[quote]hardgnr wrote:
All these back avatars are confusing the fuck out of me…[/quote]
I think I want video of your avi benching any weight for reps… lots & lots of reps.
lol put this up as one of the worse threads for 09’. Do people fucking use the search function any more around here? in case it wasn’t posted or was missed by some. All this is discussed by some very knowledgeable people in this round table.
[quote]josh86 wrote:
MODOK wrote:
josh86 wrote:
SSC wrote:
josh86 wrote:
criminaldude wrote:
Aye, size is a result of training for VOLUME. PERIOD.
Strength is due to ligament conditioning, neurotropic development and parliamentary hypertrophy (sp?).
Volume confusion and tension extension = size. PERIOD.
You are an idiot.
I can’t believe this retarded thread is still going. Lets all hijack it and turn it into a Big Ron appreciation thread.
Here’s one of my favorite inspirational Ronnie vids : - YouTube
He would never have gotten that big without moving the massive fucking weights he does. Enjoy 
You are so off-base it’s not even funny. Ronnie only got how big he is using drugs and heaps and heaps of steroids - I heard he eats like, nothing but steaks and stuff; I bet his heart is about to pop out of his chest.
Plus, he gets too intense in the weight room, which means he’s only asking for hypertrophy which directly correlates to his blood pressure. Best to stay with light weights and high reps so you don’t risk hypertrophy with your endothelial cells.
And yeah, I use to be that big, so I’m pretty much qualified enough to say this. I just stopped lifting because I was so sick of getting attention everywhere I went.
Dude don’t…some tool will take you seriously lol
One of you too need to change your avatar…it looks like you are conversing with yourself. lol
SSC copied me…that was my avi first. People always tryin to be like the big dawg. (Obviously I’m kidding on that last part lol)[/quote]
I didn’t even realize until a few days ago when we had consecutive posts in BOI that they were frighteningly similar. Yes, mine came second. No, I will not relinquish my picture, haha. It took me like 90 tries to get one that wasn’t wobbly and out of focus, haha.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?
[/quote]
No obviously not. This statement doesn’t even make sense. What does this mean?
Does is mean a person that has a 600lb squat will weigh 600 lbs?
For the sake of this thread, SIZE is directly related to how many calories you take in. The more you eat the more you weigh. Whether that size is fat or muscle will depend on many things, but two of the big ones are strength and strength-endurance.
So you could kinda say size is related to strength but it is far from a direct correlation. You could easily have someone deadlifting 600 lbs at 180 and another person doing it at 250. Who do you think is bigger?
But for any indidual person, if you GAIN WEIGHT and INCREASE YOUR STRENGTH you will more than likely be bigger and have more muscle.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This poor woman has NO BREASTS AT ALL.[/quote]
Her pec development is phenomenal. I would like to get a few pointers from her because she has obviously found the perfect program combining size AND strength with spot on conditioning. The way she has developed the mid-pectoral area is amazonian.
[quote]hardgnr wrote:
All these back avatars are confusing the fuck out of me…[/quote]
Hahahaha I had the exact same wtf? reaction
I think with some athletes lifting large weights in proportion to their weight has been givining people the wrong idea. These guys might be smaller and stronger than good bodybuilder but to generally I have never seen a person that didn’t look like they were packed with muscle lifting large weights.
As a side note I think that’s where the 130 lbs people came from saying they dont want to get too big just strong. Most relative strength athletes are still jacked even by physique enthusiasts standards. A lean 180 at 5’8 still looks pretty damn built.
As for nonfunctional hypertrophy well I suppose having huge legs for a climber might be non functional hypertrophy but saying a bigger muscle isnt going to help you in some way to move more weight?! Muscle mass gains without very appreciable strength gains just do not happen.
Hell a 130 lbs weakling can spend all the time in the world trying to get stronger and see minimal gains, but increase his weight from 130 to 180 even with fat gains his strength gains will go through the roof.
Even athletes that need to stay in weight classes will often purpously go up a weight classes because then can gain a lot more strength out of their new mass in proportion to their body weight then just keep working on strength alone.
Ask any person when their greatest strength gains happened 99 percent of the time it will be when they gains an appreciable amount of weight as well.
It really is dependent on one’s training philosophy, genetics, diet, work ethic and exercise selection. There is no universal yes or no, clean cut answer to it. Sorry.
Just a thought, If you trained hard and heavy but didn’t eat enough quality foods ie protein etc. You wouldn’t get the results from your efforts right? So somebody that’s naturally strong and didn’t eat to be big wouldn’t get big right, just asking.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
<<< Im seeing this is true. Some people just don’t grow from heavier weights. His chest is large but more because of the wide frame. Like when he does cables and squeezes the pecs together, some guys much weaker can hold a playing card between the squeezed pecs, his don’t pop at all. Just different genetics i guess >>>[/quote]
Is there a point to all this?. How does this conversation do anything to enhance your training?
Aye, but there is more than one form of eh hypertrophy i.e. nootropics. Not all hypertrophy results in eh size gain. Some forms of adaptation result in cell division rather than growth, ah it depend on goals of said individual, ah the demand placed on the organism.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
worzel wrote:
Therizza wrote:
There’s also neural efficiency and technique to consider, along with myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
Size = strength
Yes
BUT the degree of size:strength ratio differs immensely and is attributed to what Therizza wrote above.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or non-functional hypertrophy results in big muscles that lack the equivalent strength that you would expect to see with very big muscles.
Sarcomere Hypertrophy or functional hypertrophy results in increases in strength with less muscular size, which is desirable in athletic pursuits where size (weight) will hinder performance. I think this might answer the OP question about size & strength.
Now, the 400lb bench portion of the story mmm? The only way out of that one is to provide proof!
There is no such thing as “Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” and we disproved that right here.
Find me ONE study showing this to occur in humans.
I’ll wait.
This “unfunctional hypertrophy” bullshit is the brain fart of personal trainers with a program to sell and nothing more. It helps them for you to believe that bodybuilders are weak…even though most here don’t seem to be that strong given their supposed superior “functional strength”.[/quote]
The chest cavity can be ah coincave or covtext. To make the chest ah “pop”, you would need deep tissue massage and eh rudimentary hypertroph-ious adaptation (see any journal on cosmetology). Aye, adapt your training accordingly.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gregus wrote:
<<< Im seeing this is true. Some people just don’t grow from heavier weights. His chest is large but more because of the wide frame. Like when he does cables and squeezes the pecs together, some guys much weaker can hold a playing card between the squeezed pecs, his don’t pop at all. Just different genetics i guess >>>
Is there a point to all this?. How does this conversation do anything to enhance your training?[/quote]
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I agree that everyone with a 400lbs bench will have a muscular chest. So as you grow stronger you grow larger. We all know that. But what about this: Does Size = Strength? I see alot of lifters with very good size and muscularity but the strength does not match up. Why?
I have seen guys come into the gym and go to 405 bench cold, and do it for 10-12 reps. No chest size at all. Yes his chest was outlined and all but no size. Clearly if he followed the notion of strength = size, his chest should be very muscular. But his chest and arms are not.
The strange thing is that i noticed for all the guys who train they all train differently to get their results. For some it’s always heavy, for some it’s volume, for some it’s intensity regardless of light or heavy weights. One particular large muscular individual said the best is to do completely different exercises each session, or always change the order.
But like i said they did it differently. They didn’t follow any routine. I guess it could be said their routine is in not having one. [/quote]
Strength increases do not necessarily result in hypertrophy, and the reverse is also true.
What most people think of as “gaining strength” is nothing more than subtle improvements in technique and the maximization of leverage.
What most people think of as “muscular hypertrophy” is nothing more than fluid engorgement of the muscle tissues due to high volume training and glycogen saturation.
Real contractile hypertrophy and neurological strength increases are exceedingly rare and take years to develop. Arthur Jones said as much.
So, the simple answer is no.
The complicated answer is…well, wait until I get flamed for this.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Strength increases do not necessarily result in hypertrophy, and the reverse is also true.
What most people think of as “gaining strength” is nothing more than subtle improvements in technique and the maximization of leverage.
What most people think of as “muscular hypertrophy” is nothing more than fluid engorgement of the muscle tissues due to high volume training and glycogen saturation.
Real contractile hypertrophy and neurological strength increases are exceedingly rare and take years to develop. Arthur Jones said as much.
So, the simple answer is no.
The complicated answer is…well, wait until I get flamed for this.[/quote]
I agree with a part of what you said. But I also STRONGLY disagree with a few things.
-What do you mean by maximizing leverage?
-And if someone goes from benching 200 to benching 300 this isn’t from a sublte improvement in technique.
-And if someone goes from weighing 180lbs to weighing 200lbs, this isn’t JUST fluid. Sure it is primarily fluid, but there still is contractile hypertrophy.
So neurological strength gains, and myofibril hypertrophy are NOT rare.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
You really should delete “non-functional hypertrophy” from your lexicon. Yes, we get what you are saying- bodybuilders aren’t training FOR the outcome of strength, but strength does follow. Therefore, the hypertrophied muscle functions. The body doesn’t change without a reason or a function, so the term is complete bullshit.[/quote]
I will re-phrase the generic terms I used to athletic hypertrophy & bodybuilding hypertrophy to prevent anymore upset. But just to reiterate I was quoting the terms as used in the texts I have at home and didn’t intend any offence!
Functional or functional training is a hotly debated term because it means different things to different people, herein lie’s the confusion! This has already been beaten to death on previous threads so we will leave it be.
lol @ ssc and josh86
thought they were same person for a second based on their avatar
Ahaha, nominal prospect and dankid in the same thread.
The end is upon us
[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
hardgnr wrote:
All these back avatars are confusing the fuck out of me…
I think I want video of your avi benching any weight for reps… lots & lots of reps.[/quote]
proof
[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
lol put this up as one of the worse threads for 09’. Do people fucking use the search function any more around here? in case it wasn’t posted or was missed by some. All this is discussed by some very knowledgeable people in this round table.
Strength Training, Bodybuilding & Online Supplement Store - T NATION [/quote]
Great read. Thanks
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
What most people think of as “gaining strength” is nothing more than subtle improvements in technique and the maximization of leverage.
What most people think of as “muscular hypertrophy” is nothing more than fluid engorgement of the muscle tissues due to high volume training and glycogen saturation.
Real contractile hypertrophy and neurological strength increases are exceedingly rare and take years to develop. Arthur Jones said as much.
So, the simple answer is no.
The complicated answer is…well, wait until I get flamed for this.[/quote]
Argh you mean I’ve been training all these years (ok almost 2 years) for nothing!? Could we please please have the complicated answer ASAP so I won’t have to live with this dreadful doubt that I haven’t really gotten bigger and stronger at all over the past 2 years?