|
2003/06/25, 04:37 PM
there's something vital i don't understand. i mean, if u want to build muscle, you don't get strength, and if you want to increase your strength you don't make big gains in muscle....how does that make sense? i mean muscle is muscle.
lets just say i build muscle, and don't really get any gains in strength. -why? what is this muscle i built then? i mean muscle is strengh to a certain extent. and why if u increase your strengh do you not make as much gains in muscle-where does that strength come from then?
can someone please explain this to me-i'm really confused.
|
|
|
|
2003/06/25, 05:02 PM
I think you got something turned around here. I am not sure if this will help but here goes: Bodybuilders are primarly concerned with size so they do a differnt type of workout. Powerlifters and strength athletes train for strenght. While some PL look kinda like a BB they do not worry about that. Some BB are as srtong as PL. The reason why when you train for strenght you do not gains as much size is that it uses different fibres in the muscle. However I go as heavy as I can and gain not only size but strength. So I think you do gain muscle you do gain strength. I do not know if this helped out let me know!
--------------
Squats are really a very good thing, but in my world, Deadlifts are King!!!!!!!!
|
|
2003/06/25, 09:13 PM
The problem is that in order to optimize a muscles strength you must consentrate on building the high threshold motor units wich are responsible for generating the most effects on near maximal lifts. However this happens at the expense of neglecting some of the lower threshold units that can only be stimulated through higher volume training. What ends up happening is the high threshold fibers hypertrophy and gain in strength but the lower ones do not. The only way to optimize the gains in size are to maximize gains in both types of fibers using moderate weight & moderate volume (such as in bodybuilding programs). Of course this is the simplified version of the answer so let me know if you need more detail.
--------------
\\"Knowledge & persistence is all one needs to succeed\"\
---Patrick L.
|
|
2003/06/26, 07:15 AM
Hey pl, please don't tell me you are getting your info from your ISSA handbook. Even though I hold an ISSA cert. I disagree STRONGLY with good ol' Dr. Hatfield. Especially his whole periodization kick. It is very flawed, for a # of reasons. To build muscle, you need to lift heavy weight and eat lots of good, clean food period. No "light days" or any of the other crap that he spews out. I have seen first hand how misguided his system is from a few trainers that I work with( they had followed it) talk about overtraining and going nowhere. So, in the end, I agree with mutt 100%. You need to overload your muscle with progressively heavier weight so that the response will be new muscle, (strength and muscle)
|
|
2003/06/26, 12:44 PM
yeah, i think i understand now. so the answer is pretty much that PL work different muscle fibers than BB and these fibers that PL train don't gain as much in size as the fibers BBs train. but there is still one question buggin me:
why do some BBs gain in size and not in strength? i mean muscle is strength isn't it-what would be the point of muscle otherwise?
|
|
2003/06/26, 02:39 PM
Not true muscle size does not always mean great strenght. I hvae largere arms than most in my gym yet there are thinner smaller guys lifting a godd amount more and it works vice versa. It really depends on the genes of the person.
--------------
Squats are really a very good thing, but in my world, Deadlifts are King!!!!!!!!
|
|
2003/06/26, 09:36 PM
Hey Dahayz, Ouch!, it seems that you have a little animosity towards the ISSA. Personally I don't accept the word of anyone as fact & I also originally had some doubts as to the pactices taught in the curriculum. However through countless hours of study & practical application I have found many of these practices to be very benificial. Personally I take a little offense to the implication that I would merely regergitate this information out of the book without any real knowledge of the science behind it. I have been studying & persuing fitness for over 7 years & have seen & tried countless methods from the pathetically inadequate to the excessively extreme & I have found the practices of which I now endorse to be very sound, or I would not endorse them. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions & I am sorry that your experience with ISSA was not as favorable as I have found mine to be. I also believe that it is important to encourage & empower people rather than to belittle or push their views as being the only ones that matter. After all, diversity & the ability to learn is what makes the average person extraordinary.
--------------
\\"Knowledge & persistence is all one needs to succeed\"\
---Patrick L.
|
|
2003/06/27, 07:21 AM
I was not personally attacking you PL and my experience with ISSA has not been bad. I simply disagree with just about everything Dr, Hatfield says. Now, I don't know if you have your cert. yet, but very quickly you will come to realize that it is simply a piece of paper. You just need it to train people. I learned a lot more through my studies at school than any Cert. company could offer. No, I am not close minded, I have seen and tried many things and have studied exercise programs and movements extensively (required for my college classes) and what Dr. Hatfield preaches is simply his own opinions (which as we all know is a big no-no) based on a few lame studies out of Europe. Now, we could keep going back and forth, but it would be pointless and get us nowhere. Just know that I wasn't attacking you, but I am not afraid to voice my opinion (which is NOT based on simple beleifs) especially when it comes to all of the crap that is being tossed around in our industry today.
|
|
2003/06/29, 04:28 AM
Intruiging posts, when it comes to genetics though, like bb1fit says "...the sky is the limit".
--------------
My family thinks I'm on steroids... :D
|
