!
And you all let him get your panties in a bunch. You are all slipping.[/quote]
It’s a slow day?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Holy crap…this fool, Norvegicus is 42 years old?!!
LOL!!!
And thinks creatine caused his high blood pressure? I had forgotten about you.[/quote]
I’ve already re-forgotten about him.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
I can’t believe any of you were taking him seriously. He mentioned how great bb.com, said creatine caused his high blood pressure and called X fat. Those are the oldest tricks in the book!
And you all let him get your panties in a bunch. You are all slipping.
It’s a slow day?[/quote]
Fair enough. I have to admit I was pretty entertained.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
====
Nominal Prospect:
1-10 Reps = Strength gains through increased motor efficiency (i.e. lifting technique), minimal amount of size gains from to contractile hypertrophy
10+ Reps = Size gains through fluid hypertrophy
There you go. You want something to argue with, now you’ve got it.
So, are we going to listen to Nominal Prospect or we going to wallow in ignorance?
Training for the pump, and taking all work sets to failure, are the two best things you can do for hypertrophy gains.
Surprise! Flex Magazine had it right back in 1993. I know this isn’t what some fatboys want to hear, but I’m here to tell you the truth, not to tickle your balls.[/quote]
HOLY SHIT Did you really take the time to look for that many quotes?
Do you have a hobby?
There would probably be more people arguing in this thread, but they’re at the gym. Trying to get that Time Under Tension. That shit takes a while.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
====
Nominal Prospect:
1-10 Reps = Strength gains through increased motor efficiency (i.e. lifting technique), minimal amount of size gains from to contractile hypertrophy
10+ Reps = Size gains through fluid hypertrophy
There you go. You want something to argue with, now you’ve got it.
So, are we going to listen to Nominal Prospect or we going to wallow in ignorance?
Training for the pump, and taking all work sets to failure, are the two best things you can do for hypertrophy gains.
Surprise! Flex Magazine had it right back in 1993. I know this isn’t what some fatboys want to hear, but I’m here to tell you the truth, not to tickle your balls.
HOLY SHIT Did you really take the time to look for that many quotes?
Do you have a hobby?
[/quote]
It seems a lot of people have this site as a hobby, lol. LISSEN TO ME, I CANS SPELL HYP-ER-TRO_PHY!
This thread makes baby Jesus cry…
[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
There would probably be more people arguing in this thread, but they’re at the gym. Trying to get that Time Under Tension. That shit takes a while. [/quote]
LMFAO!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
forlife wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain
Waterbury just says shit so you will buy his program, because its different than everyone else. Have you ever read his stuff? Most of its is useless, and some of it is downright psychotic. Terminating a set as soon as your reps SLOW DOWN? LOL Not to mention the practical evidence of how huge Mr. Waterbury is himself…
I am still waiting for pictures of these huge bodybuilders who got built using his programs. I am also not sure why people into his stuff are even on this forum.
They never post pics of their progress. Hell, do most of the people here even make progress or do they just settle for making lame ass posts that just show how much they don’t know?
I thought you were asking for fat fuckers
Oh, you’re hilarious.
This is me. Picture taken July 1st. Post your pic under this one so I can see how in shape I am supposed to be. While you are at it, find some pics of people training using Waterbury tactics who are more muscular.
[/quote]
looking huge in the pic man!great stuff.
[quote]B-Man wrote:
looking huge in the pic man!great stuff.
[/quote]
Thanks, but hopefully I can make more improvements over the next few months.
I’m not sure how this thread has derailed from page 1 - 11 but the OP brings up an interesting topic of discussion. From my experience and education size and strength are related but they are not tied as tightly as most people would think.
As a matter of fact, determining strength is somewhat of a puzzle in itself. In which way do you define it? Ultimately it comes down to Power vs. Strength or to a lesser extent (and in my opinion more accurate) slow speed strength vs fast speed strength. But that could become an entirely different topic of discussion if you get to much into it.
What I’m trying to get at is contractile strength under various stimuli. And I think ‘periodization’(in whatever form you may or may not practice) is a good method to examine the difference. Tearing muscle from my experience is more likely to come from slow eccentric phases under a high % of load. The pump and the tearing provide the muscle with more visual “size”. Mainly that’s what is happening while some strength increases do occur.
However, if you look at training with extremely low reps with a very high % of load then you can start to see a stronger contractile strength. More stress/demand is going to be placed on the muscle groups developing the protein strands on the muscle filaments. Hypertrophy can occur but not nearly as much.
Obviously, there are a lot of factors working at the same time in each lift, but the way in which you train will focus on one aspect more then another. This is why I believe that strength (if you see it as moving the most weight) can be achieved through training that’s not solely designed around hypertrophy, even though it may still occur.
What the OP describes is sparse and doesn’t provide much detail but just think of Bruce Lee. How much did he weigh? How big were his thighs, waist, biceps, back, etc. in comparison to modern bodybuilders? And how strong was he?
I think we all know the answer to the last question.
[quote]Crusher Jr. wrote:
And how strong was he?
I think we all know the answer to the last question.[/quote]
Yeah…the answer is “not very”. Bruce Lee wasn’t bench pressing 500lbs so please avoid acting as if he was King Kong in the gym. He was impressive in his own right. There is no need to bestow special powers on the man.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
And how strong was he?
I think we all know the answer to the last question.
Yeah…the answer is “not very”. Bruce Lee wasn’t bench pressing 500lbs so please avoid acting as if he was King Kong in the gym. He was impressive in his own right. There is no need to bestow special powers on the man.[/quote]
Behold detailed and highly objective proofs of Bruce Lee’s strength such as breaking some sort of a heavy bag with a kick somewhere out there,and knocking down some biggish guy this one time.
Bruce lee is a fucking joke never competed in any ring.
And this thread is also a fucking joke, anybody trying to argue that their isn’t a VERY well established link between strength and muscle hypertrophy (Cross sectional area) needs to take their ass to google scholar or a gym.
Sometimes I hate the internet.
All of bruce lee’s strength/power was neural. So that would sort of defend NP’s claim that fiber hypertrophy doesn’t exist (or isn’t common).
But if he would have eaten more and lifted heavier weights he probably could have been pretty big.
Yeah, Bruce could have been way bigger if he ate more and stopped running daily, C_C should know, Bruce was part German;) He did have an impressive front lat/relaxed pose. Didn’t he hurt his lower back doing good mornings and not in a fight like they showed in the movie starring Jason Scott Lee and Lauren Holly?
[quote]IrishMarc wrote:
Bruce lee is a fucking joke never competed in any ring.
And this thread is also a fucking joke, anybody trying to argue that their isn’t a VERY well established link between strength and muscle hypertrophy (Cross sectional area) needs to take their ass to google scholar or a gym.
Sometimes I hate the internet. [/quote]
bruce lee, didnt fight ina ring u are actually probably right. however he was more of a street fighter, or a 1 vs 10 / 1 vs 5 fighter. so technically he was the greatest and most probably the best fighter in history, his skill was clearly documented - he clearly is the best MMA fighter every. he was on a completely different playing field in the martial arts world. (Bruce Lee was practically the fight person to start MMA. )
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
And how strong was he?
I think we all know the answer to the last question.
Yeah…the answer is “not very”. Bruce Lee wasn’t bench pressing 500lbs so please avoid acting as if he was King Kong in the gym. He was impressive in his own right. There is no need to bestow special powers on the man.[/quote]
Strong relative to his size. That’s the point. And I never bestowed anything on the man, you suggested as if I did.
Coincidentally you didn’t have anything of value to talk about with the rest of my post?
[quote]IrishMarc wrote:
Bruce lee is a fucking joke never competed in any ring.
And this thread is also a fucking joke, anybody trying to argue that their isn’t a VERY well established link between strength and muscle hypertrophy (Cross sectional area) needs to take their ass to google scholar or a gym.
Sometimes I hate the internet. [/quote]
Bruce Lee is a joke because he never competed in a ring? Please, by that measurement Rasad Evans must be a king in your world.
And I’m not sure if you’re referring to me but I never disputed the relationship between strength and hypertrophy at all.
Bruce lee would drop Ronnie coleman for sure