This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Could I get into LSE and/or KCL?
- Lifts in Encliffe?
- Anybody thinks that could be a hernia?
- A vehicle accelerates uniformly...
- Mechanical engineering
- Mechanical Engineering degree
- Sainsburys
- Would this all body workout build strength and mass
- Girls: how heavy do you lift (working set) in the squat, deadlift and bench?
- Essential Pre-Uni Physics C4a.4
- Most overrated universities???
- how long will it take?
- Is 11 exercises for lower body ok with 2 rest days?
- Trauma is Like A Broken Bone
- is it possible to get into uni of Edinburgh with ABB predicted grades?
- Taj Lifts
- Is it good to do weight training every day?
- Tattoos at college
- Study Abroad Occupational Health Check
- Extra strong mints
Lifting Heavy is so overrated.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Science211
"I can't get too big" Oh dear. Wow.
I wonder if you actually realise its impossible to get 'too big' whilst being natty.
I wonder if you actually realise its impossible to get 'too big' whilst being natty.
Stop making assumptions. I've been bigger in the past so am fully aware how it slows me down. It's no coincidence central defenders are bigger and less mobile whilst a winger is the opposite.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Bonzo10
Like I said: preference. People desperately searching for that physique should bodybuild. And I repeat, the word "overrated" isn't the right word. You want more strength, lift heavy. Yes you can get strong bodybuilding. But the more you lift, the stronger you are, that much is true. It's all about what your own goals are. And for note, I did split routines for two years. Stopped for two and didnt train. It was good and I looked good but it wasnt serving a purpose for my sporting endeavours. Regressed to your bog standard physique. Then took up strength training and now I have genuine useful strength far beyond the levels I achieved in two years of dedicated split routines, strength that is genuinely transferable. And to top it all off, I look just as good. So, it's not overrated, it just doesn't work for some people for one reason or another.
I'm not arguing against strength training for getting stronger I'm arguing against strength training for bodybuilding rather than just bodybuilding right away. If you are training for sports then ofc stay away from bodybuilding routines. Strength training for getting a physique is overrated as you can better results physique wise by lifting less a lot less weight. Especially when you consider the fact that so many people on this board just automatically tell people who make it very clear that they only care about looks to do SS/SL.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by alex_tait
I'm not arguing against strength training for getting stronger I'm arguing against strength training for bodybuilding rather than just bodybuilding right away. If you are training for sports then ofc stay away from bodybuilding routines. Strength training for getting a physique is overrated as you can better results physique wise by lifting less a lot less weight. Especially when you consider the fact that so many people on this board just automatically tell people who make it very clear that they only care about looks to do SS/SL.
Buddy, anyone who's gotten anywhere in bodybuilding lifted heavy on strength routines for a considerable amount of time.
Original post by see-are
strength is the measure of a man. The more you lift the more respect you command in the hierarchy of life. Those who can lift the most gain power. Look at Schwarzenegger. The stronger men have the right to steal women and possessions, although they will naturally get the women anyways.
Someone's clearly read some rudimentary psychology and forgets that we're no longer on the Savannah plains of Africa...
Original post by alex_tait
For whatever reason people believe that doing deadlifts will grow your arms even though all your arms do in the deadlift is transfer the force from the rest of your body.
I assume you're only talking about upper arms? Because my forearms went massive when i started deadlifting
I have to say that whilst the majority of the op post was just bull**** there is a valid point in there.
Firstly, the only way to build muscle mass is to lift heavy and fail at low reps. This is the ONLY way to ensure that you tear the muscle adequately without failing due to fatigue. You CANNOT build the muscle without tearing it, as this is the only way to force your body to adapt by creating more muscle.
Secondly, you HAVE to eat a hell of a lot to build. This is because not only to you have to replace all of the energy that you expended lifting, as well as providing enough energy to actually build new muscle, which might I just point out takes a lot of energy, hence eat a lot, as calories are after all just a measure off energy.
Thirdly, yes for most people body weight exercises are enough, but this is because that is lifting heavy enough to tear the muscle for them.
Fourthly, if you were increasing the weight you were lifting every week, then you weren't lifting heavy enough to begin with. However, I do agree that form is the most important thing, but only for the first 2 sets. Your fail set should have around 80% acceptable form. And, yes many people do go to the gym and lift too heavy, swinging there whole body as they try to curl a stupidly heavy weight, and yes that is counter productive. Hence, why I operate on a 'leave your ego at the door' policy, lifting as heavy as I can for 2 sets with perfect form then increasing the weight and failing in the next set.
Finally, with regards to the joint problems. Yes this is an issue, but it is kind of an 'acceptable losses' situation. If you are going to lift weights heavy enough to tear the muscle then it will put pressure on the joints and cause aching. This is common ammongst anyone who actually lifts decent weights regularly and cleanly. Most of us who do actually end up taking supplements to help joints, cod liver oil, or glucosamine and chondritin are my two favourites. But like I said to build effectively you have to make your body thing that it is in danger and has to adapt by building more mass to survive, effectively continually pushing it out of its comfort zone.
And anyone who seriously builds will admit that they won't see continual progress week in week out. The op probably only does because he isn't actually building at the muscle head, his muscles are just becoming more dense and efficient.
Firstly, the only way to build muscle mass is to lift heavy and fail at low reps. This is the ONLY way to ensure that you tear the muscle adequately without failing due to fatigue. You CANNOT build the muscle without tearing it, as this is the only way to force your body to adapt by creating more muscle.
Secondly, you HAVE to eat a hell of a lot to build. This is because not only to you have to replace all of the energy that you expended lifting, as well as providing enough energy to actually build new muscle, which might I just point out takes a lot of energy, hence eat a lot, as calories are after all just a measure off energy.
Thirdly, yes for most people body weight exercises are enough, but this is because that is lifting heavy enough to tear the muscle for them.
Fourthly, if you were increasing the weight you were lifting every week, then you weren't lifting heavy enough to begin with. However, I do agree that form is the most important thing, but only for the first 2 sets. Your fail set should have around 80% acceptable form. And, yes many people do go to the gym and lift too heavy, swinging there whole body as they try to curl a stupidly heavy weight, and yes that is counter productive. Hence, why I operate on a 'leave your ego at the door' policy, lifting as heavy as I can for 2 sets with perfect form then increasing the weight and failing in the next set.
Finally, with regards to the joint problems. Yes this is an issue, but it is kind of an 'acceptable losses' situation. If you are going to lift weights heavy enough to tear the muscle then it will put pressure on the joints and cause aching. This is common ammongst anyone who actually lifts decent weights regularly and cleanly. Most of us who do actually end up taking supplements to help joints, cod liver oil, or glucosamine and chondritin are my two favourites. But like I said to build effectively you have to make your body thing that it is in danger and has to adapt by building more mass to survive, effectively continually pushing it out of its comfort zone.
And anyone who seriously builds will admit that they won't see continual progress week in week out. The op probably only does because he isn't actually building at the muscle head, his muscles are just becoming more dense and efficient.
Original post by desijut
I assume you're only talking about upper arms? Because my forearms went massive when i started deadlifting
Yeah I mean biceps and triceps. You never see significant development in those muscles SS/SL. The upper body as a whole ends up lacking in development in comparison to the legs and glutes which just blow up like crazy and you end up with this reverse Johnny Bravo look. It looks just as bad if not worse than the captain upperbodies who walk around gyms nowadays.
Original post by alex_tait
Yeah I mean biceps and triceps. You never see significant development in those muscles SS/SL. The upper body as a whole ends up lacking in development in comparison to the legs and glutes which just blow up like crazy and you end up with this reverse Johnny Bravo look. It looks just as bad if not worse than the captain upperbodies who walk around gyms nowadays.
I'd rather be T-rex than Jonny Bravo lol and I think the upper-body can be kept proportional to the lower body in a beginner's routine so long as there's sufficient upper body exercises - not just bench & OHP like SS, but chins or pullups, curls, some form of row too. But it's a beginner's strength routine; there's two schools of thought - one that would argue you should get strong before hypertrophy-training, and the other that argue you should not bother and and go straight into some form of split with lower intensity and higher volume than say, SS.
"Proportional" is just subjective too - the idea of how big the quads and glutes should be in relation to the upper body, to the waist, to the shoulders etc. The Jonny Bravos obviously have delusional ideas of the word "proportional". Some people may argue that the legs and glutes SHOULD BE BIG in comparison to the upper body, and rightly so as they are the largest and strongest muscles in the body from whence a lot of your power is generated. It's a continuum of proportionality, and there isn't some arbitrary point at which you can say "that guy needs more upper body", but it's very obvious when someone is hideously disproportionate.
"Lifting heavy is overrated" is only relative in context - if you want to bodybuild, mind-to-muscle connection, tempo and time-under-tension are probably more important, in the 8-12 rep range. Yeah, 1-5 reps for 80-100% of your 1RM probably IS overrated if building muscle is your goal, as an intermediate or advanced trainee, but is best for getting stronger, so the value of lifting heavy is contextual, but you don't have to be a genius to realise that.
dat dere broscience. Some people will lift heavy, love it. Some others will lift heavy, hate it.
Original post by silent ninja
Stop making assumptions. I've been bigger in the past so am fully aware how it slows me down. It's no coincidence central defenders are bigger and less mobile whilst a winger is the opposite.
That's nothing to do with muscle though. Would you say that Roberto Carlos's thighs held him back despite being muscley? Would you say that sprinters muscles would slow them down despite the fact they are running 100 meters in under 10 seconds? Its about focusing on muscles that would help i.e. Legs, core etc. Also surely body fat levels would affect the speed as well.
Regarding your point on central defenders being slower than wingers, maybe the positioning of wingers allows them the space to run faster compared to central defenders.
Original post by Science211
That's nothing to do with muscle though. Would you say that Roberto Carlos's thighs held him back despite being muscley? Would you say that sprinters muscles would slow them down despite the fact they are running 100 meters in under 10 seconds? Its about focusing on muscles that would help i.e. Legs, core etc. Also surely body fat levels would affect the speed as well.
Regarding your point on central defenders being slower than wingers, maybe the positioning of wingers allows them the space to run faster compared to central defenders.
Regarding your point on central defenders being slower than wingers, maybe the positioning of wingers allows them the space to run faster compared to central defenders.
Sprinters aren't that big. They appear bigger due to low body fat.
Bigger does slow you down. They mentioned a couple of days ago Bradley Wiggins used to way around 81kg and he's now got the same power but dropped his bodyfat significantly (to about 4.5%) and only weighs 67kg.
Also consider boxers. Despite having low body fat, compare a heavy weight to even a middle weight of similar height and look at the speed difference. Both are lean.
Original post by silent ninja
Bigger does slow you down. They mentioned a couple of days ago Bradley Wiggins used to way around 81kg and he's now got the same power but dropped his bodyfat significantly (to about 4.5%) and only weighs 67kg.
Bigger does slow you down. They mentioned a couple of days ago Bradley Wiggins used to way around 81kg and he's now got the same power but dropped his bodyfat significantly (to about 4.5%) and only weighs 67kg.
I don't believe that. I would have thought he was more like 10%.
Original post by HFerguson
I'd rather be T-rex than Jonny Bravo lol and I think the upper-body can be kept proportional to the lower body in a beginner's routine so long as there's sufficient upper body exercises - not just bench & OHP like SS, but chins or pullups, curls, some form of row too. But it's a beginner's strength routine; there's two schools of thought - one that would argue you should get strong before hypertrophy-training, and the other that argue you should not bother and and go straight into some form of split with lower intensity and higher volume than say, SS.
"Proportional" is just subjective too - the idea of how big the quads and glutes should be in relation to the upper body, to the waist, to the shoulders etc. The Jonny Bravos obviously have delusional ideas of the word "proportional". Some people may argue that the legs and glutes SHOULD BE BIG in comparison to the upper body, and rightly so as they are the largest and strongest muscles in the body from whence a lot of your power is generated. It's a continuum of proportionality, and there isn't some arbitrary point at which you can say "that guy needs more upper body", but it's very obvious when someone is hideously disproportionate.
"Lifting heavy is overrated" is only relative in context - if you want to bodybuild, mind-to-muscle connection, tempo and time-under-tension are probably more important, in the 8-12 rep range. Yeah, 1-5 reps for 80-100% of your 1RM probably IS overrated if building muscle is your goal, as an intermediate or advanced trainee, but is best for getting stronger, so the value of lifting heavy is contextual, but you don't have to be a genius to realise that.
"Proportional" is just subjective too - the idea of how big the quads and glutes should be in relation to the upper body, to the waist, to the shoulders etc. The Jonny Bravos obviously have delusional ideas of the word "proportional". Some people may argue that the legs and glutes SHOULD BE BIG in comparison to the upper body, and rightly so as they are the largest and strongest muscles in the body from whence a lot of your power is generated. It's a continuum of proportionality, and there isn't some arbitrary point at which you can say "that guy needs more upper body", but it's very obvious when someone is hideously disproportionate.
"Lifting heavy is overrated" is only relative in context - if you want to bodybuild, mind-to-muscle connection, tempo and time-under-tension are probably more important, in the 8-12 rep range. Yeah, 1-5 reps for 80-100% of your 1RM probably IS overrated if building muscle is your goal, as an intermediate or advanced trainee, but is best for getting stronger, so the value of lifting heavy is contextual, but you don't have to be a genius to realise that.
With the Johnny Bravo look you at least look like you lift weights when you have a shirt on. With reverse Johnny Bravo no jeans or trousers fit you and you still look normal with a shirt on, completely worthless. I understand that the lower body has a much greater potential for growth than the upper body but it isn't to the extent where the two look like they've been sewn together from two different people.
The bench press and the ohp don't stimulate the chest and shoulders like the squat stimulates the legs. The rep range is also much better for squats than it is for upper body movements. The squat has such a large range of motion that you end up getting a great time under tension despite using low reps. So when you train lower body really well for hypertrophy even though it isn't the main goal and have the upper body not stimulated very much it isn't a mystery as to why the upper bodies of those finishing SS/SL suck.
I used to believe this idea that you can stimulate your upper body perfectly well by just sticking to the suggested compound movements and getting stronger. After seeing my own results and the results of others, as well looking into other factors that go into stimulating hypertrophy (weight lifted, what each of the upper body muscles are designed to do, TUT, mind muscle connection and technique)I'm pretty much convinced that the notion that you should milk out SS/SL and avoid isolation before focusing on hypertrophy is overly reductionist garbage.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Mark85
I don't believe that. I would have thought he was more like 10%.
Men have significantly lower body fat than woman, the average man is around 15% so around 5% on an elite athlete seems fair enough
Original post by hawkesy_1
Men have significantly lower body fat than woman, the average man is around 15% so around 5% on an elite athlete seems fair enough
I am aware of that but I saw a picture of him in the paper topless after the tour de France and he looked more like ten percent than five.
Original post by hawkesy_1
Men have significantly lower body fat than woman, the average man is around 15% so around 5% on an elite athlete seems fair enough
4.5% @ 67kg is a reasonable size for a natural bodybuilder (who is less than 6'ish) about to step on stage and not look like ****.
As much of an awesome athlete as Wiggins is he looks like ****, ergo he is not 4.5% bf. He just isn't.
Most elite athletes run around 10-15% bf. Some will be fatter, some leaner. Single digit bodyfat isn't common in people who aren't physique athletes (namely, bodybuilders and fitness models). Getting to lower than 7% or so isn't conducive to athletic performance unless you're naturally a freak.
Original post by Old School
4.5% @ 67kg is a reasonable size for a natural bodybuilder (who is less than 6'ish) about to step on stage and not look like ****.
As much of an awesome athlete as Wiggins is he looks like ****, ergo he is not 4.5% bf. He just isn't.
Most elite athletes run around 10-15% bf. Some will be fatter, some leaner. Single digit bodyfat isn't common in people who aren't physique athletes (namely, bodybuilders and fitness models). Getting to lower than 7% or so isn't conducive to athletic performance unless you're naturally a freak.
As much of an awesome athlete as Wiggins is he looks like ****, ergo he is not 4.5% bf. He just isn't.
Most elite athletes run around 10-15% bf. Some will be fatter, some leaner. Single digit bodyfat isn't common in people who aren't physique athletes (namely, bodybuilders and fitness models). Getting to lower than 7% or so isn't conducive to athletic performance unless you're naturally a freak.
I think that was straight after the tour, not all year round. I think 23 days in a row of cycling most of the day can do that to you
Original post by Old School
4.5% @ 67kg is a reasonable size for a natural bodybuilder (who is less than 6'ish) about to step on stage and not look like ****.
As much of an awesome athlete as Wiggins is he looks like ****, ergo he is not 4.5% bf. He just isn't.
Most elite athletes run around 10-15% bf. Some will be fatter, some leaner. Single digit bodyfat isn't common in people who aren't physique athletes (namely, bodybuilders and fitness models). Getting to lower than 7% or so isn't conducive to athletic performance unless you're naturally a freak.
As much of an awesome athlete as Wiggins is he looks like ****, ergo he is not 4.5% bf. He just isn't.
Most elite athletes run around 10-15% bf. Some will be fatter, some leaner. Single digit bodyfat isn't common in people who aren't physique athletes (namely, bodybuilders and fitness models). Getting to lower than 7% or so isn't conducive to athletic performance unless you're naturally a freak.
According to the times he was 4.5%, having low bf doesn't make you look good unfortunately - he's proof. He has no size as he only trains fast twitch muscle in his legs, and even then he focusses on endurance, and I think the best looking bobdybuilders have a higher %bf as that it's really difficult to get that low while retaining any significant amount of muscle, at least without any synthetic aids lol.
Original post by Joker370
>he only trains fast twitch muscle in his legs...
>he focusses on endurance.
>he only trains fast twitch muscle in his legs...
>he focusses on endurance.
lol pick one, they're polar opposites
Original post by Mark85
I am aware of that but I saw a picture of him in the paper topless after the tour de France and he looked more like ten percent than five.
Every single article that i have read, including direct quotes from the man himself state him as having 4-5% body fat at one point. So the opinion he 'looks like 10%' doesn't really matter.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E0T8QKXW3Sc/T_4LaYVu2TI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/hty_RIZlVIo/s1600/Bradley-Wiggins-in-his-ho-008.jpg
(Not sure if you can open this, most certainly not 10% body fat).
Related discussions
- Could I get into LSE and/or KCL?
- Lifts in Encliffe?
- Anybody thinks that could be a hernia?
- A vehicle accelerates uniformly...
- Mechanical engineering
- Mechanical Engineering degree
- Sainsburys
- Would this all body workout build strength and mass
- Girls: how heavy do you lift (working set) in the squat, deadlift and bench?
- Essential Pre-Uni Physics C4a.4
- Most overrated universities???
- how long will it take?
- Is 11 exercises for lower body ok with 2 rest days?
- Trauma is Like A Broken Bone
- is it possible to get into uni of Edinburgh with ABB predicted grades?
- Taj Lifts
- Is it good to do weight training every day?
- Tattoos at college
- Study Abroad Occupational Health Check
- Extra strong mints
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
is it possible to go from a size 16 [L] to a size 12 [M] in five months?Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
is it possible to go from a size 16 [L] to a size 12 [M] in five months?
