|
2003/12/11, 03:35 PM
Is it possible to strength train without gaining muscle?
Someone asked me the other day about this and I got to thinking. The answer I gave them was that if you are gaining strength, either you are adding muscle, or your current muscle is getting denser, but either way , even if its getting denser, you are still adding bits of muscle to it right?
Interesting question.
|
|
|
|
2003/12/11, 04:16 PM
I definitely think that you can gain strength, but not necessarily bulk/size. A perfect example is by looking at the powerlifters holding lifting records. I was looking through some of the lifters being trained by Louie Simmons and one guy was a little shy of 200 pounds, but the guy benched over 500 lbs, squatted close to 700 and I think deadlifted close to 800. Most guys weighing twice as much (and probably twice more muscular) can't even get close to these poundages.
--------------
**_Robert_**
Pain is temporary; glory is forever!
|
|
2003/12/12, 08:24 AM
It is possible to get stronger without gaining weight. It is called the dynamic method. Try some of the speed bench and box squat workouts I have posted. Your strength will blow up!
|
|
2003/12/12, 08:58 AM
Id rather add muscle and strength together , or strength secondary at this point, but its not really about me gatormade.
Im just asking a general question because someone asked me and I wasnt sure ;)
|
|
2003/12/12, 08:26 PM
A prime example is Max Ot or HIT. You will most likely get stronger, without gaining much size.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/12, 09:50 PM
MAX OT is designed to build muscle bb1.
|
|
2003/12/12, 09:56 PM
I know full well what Max Ot is. Is it really possible to use one exercise for 4-6 reps and grow the entire muscle? Don't think so, and science will prove it. You will gain some, but there are too many muscle fibers distributed for this to happen. Max ot can be a part of your training for sure, but you can not build a bodybuilding protocol out of it. We should do low rep sets to increase strength and progressively push to lift heavier weights under longer time under tensions. Defenietly, 4 and 5 reps have their places. But to build an entire routine around that as the only way to body build, and ignore the latest science, is robbing folks of the knowledge they need to make body building a life long sport. Remember, AST is selling a product.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/13, 10:55 AM
You dont do just 1 exercise man. You do 2-3 different ones per muscle group.
============
Quoting from bb1fit:
I know full well what Max Ot is. Is it really possible to use one exercise for 4-6 reps and grow the entire muscle? Don't think so, and science will prove it. You will gain some, but there are too many muscle fibers distributed for this to happen. Max ot can be a part of your training for sure, but you can not build a bodybuilding protocol out of it. We should do low rep sets to increase strength and progressively push to lift heavier weights under longer time under tensions. Defenietly, 4 and 5 reps have their places. But to build an entire routine around that as the only way to body build, and ignore the latest science, is robbing folks of the knowledge they need to make body building a life long sport. Remember, AST is selling a product.
=============
|
|
2003/12/13, 10:58 AM
Im going to definitely try this out BB1. But it probably wont be until the middle of next yr. And I will let you know how it works out for me.
From the reviews ive been hearing about from people doing MAX OT they are loving it. Especially reviews coming from people who have not been able to put on muscle very easily.
|
|
2003/12/13, 11:15 AM
I know Max Ot. I did it for quite some time. They have a good sales pitch, I wish you luck with it.
They make many unfounded statements, such as a pump doesn't matter, etc. Of course they are going to say that. How pumped ae you going to get at 4-5 reps for calves! Especially when the soleus is 90% slow twitch fibers!that they are now backing off of. No research to back this up.
The notion that a particular resistance exercise will cause the entire muscle belly to grow in a uniform manner is at odds with the fact that muscles and msucle fibers are themselves hetergeneous.
For instance calves, they use the same rep range. they state, you should never adjust the frequency of your calf training, no matter what. Where is the science in this? The calves are extrememly complex muscles, and are treated as if they are a single unit. Things such as this is why it is unscientific.
I actually have been to AST in Colorado, met Jeff Willet and Paul Cribb. They have a good thing going. By the time you get through their program and realize you haven't gotten any bigger, you will have bought alot of their merchandise.
good luck to you.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/13, 12:35 PM
Here is anothe bit of one of their principles, you cannot (and they vehemently state this), change the shape of a muscle. Oh yeah....hhhhmmmmm
Appl Physiol 88: 1127-1132, 2000;
8750-7587/00
Form follows function: how muscle shape is regulated by work
Brenda Russell, Delara Motlagh, and William W. Ashley
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612
What determines the shape, size, and force output of cardiac and skeletal muscle? Chicago architect Louis Sullivan (1856-1924), father of the skyscraper, observed that "form follows function." This is as true for the structural elements of a striated muscle cell as it is for the architectural features of a building. Function is a critical evolutionary determinant, not form. To survive, the animal has evolved muscles with the capacity for dynamic responses to altered functional demand. For example, work against an increased load leads to increased mass and cross-sectional area (hypertrophy), which is directly proportional to an increased potential for force production. Thus a cell has the capacity to alter its shape as well as its volume in response to a need for altered force production. Muscle function relies primarily on an organized assembly of contractile and other sarcomeric proteins. From analysis of homogenized cells and molecular and biochemical assays, we have learned about transcription, translation, and posttranslational processes that underlie protein synthesis but still have done little in addressing the important questions of shape or regional cell growth. Skeletal muscles only grow in length as the bones grow; therefore, most studies of adult hypertrophy really only involve increased cross-sectional area. The heart chamber, however, can extend in both longitudinal and transverse directions, and cardiac cells can grow in length and width. We know little about the regulation of these directional processes that appear as a cell gets larger with hypertrophy or smaller with atrophy. This review gives a brief overview of the regulation of cell shape and the composition and aggregation of contractile proteins into filaments, the sarcomere, and myofibrils. We examine how mechanical activity regulates the turnover and exchange of contraction proteins. Finally, we suggest what kinds of experiments are needed to answer these fundamental questions about the regulation of muscle cell shape.
sarcomere; myofibril; assembly; hypertrophy; cardiac and skeletal muscle
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/13, 04:01 PM
Well, in regard to buying their merchandise, I do not do any kind of supplement, nor will i ever again due to a scary thing that happened to me with an EAS supplement.
Are you saying that NOBODY has gotten any bigger from doing this?? Seems that is what you are saying when you said to me:
"By the time you get through their program and realize you haven't gotten any bigger, you will have bought alot of their merchandise."
I just gotta ask BB1, what in your opinion, is the most efficient way to work out to put on muscle? I would rather not hear the "things work different for different people" comment. Since you are on the up and up with all the science, what does science say WORkS ??????
============
Quoting from bb1fit:
I know Max Ot. I did it for quite some time. They have a good sales pitch, I wish you luck with it.
They make many unfounded statements, such as a pump doesn't matter, etc. Of course they are going to say that. How pumped ae you going to get at 4-5 reps for calves! Especially when the soleus is 90% slow twitch fibers!that they are now backing off of. No research to back this up.
The notion that a particular resistance exercise will cause the entire muscle belly to grow in a uniform manner is at odds with the fact that muscles and msucle fibers are themselves hetergeneous.
For instance calves, they use the same rep range. they state, you should never adjust the frequency of your calf training, no matter what. Where is the science in this? The calves are extrememly complex muscles, and are treated as if they are a single unit. Things such as this is why it is unscientific.
I actually have been to AST in Colorado, met Jeff Willet and Paul Cribb. They have a good thing going. By the time you get through their program and realize you haven't gotten any bigger, you will have bought alot of their merchandise.
good luck to you.
=============
|
|
2003/12/13, 06:04 PM
I believe max-ot has some very useful aspects to it, but it does lack in overall scheme of things.
To build an entire routine around that as the only way to body build, and ignore the latest science, is at the least very short sighted.
Their program is going to produce strength results. If you train in the low repetition ranges, you will increase strength, and perhaps gain some muscle. However, this is going to be short lived, as plateaus will come. I will admit I like their VP2. It is a quality protein, but this is just a piece of the puzzle.
They are primarily marketing to younger athletes, and are taking advantage of their limited understanding of the sport.
How often do we see these, "gain or lose 10lbs in a day!" And people soak it up. These types of marketers appeal to the "Get rich quick scheme" mentalities.
Body building is a life long sport, and they are defenietly not promoting a long term body building career by leaving their clients in the dark regarding the latest science of body building.
Here is some science….
There is now convincing evidence which has shown the importance of eccentric contractions in producing muscle hypertrophy (15,24,45,46). It is known that eccentric contractions produces greater injury than concentric or isometric contractions. We also know that if you can induce muscle fiber injury, satellite cells are activated. Both animal and human studies point to the superiority of eccentric contractions in increasing muscle mass (24,45,46). However, in the real world, we don't do pure eccentric, concentric, or isometric contractions. We do a combination of all three. So the main thing to keep in mind when performing an exercise is to allow a controlled descent of the weight being lifted. And on occasion, one could have his/her training partner load more weight than can be lifted concentrically and spot him/her while he/she performs a pure eccentric contraction. This will really put your muscle fibers under a great deal of tension causing microtears and severe delayed-onset muscle soreness. But you need that damage to induce growth. Thus, the repeated process of injuring your fibers (via weight training) followed by a recuperation or regeneration may result in an overcompensation of protein synthesis resulting in a net anabolic effect (12,31).
Contractile proteins in a cell are responsible for most muscular growth. These must be exposed to enough stress or they will not be damaged enough to overcompensate by increasing in size.
Therefore it is not enough to recruit a muscle fiber, you must also damage the actin and myosin filaments if it is to grow."
Don't get me wrong 4-6 reps is good to imploy, but not as a sole workout structure. Used as a shock, 3-5 repetition sets can stimulate hypertrophy in the fast twitch IIB fibers. But a program based solely on that range is undermining hypertophy.
The time under tension that 6-15 reps stimulates much more hypertophy.
Dr. Antonio states, “According to the size principle of motor unit recruitment, the smallest motor units (i.e., slow-twitch or type I) are recruited before the larger motor units (i.e., fast-twitch—type IIa, type IIb) Data derived via glycogen depletion methods show that both fast and slow units are scattered in a heterogeneous manner across a muscle. This would suggest that one could activate a muscle fiber (for instance in a slow motor unit) while an adjacent fast fiber remains inactive.”(1)
4 and 5 reps are not going to favor this principle.
In conclusion, a balanced, low rep, high rep, shocking scheme will in the end gain you the most muscle. You see the human body is a highly adaptable creature. It seeks a comfortable place and then looks to stay there. In order to maximize gains we must keep our bodies in a constant state of adaptation or on it's toes if you will. Shocking principles will do the trick, every one you can think of and then some. You must train in a 4-6 rep range, you must train in a 10-15 rep range, you must hit a muscle from every angle possible. You must shock that muscle with progressively heavier loads, but in a rep range with the type of fibers you are working. One set rep range will not produce the growth you are after. And, it will not happen overnight. This is a continuous, ongoing process. Be hardcore. Do not do one simple training scheme. Keep shocking the muscle, and follow it up with correct nutrition. Do not forget your “window of opportunity drink”. This is the most anabolic thing you can do, and keep a good diet. Without the proper diet, no training scheme will work. Be as hard core about your diet as you are about your training.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/13, 09:42 PM
Awesome post...just awesome...hit the nail on the head.
--------------
If you joined the powers of TSMD and 7707Mutt, it would equal that of a freight train!
|
|
2003/12/13, 10:25 PM
So, since you want to hit the muscle a variety of ways...
How favorable do you look on the www.bodyforlife.com way of weightlifting?
This starts at higher reps and decreases in reps as you go up in weight, followed by a superset at the end. I saw in one of your posts before BB1 that you said I THINK, that you liked to lessen the weight after a number of sets or something (if im wrong i apologize, i think you said this).
I am doing this right now but my main focus was to drop fat and gain what muscle i could. Next summer is when I planned on starting MAX OT, but if there is a better way to gain muscle then id like to know the best way. My body puts on muscle very easily so a recommendation would be nice if not for max ot or my current bodyforlife style.
Thanks for your time with this. I must admit, this gets F'n annoying for me. Its like you have to be a damn scientist to understand some things, when it should not be that hard to get. I just want to do the best thing for myself and not waste yrs doing something that i coulda netted better results doing something else all that time.
|
|
2003/12/14, 06:41 PM
Fire, the best way to add muscle is to simply train hard, dink lots of water, eat and sleep. PERIOD. I know that some here will say different, but of all the years I have been lifting those that train hard and are consistent are the ones that make gains. I think you are searching for a magic workout if you will. Not a thing wrong that is how you learn. But if you really want to add muscle just lift hard make changes and eat sleep right. You will see gains!
--------------
LIFT HEAVY! BECOME STRONG, LIKE BULL!
|
|
2003/12/14, 09:45 PM
Mutt, Thats what id like to do. But since science disproves EVERYHTING , id like to see what the hell is supposed to be the MOST EFFICIENT way to put muscle on.
Mutt, i hear you. I think science has its place but it aint right about every Fn thing.
|
|
2003/12/14, 09:45 PM
Message deleted by moderator due to unsuitable content for this board.
|
|
2003/12/15, 09:36 AM
Science gives us something to base our decisions on. However, sometimes you just need to do what works best for you. One thing is for certain, if you train hard and smart, you will see progress.
|
|
2003/12/15, 10:09 AM
This is exactly correct. Train hard and smart. This is science, this is what all this is telling us in a nutshell. One type of workout will not do. Train every way possible, from all angles, with intensity, and the key to making any gains, diet and rest will get you progress. This is what science is telling us. It is not to prove anyone wrong, it is to help and aid folks if you use it. The point about Max Ot is it has its place, but it is not to base an entire bodybuilding scheme around, and science was used to illustrate this point is all. Just be smart.
============
Quoting from gatormade:
Science gives us something to base our decisions on. However, sometimes you just need to do what works best for you. One thing is for certain, if you train hard and smart, you will see progress.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/15, 12:36 PM
To ignore the best research available is also saying I don't care. Think about this, you own a company that is manufacturing thingamagigs(muscle, for instance). Ok, your company is cruising along, making a small profit, and holding on. Now, you have available to you the best researchers in the country on making thingamagigs(muscle). They tell you that they have researced and found a way to increase your productivity by twofold, thus gain market share, and thus pass the competition. What do you do, say, no, I want to do it my way, and at the very least lose market share, and maybe get run out of business at worst case because you are no longer making adequate gains? The research is there for us, only the uneducated or unwilling or lazy of us will not take advantage of it and put it to use.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/15, 01:05 PM
The problems with science are that it ALWAYS changes, and alot of times it contradicts itself later by finding that things are NOT the best way to go, thats why you kinda have to weed through some of it and try to get the POINTS rather than take science verbatim.
Im not saying that I dont care about science. What im saying is that im very frustrated. I know how to add muscle to MY body. But since all this came about, I wanted to see what SCIENCE said was the best way because then i might have considered changing my routines to go with a more EFFICIENT route. Im still learning, and the only way to learn is really to read and experiment. But I do not want to waste 10 yrs doing something a less efficient way. I know theres no magic workout OBVIOUSLY or i wouldnt be sitting here having this discussion.
I guess ultimately , you have to experiment.
|
|
2003/12/15, 01:13 PM
That is why you find the VERY BEST RESEARCH, not just any. Research is changing due to the fact that we are down to the molecular level now in what goes on in our bodies. To ignore it is to waste your time.
Your logic is like the argument that never gets anywhere, such as coming back with something that is worse rather than what can be done to fix it or help it. Such as the simple one, you have heard a million times in politics, they want to bash a politician, and the reply is well, he did this worse(the last guy), or the new guy. Fix the problem, don't use stale arguments that get you nowhere. Not wanting to waste 10 yrs. is exactly the reason for the research to be put to use. Do what you want, I am done with this conversation. Be smart, happy gains.
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/15, 02:02 PM
One final note, research SHOULD change. This is how we have progressed in betterment of life in all phases. As we get more advanced, we learn more and use these advancements to better oursleves. :>}}
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/16, 06:42 AM
Why is it bad that it always changes? There have not been many drastic changes in the past few years, just advancements. I have every training log for the past 17 years. When I look back through them, I know what has not and what has worked for me. That in itself is research. Some of the science can be taken word for word, some cannot. You have to make inferences off of what certain research has put out there. One is the case of stretching before training. Research shows that stretching reduces the amount of force that can be produced. So, I don't stretch before training. It used to be a wide spread accepted idea that you should stretch first. Now more people are moving towards the dynamic warm-up. Why? because it is better. Not because stretching wrong. Use what is available to enhance your training. If you don't, then you'll eventually run into a wall.
|
|
2003/12/16, 06:58 AM
Most beginners will put muscle mass on to support strength gainers. The longer you train, the stronger you will get without putting on the extra mass. I have not gained weight in 3 years yet my deadlifts and squats have all shot up in major amounts. I train volleyball players. We use dynamice effort alot and they get stronger but they don't put on the mass.
|
|
2003/12/16, 08:53 AM
The conversation is over.
|
|
2003/12/16, 09:16 AM
I feel that this conversation has just started...
|
|
2003/12/16, 09:19 AM
Do you want a great workout for your goals fire?
|
|
2003/12/16, 10:27 AM
Excellent point gator! I have every training log and diet I have done for many years also. I look back and see what I did to progress, to break past sticking points, etc. I even have notes as to what I found out about how to work a certain muscle, how I changed my rep schemes, if it helped, etc. This too is research, mine and the experts. Good call gator.
============
Quoting from gatormade:
Why is it bad that it always changes? There have not been many drastic changes in the past few years, just advancements. I have every training log for the past 17 years. When I look back through them, I know what has not and what has worked for me. That in itself is research. Some of the science can be taken word for word, some cannot. You have to make inferences off of what certain research has put out there. One is the case of stretching before training. Research shows that stretching reduces the amount of force that can be produced. So, I don't stretch before training. It used to be a wide spread accepted idea that you should stretch first. Now more people are moving towards the dynamic warm-up. Why? because it is better. Not because stretching wrong. Use what is available to enhance your training. If you don't, then you'll eventually run into a wall.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
|
|
2003/12/17, 12:15 AM
Sure gator. What do you have in mind?
|
|
2003/12/19, 03:32 PM
bump..
How about that great workout for my goals Gator?
|
|
2003/12/23, 11:49 AM
Check your profile fire for the 1st week. It's an old body building workout I used to do. Very effective.
|
|
2004/01/08, 02:44 PM
if you just want to simplify you life and workout, look at body building 20 or 30 years ago. not so much science and surely not so any marketing schemes....so what did everyone do...?
they just trained hard...dedication and consistency...just keep going at it.
but you can learn alot from every program...take what you like and build your own program of things that work for you. thats why theres so much information out. because if i lifted small children and gained 25lbs of muscle in 12 weeks, i'd put out a program called BYK..bench your kids....just because it worked for me doesn't mean it will work for you, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. same thing for every other program. and if my gains stalled i'd move up to teenagers anyway....
never say die, and keep lifting
|
