[quote]Brendan Ryan wrote:
I firmly believe it’s sarcoplasmic vs. myofibril hypertrophy.
[/quote]
You should stop. We debunked that ridiculous notion right here.
Dieting down to competition level is part of it. the combo of low bodyfat, dehydration, and carb depletion. But the biggest difference is training heavy. The handful of powerlifters I’ve seen that have dieted down look denser than any bodybuilder I’ve ever seen.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Dieting down to competition level is part of it. the combo of low bodyfat, dehydration, and carb depletion. But the biggest difference is training heavy. The handful of powerlifters I’ve seen that have dieted down look denser than any bodybuilder I’ve ever seen.[/quote]
Maybe they were just in better condition.
you’re going to need to be more specific when you throw around words like “condition”.
[quote]DouglasJ16 wrote:
Well put. I think for the most part maturity has a decent role as well. Now some guys mature quite a bit by 22-25 so it can be done at a younger age. But I think its pretty irrelevant here because, correct me if I’m wrong but, most people who are being discussed and are competing are way older than that.
So yeah, train hard enough for long enough and cut the bf and there ya go!
[/quote]
Yay! So basically squats and milk until I’m 30?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
krazykoukides wrote:
Unless you’re morbidly obese, this shouldn’t be true. Think about it you have the muscle under a layer of fat, when you flex that muscle is still pushing the skin and fat up the same distance it would push the skin and fat up of someone 10% bodyfat or less.
The only difference is when a person with a higer bodyfat diets down there arms will get smaller because they’re literally getting smaller because of less fat.
read tip number 1
I read it and it is still bullshit like the first day I saw it.
Some of you believe anything as long as it is in print.[/quote]
I just tried this.
X is right. It is complete bullshit. I have a difference of about 2 1/4 inches flexed and unflexed and I’m not 3% bf. I just have naturally very lean arms and forearms.
I store most of my fat in my middle. The bodyfat on your arms has nothing to do with your overall bodyfat.
Don’t believe everything you read.
[quote]BARBUDA wrote:
Im sure you guys know what i’m talking about - The look of sheer rock hard muscle tissue.
Some guys just seem to have this look, like they are carved from stone, that even if they stopped training there muscle would remain, you get the idea…
So. Do you think this look is created by low bf, training HEAVY, genetics (dare i say it), “muscle maturity,” a combo of factors…?
[/quote]
Being under 5’9 helps.
A lot.
Lifting heavy increases tonus, or muscle tone, which is basically how flexed your muscle is without flexing.
People who train with higher reps will have less muscle tone and thus will notice a larger diffrence between their “flexed” and “unflexed” measurments.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
People who train with higher reps will have less muscle tone and thus will notice a larger diffrence between their “flexed” and “unflexed” measurments.[/quote]
Bull to the Shit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
People who train with higher reps will have less muscle tone and thus will notice a larger diffrence between their “flexed” and “unflexed” measurments.
Bull to the Shit.[/quote]
Maybe my post had the wrong tone, as it’s just my theory but wouldn’t it make sense that if a muscle is already partially contracted, that it wouldn’t contract as much as a less contracted muscle if you were to flex it?
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
People who train with higher reps will have less muscle tone and thus will notice a larger diffrence between their “flexed” and “unflexed” measurments.
Bull to the Shit.
Maybe my post had the wrong tone, as it’s just my theory, but wouldn’t it make sense that if a muscle is already partially contracted, that it wouldn’t contract as much as a less contracted muscle if you were to flex it?[/quote]
You fucked up by assuming that increasing the number of reps you somehow decrease muscle tone. That doesn’t even make sense. First, even if a larger bodybuilder is using higher reps, someone with 20" arms is going to be at his peak in terms of “muscle tone”.
Some of you have been brainwashed by people who act like big bodybuilders are weak. That is why you believe increasing the reps somehow equals “weak muscle”.
Further, the difference between flexed and unflexed measurements is based primarily on MUSCLE SHAPE which completely reliant on individual genetics. You also don’t carry that much fat on your arms unless you are massively obese for it make that much of a difference.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
People who train with higher reps will have less muscle tone and thus will notice a larger diffrence between their “flexed” and “unflexed” measurments.
Bull to the Shit.
Maybe my post had the wrong tone, as it’s just my theory, but wouldn’t it make sense that if a muscle is already partially contracted, that it wouldn’t contract as much as a less contracted muscle if you were to flex it?
You fucked up by assuming that increasing the number of reps you somehow decrease muscle tone. That doesn’t even make sense. First, even if a larger bodybuilder is using higher reps, someone with 20" arms is going to be at his peak in terms of “muscle tone”.
Some of you have been brainwashed by people who act like big bodybuilders are weak. That is why you believe increasing the reps somehow equals “weak muscle”.
Further, the difference between flexed and unflexed measurements is based primarily on MUSCLE SHAPE which completely reliant on individual genetics. You also don’t carry that much fat on your arms unless you are massively obese for it make that much of a difference.[/quote]
I never assumed that more reps leads to a “DECREASE” in muscle tone. I neither said nor believe that. I said that people who train with higher reps would generally have less tonus because it is most improved with lifting heavy weights.
In other words, everything else being equal, a person who trains with lower intensity and higher volume will not have the same degree of tonus as someone who trains with high intensity and lower volume.
My post wasn’t a bash on bodybuilding.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
I never assumed that more reps leads to a “DECREASE” in muscle tone. I neither said nor believe that. I said that people who train with higher reps would generally have less tonus because it is most improved with lifting heavy weights.[/quote]
BullFUCKsheezy.
What big bodybuilder do you know of who is literally lifting the pink dumbbells? My “light day” would still be more than most people use at all. Most of the guys you see in the mags are the same, including the ones who are considered to lift lighter than others…like Vic Martinez. His back day still involves loading up the high row machine with over 450lbs for 10 reps or more for his last set so how is that weak enough to bring about lesser “tonicity” than someone who trains in a one rep range for max lifts? He is also one of the few who is still doing chin ups at a weight of over 260lbs when most rely on pull downs.
[quote]
In other words, everything else being equal, a person who trains with lower intensity and higher volume will not have the same degree of tonus as someone who trains with high intensity and lower volume.
My post wasn’t a bash on bodybuilding.[/quote]
But it was because why do you think increasing reps means LESSER intensity?
You are again under the assumption that bodybuilders don’t train as hard…when it is usually the other way around.
As far as I know it, intensity is the amount of weight lifted in relation to you max. A percentage of your 1RM.
If your max bench press is 315 pounds. You won’t be doing 310 for many reps. Hence higher intensity, lower volume.
You seem to think that I’m calling bodybuilders weak. Not the case, I know that getting that big dosen’t happen with “pink dumbells”. I never even commented on how much weight they lift. I just said they train with lower intensity and a higher volume. Which is true.
You seem to be assuming that I think intensity is “how hard you work”, rather than it’s training definition.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
As far as I know it, intensity is the amount of weight lifted in relation to you max. A percentage of your 1RM.[/quote]
Intensity is not a constant calculated measurement. It is impossible to tell me that I didn’t train with enough intensity based purely on my fucking one rep max. Most bodybuilders don’t even max out at all so how are you using that here? I haven’t worried about maxing out in 10 fucking years. It also doesn’t take fatigue or volume into consideration which are all a part of anyone’s routine if the goal is big strong muscles.
It is NOT true.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
You seem to be assuming that I think intensity is “how hard you work”, rather than it’s training definition.[/quote]
You seem to be applying powerlifting terminology to a NON-powerlifting activity and you haven’t figured out yet that the two don’t go together.
Intensity is not a soul function of weight lifted.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Intensity is not a constant calculated measurement. It is impossible to tell me that I didn’t train with enough intensity based purely on my fucking one rep max. Most bodybuilders don’t even max out at all so how are you using that here? I haven’t worried about maxing out in 10 fucking years. It also doesn’t take fatigue or volume into consideration which are all a part of anyone’s routine if the goal is big strong muscles.
Professor X wrote:
It is NOT true. [/quote]
Intensity is a commonly accepted training principle. That is how I am using the word. When I say someone trains with more intensity I am not saying “he is training harder”. I am saying, he is training with a weight that is closer to his 1RM.
Not know your max is irrelevent. It dosen’t change the fact that when you lift a weight, it is a percentage of that max, whether it be 1% or 100%.
Most bodybuilders train with more reps than your typical strength athelete. To do more reps (correctly) with a weight requires that it be a lesser percentage of your 1RM. Lower intensity. I don’t know how you can say I’m wrong on this.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Intensity is not a constant calculated measurement. It is impossible to tell me that I didn’t train with enough intensity based purely on my fucking one rep max. Most bodybuilders don’t even max out at all so how are you using that here? I haven’t worried about maxing out in 10 fucking years. It also doesn’t take fatigue or volume into consideration which are all a part of anyone’s routine if the goal is big strong muscles.
Professor X wrote:
It is NOT true.
Intensity is a commonly accepted training principle. That is how I am using the word. When I say someone trains with more intensity I am not saying “he is training harder”. I am saying, he is training with a weight that is closer to his 1RM.
Not know your max is irrelevent. It dosen’t change the fact that when you lift a weight, it is a percentage of that max, whether it be 1% or 100%.
Most bodybuilders train with more reps than your typical strength athelete. To do more reps (correctly) with a weight requires that it be a lesser percentage of your 1RM. Lower intensity. I don’t know how you can say I’m wrong on this.[/quote]
Do you not get it man. Weight lifted is only 1 of a few factors involved in intensity. Tell me what’s more intense, lifting you 3 rep max 3 times, or your 12 rep max 12 times?
Also maybe if you didn’t get carried away with this shit you’d weigh over 160 pounds. Just saying.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Intensity is not a constant calculated measurement. It is impossible to tell me that I didn’t train with enough intensity based purely on my fucking one rep max. Most bodybuilders don’t even max out at all so how are you using that here? I haven’t worried about maxing out in 10 fucking years. It also doesn’t take fatigue or volume into consideration which are all a part of anyone’s routine if the goal is big strong muscles.
Professor X wrote:
It is NOT true.
Intensity is a commonly accepted training principle. That is how I am using the word. When I say someone trains with more intensity I am not saying “he is training harder”. I am saying, he is training with a weight that is closer to his 1RM.
Not know your max is irrelevent. It dosen’t change the fact that when you lift a weight, it is a percentage of that max, whether it be 1% or 100%.
Most bodybuilders train with more reps than your typical strength athelete. To do more reps (correctly) with a weight requires that it be a lesser percentage of your 1RM. Lower intensity. I don’t know how you can say I’m wrong on this.[/quote]
I can say it because my intensity could be HIGHER THAN YOUR OWN even if my weight used was not 90% of my one rep max. I don’t train using one fucking rep. If you want to get specific (simply because the video is in my profile to prove it) I usually do 8 reps on my last set of 450lbs on the hs bench press lately.
You are now really trying to say that this means I am training with less intensity than someone who did 450lbs for one fucking rep simply because it may be 90% of their max? Are you retarded?
It is still 450 fucking pounds and I am still moving it for several reps which means my intensity is pretty fucking high since I only stop because of muscle failure.
There is a reason people who usually think like you are showing here are not only weaker than the people they are claiming they are more intense than…they are also much less muscular…tone and all.