[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
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?
[/quote]
Both are pretty much impossible.
But I get what your saying.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
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.
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]
That is it though, you are using intensity as a feeling, not a training principle. I realize now that me and Professer X were talking about two diffrent things.
Also calling out my stats is pretty low. How does my progress affect your’s? Yes, I weigh 160 pounds. Keep in mind I am not trying to gain weight right now. I wrestle and box and have a weightclasses that I would like to around for the time being.
Contrary to what you might think, I don’t “obsess over this shit”. I go to the gym and lift. I have a routine/plan, but I don’t go too crazy over it. I’m not advanced enough to worry about the small stuff. Doesn’t mean I can’t have my own ideas.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
Because the intensity is relative to the individual. You are alot stronger than me so if we lifted the same weight for a given exercise, the intensity would be higher for me, because it is a higher percentage of my 1RM.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
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.
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.
That is it though, you are using intensity as a feeling, not a training principle. I realize now that me and Professer X were talking about two diffrent things.
Also calling out my stats is pretty low. How does my progress affect your’s? Yes, I weigh 160 pounds. Keep in mind I am not trying to gain weight right now. I wrestle and box and have a weightclasses that I would like to around for the time being.
Contrary to what you might think, I don’t “obsess over this shit”. I go to the gym and lift. I have a routine/plan, but I don’t go too crazy over it. I’m not advanced enough to worry about the small stuff. Doesn’t mean I can’t have my own ideas.[/quote]
Intensity is always a feeling, even if someone decided to make up some definition as it applies to powerlifting. Your level of intensity is based on many factors, not just how much weight you lifted one time.
My goal in training chest is to fatigue my chest muscles and lift enough weight to force them to adapt.
A powerlifter’s goal in doing a benchpress is to simply get the weight in the air whether their triceps or shoulders handle most of it or not.
Of the two, which one trains more “intensely” when it comes to actually training their chest muscles specifically?
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Because the intensity is relative to the individual. You are alot stronger than me so if we lifted the same weight for a given exercise, the intensity would be higher for me, because it is a higher percentage of my 1RM.[/quote]
I’m done.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
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?
[/quote]
3 rep max 3 times would be more intense. 12 rep max for 12 would be harder.
Corrosion - you are seriously just not fucking getting it. Why are you even in the BODYBUILDING section of the forum? Clearly it sounds like you would much prefer the Strength Sports forum…so please do us all a favor and find your way there, and remain there.
The professor fought the good fight as always, though it fell on deaf ears, as usual.
“3 rep max 3 times would be more intense. 12 rep max for 12 would be harder”
Priceless. Another reason why people should not attempt to operate a keyboard whilst under the influence.
No. You guys don’t get it. You are using the dictonary definition of intensity, in which case you would be right. But intensity as it applies to lifting weights and training is diffrent. I know everyone here has a hard-on for the Professor and will agree with him no matter what he says or believes so there really is no use arguing.
[quote]josh86 wrote:
Corrosion - you are seriously just not fucking getting it. Why are you even in the BODYBUILDING section of the forum? Clearly it sounds like you would much prefer the Strength Sports forum…so please do us all a favor and find your way there, and remain there. [/quote]
Why is everyon branding me anti-bodybuilding? I haven’t said anything negative about it at all. I know for a fact they work very hard and it takes dedication to do what they do.
No one is hugging the Professor’s nuts…have you ever stopped to consider the fact that he could be right?
You keep talking about the stupid lifting term for intensity, and it has been clearly stated in this thread by more than one person that intensity - as it relates to BODYBUILDING - is a combination of many factors, not just the % of 1RM being used for a lift.
Also just on a side note: People are more inclined to agree with Prof X because he is very well developed and experienced in bodybuilding/lifting, why would we listen to someone who is 160 lbs vrs someone who has built himself up to well over 250lbs (not sure exactly what it is currently).
Who would you rather take advice from on legal matters - someone who works at mcdonalds and has never taken a law class or a practicing lawyer that has been doing it for 10+ years?
Quick question for those of you that have seen the picks of Dave Gulledge. How much of the “denseness” is actually him and how much is the crappy camera?
[quote]josh86 wrote:
No one is hugging the Professor’s nuts…have you ever stopped to consider the fact that he could be right?
You keep talking about the stupid lifting term for intensity, and it has been clearly stated in this thread by more than one person that intensity - as it relates to BODYBUILDING - is a combination of many factors, not just the % of 1RM being used for a lift.
Also just on a side note: People are more inclined to agree with Prof X because he is very well developed and experienced in bodybuilding/lifting, why would we listen to someone who is 160 lbs vrs someone who has built himself up to well over 250lbs (not sure exactly what it is currently). Who would you rather take advice from on legal matters - someone who works at mcdonalds and has never taken a law class or a practicing lawyer that has been doing it for 10+ years?[/quote]
The thing is…I wasn’t offering any advice. Nor do I feel I am in the position to do so. Please show me a post where I offered advice to anyone.
If you read back, it all started when I said that tonus is increased more by lifting with a higher intensity as opposed to lifting with less intensity.
In this instance, I was just using the word “intensity” to mean %1RM.
I was JUST USING THE WORD TO CONVEY A POINT. Why anyone felt the need to attack me or call me a “retard” is beyond me.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
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]
Wow this thread blew up.
Anyways, I was assuming your post was directed at me because I posted my difference between unflexed and flexed arm measurements.
Just wanted to add “your theory” is off because that really only applies to the arms and maybe the calves.
No other bodypart has the chance to have that much of a difference like the arms do.
What other bodypart do you flex, and the flexed measurement increases significantly much more? Doesn’t really work for quads, hams, back, chest, neck, etc.
Pretty much the relaxed will be the same as the flexed.
And also, I’ve been a powerlifter for years, and it did absolutely jack shit for my arms, especially my biceps.
It wasn’t until I ACTUALLY STARTED to work my biceps they are now growing. And guess what, I usually do higher reps, not max weights.
[quote]greekdawg wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
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.
Wow this thread blew up.
Anyways, I was assuming your post was directed at me because I posted my difference between unflexed and flexed arm measurements.
Just wanted to add “your theory” is off because that really only applies to the arms and maybe the calves.
No other bodypart has the chance to have that much of a difference like the arms do.
What other bodypart do you flex, and the flexed measurement increases significantly much more? Doesn’t really work for quads, hams, back, chest, neck, etc.
Pretty much the relaxed will be the same as the flexed.
And also, I’ve been a powerlifter for years, and it did absolutely jack shit for my arms, especially my biceps.
It wasn’t until I ACCTUALY STARTED to work my biceps they are now growing. And guess what, I usually do higher reps, not max weight.[/quote]
Saying that a diffrence is only noticible in the arms dosen’t really disprove my theory. I’m not that convinced myself it was just speculation.
Also, I never said that powerlifting was best for muscualar growth. If it was then wouldn’t bodybuilders do it?
Once again, someone incorrectly assumes I’m anti-bodybuilding.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
greekdawg wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
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.
Wow this thread blew up.
Anyways, I was assuming your post was directed at me because I posted my difference between unflexed and flexed arm measurements.
Just wanted to add “your theory” is off because that really only applies to the arms and maybe the calves.
No other bodypart has the chance to have that much of a difference like the arms do.
What other bodypart do you flex, and the flexed measurement increases significantly much more? Doesn’t really work for quads, hams, back, chest, neck, etc.
Pretty much the relaxed will be the same as the flexed.
And also, I’ve been a powerlifter for years, and it did absolutely jack shit for my arms, especially my biceps.
It wasn’t until I ACCTUALY STARTED to work my biceps they are now growing. And guess what, I usually do higher reps, not max weight.
Saying that a diffrence is only noticible in the arms dosen’t really disprove my theory. I’m not that convinced myself it was just speculation.
Also, I never said that powerlifting was best for muscualar growth. If it was then wouldn’t bodybuilders do it?
Once again, someone incorrectly assumes I’m anti-bodybuilding.[/quote]
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Saying that a diffrence is only noticible in the arms dosen’t really disprove my theory. I’m not that convinced myself it was just speculation.[/quote]
So why are spouting off at the mouth stuff you’re not even sure about?
You didn’t say PLing was best for growth? You made the blanket statement that
[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]
That’s the problem I had with your post. You linking rep range to difference in unflexed vs. flexed measurements. I don’t think the two are correlated at all.
[quote]greekdawg wrote:
So why are spouting off at the mouth stuff you’re not even sure about?
You didn’t say PLing was best for growth? You made the blanket statement that
That’s the problem I had with your post. You linking rep range to difference in unflexed vs. flexed measurements. I don’t think the two are correlated at all.[/quote]
Spouting off? This whole thread is about THEORIES. If the answer to the question was already known, the thread wouldn’t exist.
And yeah, I made that statement. But I fail to see where it says that powerlifting will make you grow more than bodybuilding. Why is that? Oh yeah! BECAUSE I DIDN’T SAY IT!
i hate arguing with Professor X because he either ignores parts of my post or he argues with me about things i never said…but i love watching him get all fired up on someone else (no homo)
[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]
To get back to the original Q,
I don’t think a muscle can look hard, or dense. I think a more suitable descriptor would be defined, separated, lean, big.
A lot of the hard/dense vs soft seems to be related to smothness and lack of detail; which would, therefore, be related to:
(a) Size (heavy training helps here, don’t get into rep counting!)
(b) Low bodyfat combined with (a)
BTW steroids and correct diet & training can help increase (a) while hitting low (b)!
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
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.[/quote]
That is an incorrect definition.
I know it’s commonly accepted. It’s wrong.
The “original” definition of the amount of work performed in a given time is still correct.
“Work” also has different definitions depending on the activity. In weight lifting, work means moving the weight from point A to point B. In bodybuilding, work is the degree of internal damage inflicted on a muscle during exercise. Thus, training at a higher intensity, in bodybuilding, simply means reaching muscular exhaustion in less time.