Why Would Someone NOT Get Bigger?

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]mmllcc wrote:
In the trained population this would be more difficult to do but it would usually be done by increasing coordination in a movement, learning to do a certain movement more efficiently. If you take a guy that can bench 135 and then teach him how to do it more efficiently and then he can bench 225, he is stronger is he not? [/quote]

I have seen this happen, but is it a guarentee he stronger? or did he just learn how to apply the strength he always had.

and you can’t compare this to your one arm pullup since you did say you gained a quarter inch in size which = muscle, and can equal alot of muscle depending on how much of it is muscle fibers and how much is added nutrients.

I’ve looked at guys struggling with 225 and told them in less then a month they will be doing 315 no problem, and it happened. Doesn’t mean he gained muscle or strength, just learned how to apply it to the bench press.

62

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]spongechris wrote:

Bottomline:
You can easily get stronger without involving Hypertrophy.
Of course, in reality this is not easy to attain. (but sought after by many fighters, strength athletes and others)[/quote]

Overly simplistic and also a part of the confusion. You will only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger. Someone who never gains any muscle size will not be able to continually get stronger over time like someone who gains muscle mass.[/quote]

Really? Only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger?.. try telling that to every elite level olympic weightlifter. Tell Halil Mutlu, clean and jerking 167k at a bw of 56k, that you will only get stronger to a point. The dude looks like he’s never stepped into a gym and cant squat well over 3x his bodyweight. And he is just one of many. Maybe you’re oversimplistic or just plain lazy in your approach. Is there a limit to how strong you can get at a certain bw?.. perhaps… but is it as low as you are implying?.. hell no. I normally just check on this website from time to time, but seeing you try to preach on this post just made me laugh, and i had to step in.[/quote]

Are you seriuosly comparing olympic lifting competition to strength. I doubt shaq can clean and jerk more than an elite level 185lber but I’d bet my house shaq is stronger.

63

a bigger freak is always a stronger freak. no matter what. you can get more efficient, stronger, faster and everything without getting bigger, and that will be because your not eating enough to grow. but if someone increases their lean body mass, hell if they just increase their weight, they will be able to reach a higher level of strength/speed/whatever

64

body recomp notwithstanding, if someone is 200 at 5’11, but out of shape, he may workout for a year and remain at 5’11 200 lbs. but the proportions of his body will be dramtically changed. so muscle was gained, significant muscle.

now lets say someone is 5’9, 160lbs. 9% bodyfat for fun. and none of those variables changes. he follows a workout routine, and gets stronger in all lifts. is he stronger? obviously. is he more muscular? no. did he grow? no

now what could happen, is this individual could totally stop training legs and start training only upper body. all variables remain the same, but his upper body becomes significantly bigger. gain muscle? yes.

on to shaq, i bet shaq would fuck up that oly lifter on the bball floor. i weigh 165/170, i dont care how strong i am no way in hell could i box out shaq

65

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

I’ve looked at guys struggling with 225 and told them in less then a month they will be doing 315 no problem, and it happened. Doesn’t mean he gained muscle or strength, just learned how to apply it to the bench press.[/quote]

Not trying to sound like a dick, but I don’t believe this. It took me 9 months to get from 225 to 315 and I don’t consider myself to be a weakling. While my technique isn’t great, it’s not that bad either. Unless these are already big guys who are retarded and don’t where to hold the bar when they bench and were doing close grip benches ( 6 inches apart).

66

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
As much as I respect your posts and obvious knowledge, its sad that you allow the IM hyperbole to spoil it at all, brother. This is partly responsible for a lot of impressionable characters on here stuck in the perpetual limbo between BBing and strength training (look at the kid who plans to avoid preacher curls till he is able to curl the 100’s or whatever).
[/quote]

When did I ever suggest not to do preacher curls? I was simply saying that while small increases in strength don’t require big increases in mass, large increases in strength do.

None actually. They were just purely hypothetical numbers that I pulled out of my ass. And it would also somewhat depend on when someone started lifting weights. A late teen/young adult who could only curl the 15’s would likely never be able to curl the 90’s. But someone who starts out lifting at say age 12 (prepubescent) might see that kind of strength progression.

I didn’t mean for anyone to actually take those specific numbers so seriously. They were simply meant as an example to suggest that small increases in strength might be possible without considerable increases in mass, but large increases in strength require large increases in mass.

Well you may have a point there. I guess it might be wise to state when I’m using purely rhetorical numbers as an example so that people don’t take them to heart.

Again, kind of depends on at what point of development they start lifting, but I understand what you’re saying.

67

Did you read my post. I said most of the people I’ve seen curling the 90’s and above AT ANY POINT started off being able to curl at least the 35’s with some effort.
How are your experiences contrary to this? YOu started out being able to curl the 35’s and so did PX. For the record, the first time I picked up DBs I was able to curl the 30’s to 35’s as well with a good bit of effort (age 17).
You can’t start on Mercury and get to the Andromeda galaxy anytime soon. The fleabites who struggle with the 20’s when they start off (assuming they’re late teens or young adults, not 11-12 year olds obviously - and assulming they didnt just get out off a coma/hospital) are simply in the wrong game for their genetic ability.

One of the first movements I ever trained on with progression for my back was the old nautilus pullover machine, and I am grateful to God I did that back when I was that young rather than reading BS about deadlifts being all that are required for lat width. And yes, we also did deadlifts and squats. BAck in the day, we had exercises that we were supposed to do that were near magical (squats, deadlifts, cleans, lunges), we had exercises we wanted to show off in front of the girls with how many plates we could load up (bench press, tricep pushdowns, deads again), exerxises we thought would impress the girls with how many reps we could do (dips, chins, pushups, situps) and finally we had exercises that we “assumed” were going to build our individual muscles to stand out proportions (biceps BB curls, cable curls, tricep pushdowns, lat pulldowns, side raises, machine side raises, situps,pullovers, preacher curls…) It was simple, we knew we wanted to get bigger and stronger, we didn’t think we had to pick just 2 exercises to progress on, we figured if we were getting stronger and heavier AND we were getting a pump, all was well with the world. - looking back I’m glad I trained that way. Cos they all work. Even situps do.

The reason we have limp skinny fucks around here is because WHITE people in America have been doing their fucking best to push size, strength and muscularity out of their fucking gene pool. Thats why they be getting skinnier and skinnier. Once you’ve passed so many generations progressively pushing the mesomorphic gene out of th window, you have weak fucks wearing tap-out gear struggling to bench their bodyweight and unable to curl more than 20 pounds when they first start lifting, and said weak fucks ain’t got no fucking chance of ever looking like a bodybuilder. This is mostly an AMERICAN phenomenon.

This is also why I hate skinny-fat people with fucked up genetics - its a dead give away that their mommas and foremammas wanted NOTHING to do with size, strength and muscularity.

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
As much as I respect your posts and obvious knowledge, its sad that you allow the IM hyperbole to spoil it at all, brother. This is partly responsible for a lot of impressionable characters on here stuck in the perpetual limbo between BBing and strength training (look at the kid who plans to avoid preacher curls till he is able to curl the 100’s or whatever).

How many guys DO you know who went from curling the 15’s as a late-teen/young adult to curling the 90’s?

Hell, someone who goes from curling the 5’s to curling the 200 pound DBs will experience a massive increase in muscle mass. As an advanced trainer yourself, you should avoid throwing out random strength numbers since there are people on here stupid enough to take it all literally.

And since this ain’t IM, someone who starts off at least curling the 35’s for reps has any fucking chance of ever curling the 90’s and above…

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sure, it’s probably possible to go from curling the 15’s to curling the 35’s without a whole lot of increase in muscle mass for most people. But, I’ve never seen anyone who went from curling the 15’s to curling the 90’s who didn’t have to put on serious muscle in their upper arms.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with any of you except for the point of someone who started curling 35’s having any chance of curling the 90 or above.

When I started training the 35’s were about all I could do, maybe 25, anyways I curled 85 x 7 on alt dumbell curls last week, I have 85 x 5 on my YouTube channel from about a month or so ago and could definetly curl the 90s with solid form. I also go over 100 on pin wheel curls regularly.

Now maybe if you started training at 40 years old it would be difficult to get those weights up but I’m sure I’ll be curling a lot more than the 90’s one day on alt dumbell and it’s not unbelievable for someone who lifts religiously giving it there all for some years to work up to some respectable weights, although I will admit I do gain strength more easily than most. [/quote]

68

It wasn’t an argument with you, dude. We both understand what the other is saying.
I’m just saying we need to be careful what we put out here for the newer lifters to read, thats all. Some of these kids take stuff way too literally.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[/quote]

69

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]spongechris wrote:

Bottomline:
You can easily get stronger without involving Hypertrophy.
Of course, in reality this is not easy to attain. (but sought after by many fighters, strength athletes and others)[/quote]

Overly simplistic and also a part of the confusion. You will only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger. Someone who never gains any muscle size will not be able to continually get stronger over time like someone who gains muscle mass.[/quote]

Really? Only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger?.. try telling that to every elite level olympic weightlifter. Tell Halil Mutlu, clean and jerking 167k at a bw of 56k, that you will only get stronger to a point. The dude looks like he’s never stepped into a gym and cant squat well over 3x his bodyweight. And he is just one of many. Maybe you’re oversimplistic or just plain lazy in your approach. Is there a limit to how strong you can get at a certain bw?.. perhaps… but is it as low as you are implying?.. hell no. I normally just check on this website from time to time, but seeing you try to preach on this post just made me laugh, and i had to step in.[/quote]

Wait, so the concept that some people are naturally stronger than others simply based on skeletal formation and even neural adaptation needed to be explained to you?

There are people who can do certain movements because they are literally built well to do them. That doesn’t mean that if that same person wanted to increase their bench press by 100lbs that they will be able to do so without ever gaining any more body weight.

No, you can keep laughing. I know I am right back at you.

70

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
It wasn’t an argument with you, dude. We both understand what the other is saying.
I’m just saying we need to be careful what we put out here for the newer lifters to read, thats all. Some of these kids take stuff way too literally.
[/quote]

Point taken. I’ll try to be more careful of that in the future.

71

Do this, stay at your current bodyweight and bench 5 plates for a single in the next twenty years.

Post here right after, we’ll wait.

how many times does it need to be stated that we’re not talking about you improverished middle class skinny fat fuckers whose lifetime aim is to bench three plates for a single, if that.

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]spongechris wrote:

Bottomline:
You can easily get stronger without involving Hypertrophy.
Of course, in reality this is not easy to attain. (but sought after by many fighters, strength athletes and others)[/quote]

Overly simplistic and also a part of the confusion. You will only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger. Someone who never gains any muscle size will not be able to continually get stronger over time like someone who gains muscle mass.[/quote]

Really? Only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger?.. try telling that to every elite level olympic weightlifter. Tell Halil Mutlu, clean and jerking 167k at a bw of 56k, that you will only get stronger to a point. The dude looks like he’s never stepped into a gym and cant squat well over 3x his bodyweight. And he is just one of many. Maybe you’re oversimplistic or just plain lazy in your approach. Is there a limit to how strong you can get at a certain bw?.. perhaps… but is it as low as you are implying?.. hell no. I normally just check on this website from time to time, but seeing you try to preach on this post just made me laugh, and i had to step in.[/quote]

72

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]spongechris wrote:

Bottomline:
You can easily get stronger without involving Hypertrophy.
Of course, in reality this is not easy to attain. (but sought after by many fighters, strength athletes and others)[/quote]

Overly simplistic and also a part of the confusion. You will only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger. Someone who never gains any muscle size will not be able to continually get stronger over time like someone who gains muscle mass.[/quote]

Really? Only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger?.. try telling that to every elite level olympic weightlifter. Tell Halil Mutlu, clean and jerking 167k at a bw of 56k, that you will only get stronger to a point. The dude looks like he’s never stepped into a gym and cant squat well over 3x his bodyweight. And he is just one of many. Maybe you’re oversimplistic or just plain lazy in your approach. Is there a limit to how strong you can get at a certain bw?.. perhaps… but is it as low as you are implying?.. hell no. I normally just check on this website from time to time, but seeing you try to preach on this post just made me laugh, and i had to step in.[/quote]

Are you seriuosly comparing olympic lifting competition to strength. I doubt shaq can clean and jerk more than an elite level 185lber but I’d bet my house shaq is stronger.
[/quote]

Like I said before, THERE ARE PEOPLE RETARDED ENOUGH TO THINK THEY CAN KEEP GETTING STRONGER CONTINUALLY WITHOUT EVER GAINING ANY MUSCULAR BODY WEIGHT.

They pick out elite level power lifters in weight classes as if they can’t understand that they will more than likely NOT be able to gain strength substantially across the board without making any gains in body weight…unless they too are genetic freaks.

And as we see here daily, very few of these people even match average progress in the gym, let alone ‘genetic freak Olympic athlete’ progress.

Many of these people are a joke.

73

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
As much as I respect your posts and obvious knowledge, its sad that you allow the IM hyperbole to spoil it at all, brother. This is partly responsible for a lot of impressionable characters on here stuck in the perpetual limbo between BBing and strength training (look at the kid who plans to avoid preacher curls till he is able to curl the 100’s or whatever).

How many guys DO you know who went from curling the 15’s as a late-teen/young adult to curling the 90’s?

Hell, someone who goes from curling the 5’s to curling the 200 pound DBs will experience a massive increase in muscle mass. As an advanced trainer yourself, you should avoid throwing out random strength numbers since there are people on here stupid enough to take it all literally.

And since this ain’t IM, someone who starts off at least curling the 35’s for reps has any fucking chance of ever curling the 90’s and above…

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sure, it’s probably possible to go from curling the 15’s to curling the 35’s without a whole lot of increase in muscle mass for most people. But, I’ve never seen anyone who went from curling the 15’s to curling the 90’s who didn’t have to put on serious muscle in their upper arms.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with any of you except for the point of someone who started curling 35’s having any chance of curling the 90 or above.

When I started training the 35’s were about all I could do, maybe 25, anyways I curled 85 x 7 on alt dumbell curls last week, I have 85 x 5 on my YouTube channel from about a month or so ago and could definetly curl the 90s with solid form. I also go over 100 on pin wheel curls regularly.

Now maybe if you started training at 40 years old it would be difficult to get those weights up but I’m sure I’ll be curling a lot more than the 90’s one day on alt dumbell and it’s not unbelievable for someone who lifts religiously giving it there all for some years to work up to some respectable weights, although I will admit I do gain strength more easily than most. [/quote]

I was only able to curl the 30-35lbs dumbbells when I first started. I curled as heavy as 95lbs dumbbells before I quit doing a lot of alternate curls.
I weighed about 85lbs as a freshman in high school and worked my way up to 150lbs by graduation (and of course height was gained during this time as well).

You can not look at a TEENAGER and judge just how far they can go by how they look walking into a gym for the first time. There are those of us who have the ability to move FAR beyond where we started.

Other than that, I agree with the other things he wrote. Because of people throwing out random numbers, many of these newbs actually believe they can get incredibly stronger while staying at the same body weight.

That will NOT happen unless you are some genetic freak.
[/quote]

get stronger eat to support mass gain etc is probably simplest most accurate advice I could give. Agreed that giving direct numbers cause people to get hung up on irrelevant shit…

Well at least here’s two examples of people starting out kind of weak and beasting up some serious weight after busting ass in the gym for sometime. Granted I was stronger than a lot of my peers pretty quickly but still. I was barely benching 95 pounds in 9th-10th grade, that was soon up to 225 and so on after some good training.

Biggest mistake I made was only benching and some curls up to 11th and part of 12th grade. I found out how to train after high school and thank god I did.

74

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Did you read my post. I said most of the people I’ve seen curling the 90’s and above AT ANY POINT started off being able to curl at least the 35’s with some effort.
How are your experiences contrary to this? YOu started out being able to curl the 35’s and so did PX. For the record, the first time I picked up DBs I was able to curl the 30’s to 35’s as well with a good bit of effort (age 17).
You can’t start on Mercury and get to the Andromeda galaxy anytime soon. The fleabites who struggle with the 20’s when they start off (assuming they’re late teens or young adults, not 11-12 year olds obviously - and assulming they didnt just get out off a coma/hospital) are simply in the wrong game for their genetic ability.

One of the first movements I ever trained on with progression for my back was the old nautilus pullover machine, and I am grateful to God I did that back when I was that young rather than reading BS about deadlifts being all that are required for lat width. And yes, we also did deadlifts and squats. BAck in the day, we had exercises that we were supposed to do that were near magical (squats, deadlifts, cleans, lunges), we had exercises we wanted to show off in front of the girls with how many plates we could load up (bench press, tricep pushdowns, deads again), exerxises we thought would impress the girls with how many reps we could do (dips, chins, pushups, situps) and finally we had exercises that we “assumed” were going to build our individual muscles to stand out proportions (biceps BB curls, cable curls, tricep pushdowns, lat pulldowns, side raises, machine side raises, situps,pullovers, preacher curls…) It was simple, we knew we wanted to get bigger and stronger, we didn’t think we had to pick just 2 exercises to progress on, we figured if we were getting stronger and heavier AND we were getting a pump, all was well with the world. - looking back I’m glad I trained that way. Cos they all work. Even situps do.

The reason we have limp skinny fucks around here is because WHITE people in America have been doing their fucking best to push size, strength and muscularity out of their fucking gene pool. Thats why they be getting skinnier and skinnier. Once you’ve passed so many generations progressively pushing the mesomorphic gene out of th window, you have weak fucks wearing tap-out gear struggling to bench their bodyweight and unable to curl more than 20 pounds when they first start lifting, and said weak fucks ain’t got no fucking chance of ever looking like a bodybuilder. This is mostly an AMERICAN phenomenon.

This is also why I hate skinny-fat people with fucked up genetics - its a dead give away that their mommas and foremammas wanted NOTHING to do with size, strength and muscularity.

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
As much as I respect your posts and obvious knowledge, its sad that you allow the IM hyperbole to spoil it at all, brother. This is partly responsible for a lot of impressionable characters on here stuck in the perpetual limbo between BBing and strength training (look at the kid who plans to avoid preacher curls till he is able to curl the 100’s or whatever).

How many guys DO you know who went from curling the 15’s as a late-teen/young adult to curling the 90’s?

Hell, someone who goes from curling the 5’s to curling the 200 pound DBs will experience a massive increase in muscle mass. As an advanced trainer yourself, you should avoid throwing out random strength numbers since there are people on here stupid enough to take it all literally.

And since this ain’t IM, someone who starts off at least curling the 35’s for reps has any fucking chance of ever curling the 90’s and above…

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sure, it’s probably possible to go from curling the 15’s to curling the 35’s without a whole lot of increase in muscle mass for most people. But, I’ve never seen anyone who went from curling the 15’s to curling the 90’s who didn’t have to put on serious muscle in their upper arms.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with any of you except for the point of someone who started curling 35’s having any chance of curling the 90 or above.

When I started training the 35’s were about all I could do, maybe 25, anyways I curled 85 x 7 on alt dumbell curls last week, I have 85 x 5 on my YouTube channel from about a month or so ago and could definetly curl the 90s with solid form. I also go over 100 on pin wheel curls regularly.

Now maybe if you started training at 40 years old it would be difficult to get those weights up but I’m sure I’ll be curling a lot more than the 90’s one day on alt dumbell and it’s not unbelievable for someone who lifts religiously giving it there all for some years to work up to some respectable weights, although I will admit I do gain strength more easily than most. [/quote]
[/quote]

alright I understand and agree big man.

75

Interesting debate going on here.

All I know is that when I first started lifting at 18, the 25’s were a struggle to curl, and I got buried by the 40’s on DB bench hahaha.

I am 100% positive that I will one day curl the 90’s with good form. at 75’s for moderate reps, and 80s+ for low rep sets.

And I sure as fuck hope to one day look like a bodybuilder. Maybe I need a new hobby.

76

Your forte is back width, with that frame of yours and I think you already know it. If you put up a picture of your untrained self, I’m certain as fuck I could tell that would be the case.
Not so much your arms.
For the record, not many members on here will ever have a lat spread like yours, or deltoids like PX.

We all ultimately play up to our genetics.

[quote]bugeishaAD wrote:
Interesting debate going on here.

All I know is that when I first started lifting at 18, the 25’s were a struggle to curl, and I got buried by the 40’s on DB bench hahaha.

I am 100% positive that I will one day curl the 90’s with good form. at 75’s for moderate reps, and 80s+ for low rep sets.

And I sure as fuck hope to one day look like a bodybuilder. Maybe I need a new hobby.[/quote]

77

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]spongechris wrote:

Bottomline:
You can easily get stronger without involving Hypertrophy.
Of course, in reality this is not easy to attain. (but sought after by many fighters, strength athletes and others)[/quote]

Overly simplistic and also a part of the confusion. You will only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger. Someone who never gains any muscle size will not be able to continually get stronger over time like someone who gains muscle mass.[/quote]

Really? Only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger?.. try telling that to every elite level olympic weightlifter. Tell Halil Mutlu, clean and jerking 167k at a bw of 56k, that you will only get stronger to a point. The dude looks like he’s never stepped into a gym and cant squat well over 3x his bodyweight. And he is just one of many. Maybe you’re oversimplistic or just plain lazy in your approach. Is there a limit to how strong you can get at a certain bw?.. perhaps… but is it as low as you are implying?.. hell no. I normally just check on this website from time to time, but seeing you try to preach on this post just made me laugh, and i had to step in.[/quote]

Wait, so the concept that some people are naturally stronger than others simply based on skeletal formation and even neural adaptation needed to be explained to you?

There are people who can do certain movements because they are literally built well to do them. That doesn’t mean that if that same person wanted to increase their bench press by 100lbs that they will be able to do so without ever gaining any more body weight.

No, you can keep laughing. I know I am right back at you.[/quote]

  1. There are certainly people out there with lever systems that give them a mechanical advantage in weight lifting. Like Mutlu. And some of them are genetic freaks, like mutlu, he has a sick nervous system. That doesn’t qualify all of them as genetic freaks. Any one under 5’10" who is in well proportion, not having a disproportionatly long torso or legs, has a good build for weightlifting. They are by no means a freak. Now you can take any of these people, and put together a well thought out program taking volume and recovery into account and having them squat 4x a week or so, and doing the olympic movements at least 4x a week, and they will absolutly get stronger without NEEDING to gain weight, now will they if they have a surplus of calories? yes. would it be easier to gain strength with increased bw, sure. But by just doing the liftts week in week out, month after month, they will use more of their EXISTING muscle mass. Everyone with a nervous system, reguardless of genetic potential, will respond this way. They certainly wont put up numbers like the freaks, but even someone with long levers, that means long arms or legs, doesnt need to weight to get significantly stronger. Do I really need to explain the concept of neuromuscular efficiency to you? You have just enough information to be dangerous, most people dont know enough to call you on it, but you throw around a buzz word or conceptss, like “neural adaptation”, with out knowing what they mean. BC if you did, you would know that neural adaptaion proves your entire argument wrong.

  2. Shaq is very big, doesnt mean he’s strong, Saying an O Lifter isn’t strong shows complete lack of understanding of the olympic lifts or how they’re trained. And I am willing to bet any OKAY 185lb or 84k Olympic lifter is stronger that Shaq, to be considered an okay olympic lifter, based on what #'s he would need to lift at that bw and what % of those #'s he would work off of, he would be squatting around 500lbs. A legit olympic squat 500 very different from any variation, pretty strong.

78

[quote]science wrote:
…if training and getting stronger in the “hypertrophy” range?

I don�?�´t get that.

You can get stronger via the cns or hypertrophy.

If you donÃ??Ã?´t train in the maximum strenght range but in the “hypertrophy range” AND get stronger-why shouldnÃ??Ã?´t someone get bigger too?

thats a point i never understood. Sure the answers break then down to eating enough-but when you get srtonger in the hyp range FROM WHERE COMES THE STRENGTH if you don�?�´t get bigger/stronger via sarcomer or sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy? explenations?[/quote]

Define “hypertrophy range” before worrying about “types” of hypertrophy. What, pray tell, is the best range of hypertrophy for you? I get the impression that you’re not really understanding the terms you are throwing out here.

79

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:
Really? Only get stronger to a point before more size is needed to get even stronger?.. try telling that to every elite level olympic weightlifter. Tell Halil Mutlu, clean and jerking 167k at a bw of 56k, that you will only get stronger to a point. The dude looks like he’s never stepped into a gym and cant squat well over 3x his bodyweight. And he is just one of many. Maybe you’re oversimplistic or just plain lazy in your approach. Is there a limit to how strong you can get at a certain bw?.. perhaps… but is it as low as you are implying?.. hell no. I normally just check on this website from time to time, but seeing you try to preach on this post just made me laugh, and i had to step in.[/quote]

Halil Mutlu: clearly not a competitive bodybuilder, then.

[quote]
But by just doing the liftts week in week out, month after month, they will use more of their EXISTING muscle mass.[/quote]

Urm, bodybuilders don’t care about working with their existing muscle mass - they are trying to increase it.

[quote]
Everyone with a nervous system, reguardless of genetic potential, will respond this way. They certainly wont put up numbers like the freaks, but even someone with long levers, that means long arms or legs, doesnt need to weight to get significantly stronger. Do I really need to explain the concept of neuromuscular efficiency to you? You have just enough information to be dangerous, most people dont know enough to call you on it, but you throw around a buzz word or conceptss, like “neural adaptation”, with out knowing what they mean. BC if you did, you would know that neural adaptaion proves your entire argument wrong.

[/quote] No, you don’t have to explain it, because your argument is pretty irrelevant. It’s like an Olympic sprinter waiting at the finishing line of the London Marathon and taunting the victor because they failed to finish in under a minute: neither party is wrong, but then the critic is obviously in the wrong place at the wrong time.

80

[quote]WolfPackofOne wrote:

  1. There are certainly people out there with lever systems that give them a mechanical advantage in weight lifting. Like Mutlu. And some of them are genetic freaks, like mutlu, he has a sick nervous system. That doesn’t qualify all of them as genetic freaks. Any one under 5’10" who is in well proportion, not having a disproportionatly long torso or legs, has a good build for weightlifting. They are by no means a freak. Now you can take any of these people, and put together a well thought out program taking volume and recovery into account and having them squat 4x a week or so, and doing the olympic movements at least 4x a week, and they will absolutly get stronger without NEEDING to gain weight, now will they if they have a surplus of calories? yes. would it be easier to gain strength with increased bw, sure. But by just doing the liftts week in week out, month after month, they will use more of their EXISTING muscle mass. [/quote]

You can’t be this dumb. You have read this thread and missed the MANY times I explained that none of us are talking about fucking gaining a “few pounds on a bench press”? Who said it is impossible to gain strength without gaining weight?

[quote]

Everyone with a nervous system, reguardless of genetic potential, will respond this way. They certainly wont put up numbers like the freaks, but even someone with long levers, that means long arms or legs, doesnt need to weight to get significantly stronger. Do I really need to explain the concept of neuromuscular efficiency to you? You have just enough information to be dangerous, most people dont know enough to call you on it, but you throw around a buzz word or conceptss, like “neural adaptation”, with out knowing what they mean. BC if you did, you would know that neural adaptaion proves your entire argument wrong. [/quote]

WTF?