[Old School]

(Original post by Joker370)
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.

Wow. You sure know a lot about this don't you.

Endurance events are reliant on slow twitch fibers.

What you think looks best means nothing to the judges of bodybuilding shows. Fact is these guys come in at <5%. Anything more than that and you're not going to be competitive at anything above local level.

Of course it's difficult otherwise everyone would be walking around jacked and shredded. Even BBers can't maintain contest condition for more than a few days.

People really don't get how jacked someone who was a true 4.5% @ around 70kg is (provided they're not over 6' or so), mainly because their perception of what 'big' is has been thrown off by the fitness industry.

Also, your comment about 'synthetic aids lol' just shows your ignorance. Drugs help you get lean and stay big but to assert that they are necessary to get super lean and not look like **** is retarded. It's not entirely your fault for thinking this though because most people think that:

1) They think they have more muscle than they actually do

2) As a result of 1) when they do cut down they look like **** and therefore blame the fact that they aren't on drugs for their lack of awesomeness.

[Mark85]

(Original post by hawkesy_1)
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/-E0T8QKXW3S...his-ho-008.jpg
(Not sure if you can open this, most certainly not 10% body fat).

That is the picture I saw and it sure as **** doesn't look like 4.5% body fat to me.

Even with his lack of muscularity, at that level of body fat - most of it is internal and the skin is ultra thin and the body starts to look like a relief map of its internal composition.

Maybe he did say that his body fat was 4-5% but I choose to not believe him. Maybe he was just trying to give a ballpark to give an idea as to how much weight he lost as part of making himself so competetive.

[HFerguson]

(Original post by Mark85)
That is the picture I saw and it sure as **** doesn't look like 4.5% body fat to me.

Even with his lack of muscularity, at that level of body fat - most of it is internal and the skin is ultra thin and the body starts to look like a relief map of its internal composition.

Maybe he did say that his body fat was 4-5% but I choose to not believe him. Maybe he was just trying to give a ballpark to give an idea as to how much weight he lost as part of making himself so competetive.

I don't think it's lower than 5%, just looks vascular as **** cos he's hot and dehydrated, hence the vascularity

[Joker370]

(Original post by Old School)
Wow. You sure know a lot about this don't you.

Endurance events are reliant on slow twitch fibers.

Sorry I don't know enough to debate on the rest of your points, so I'll accept that maybe I am wrong.

(Original post by HFerguson)
lol pick one, they're polar opposites

Just clarifying that I meant that he trains almost purely for endurance, but what little strength (fast twitch) work he does is almost entirely leg work, which doesn't really help you look good when you drop body fat, hope that clears it up .

[Science211]

(Original post by silent ninja)
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.

Not sherrif serious?




David Haye is huge (210 pounds vs. Chisora) but one of the fastest boxers in his weight range and thats after years upon years of training nearly every day.

Christiano Ronaldo is just over 186 pounds at 6ft 1 and he's one of the fastest in the world.

Don't talk rubbish mate. If you lift 3 times a week you'll realize how much you can actually increase speed and performance. If you were playing for a pro club in the premiership then fair do's but your not.

[philistine]

brb ten sets of high rep low weight
brb gym for two years... twelve inch arms
brb curling in the squat rack
brb do you even lift?
brb small shirts are baggy on me
brb myspace ripped kid
brb feeling not-so-joocey
brb creatine, not even once
brb looking small, flat, fat, gelatinous

good luck with your average goals of 2012

[silent ninja]

(Original post by Science211)
Not sherrif serious?




David Haye is huge (210 pounds vs. Chisora) but one of the fastest boxers in his weight range and thats after years upon years of training nearly every day.

Christiano Ronaldo is just over 186 pounds at 6ft 1 and he's one of the fastest in the world.

Don't talk rubbish mate. If you lift 3 times a week you'll realize how much you can actually increase speed and performance. If you were playing for a pro club in the premiership then fair do's but your not.

Talking nonsense. Ronaldo is big?? Lol 186lbs at that height is nothing.

It's pretty much a fact, more mass = slower speed. Common sense is all you need. I was watching badminton and they're skinny as **** but fast and agile. Again, sprinters are the fastest and they're not 'big' and lifting weights is secondary in their training. Usain Bolt wouldn't lift heavy to put on mass-- it would do nothing but slow him down (he'd do low reps to avoid that). It's all about getting the balance between speed and strength/power.

I'm sure Haye and Ali are fast but compare them to the likes of Khan, Mayweather and you see how much slower they are. Fair enough their taller height means coordination won't be as sharp, but it's pretty obvious in boxing, guys that weigh less move faster.

[The Troll Toll]

(Original post by Science211)
Not sherrif serious?

2 guys who look bigger than they care cos of big arms and low BF?

David Haye is huge (210 pounds vs. Chisora)

210 lbs at 6'3 is not "huge". In fact...

but one of the fastest boxers in his weight range and thats after years upon years of training nearly every day.

He is one of the smallest boxers in his weight range. Only 10 lbs bigger than the minimum. And if you really think size doesn't slow you down, how come he's only the fastest in his weight range? Why can't a big guy be as fast as Pacquiao?

Christiano Ronaldo is just over 186 pounds at 6ft 1 and he's one of the fastest in the world.

So people the size of a sprinter can be really fast? COOL STORY BROHAN SOLO. What if he were the size of someone... big?

Don't talk rubbish mate. If you lift 3 times a week you'll realize how much you can actually increase speed and performance. If you were playing for a pro club in the premiership then fair do's but your not.

Surprisingly (given your lack of intelligence evident in the examples you use) you do sort of have a point. Most people won't get big enough for it to have much effect, especially on their straight line speed. And the muscle helps up to a point which is why sprinters are 186 lbs and not 130 lbs. I mean look at the test that people of all sizes do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-yard_dash the weights of the fastest are pretty clearly grouped. 155 lbs is probably an outlier, and 210 might be too. So how come none of the 240 lb outside linebackers in the NFL bothered to get that fast? Or the 300 lb nose tackles? Could it be that the weight slows them down? Crazy theory.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by IRL)
It is overrated as you correctly stated. A lot of people who lift heavy and are trying to get big are often the ones who failed at sports when they were younger or got bullied/teased and feel the need to look intimidating to others. After they get bigger and stronger they still suck at the sports.

Gaining weight can be a burden if you're into a competitive sport which requires some kind of endurance.

For the majority of people who just want a reasonable physique when they take their t-shirt off at the beach, all this heavy lifting (deadlifts, squats etc...) stuff is simply unnecessary.

What's the point of getting strong? I run, cycle and and go on rowing machines a lot per week to improve my cardiovascular and muscular endurance. And I am good at sports too.

[g36c]

(Original post by hawkesy_1)
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/-E0T8QKXW3S...his-ho-008.jpg
(Not sure if you can open this, most certainly not 10% body fat).

he looks skinny fat

[TooEasy123]

(Original post by silent ninja)
It's pretty much a fact, more mass = slower speed. Common sense is all you need. I was watching badminton and they're skinny as **** but fast and agile. Again, sprinters are the fastest and they're not 'big' and lifting weights is secondary in their training. Usain Bolt wouldn't lift heavy to put on mass-- it would do nothing but slow him down (he'd do low reps to avoid that). It's all about getting the balance between speed and strength/power.

Yeah mass isn't the aim for sprinters. But you'd be surprised how much sprinters actually lift, except for the odd few super-genetically blessed ones. A lot of them are squatting close to, if not, 3x their bodyweight.

They need a high amount of strength, relative strength to be precise. Ground contact times are tiny in sprinting so it's all about exerting the most force into the ground in the shortest time possible (explosive strength / power). So a training program prioritising max strength for a sprinter, instead of focussing on explosiveness as well, would eventually have negative effects as they'd never be able to use all of that force anyway, and they'd gain unwanted mass.

It all depends on their body type. Some sprinters like Harry AA are suited to lifting more and if they didn't they be slower. The balance for him is different

[Science211]

(Original post by The Troll Toll)
I mean look at the test that people of all sizes do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-yard_dash the weights of the fastest are pretty clearly grouped. 155 lbs is probably an outlier, and 210 might be too. So how come none of the 240 lb outside linebackers in the NFL bothered to get that fast? Or the 300 lb nose tackles? Could it be that the weight slows them down? Crazy theory.

What your confusing though is that weight isn't equal to strength though. If silent ninja was to do a programme in a gym focusing on strength then he would improve his performance. What the test doesn't also take into account if bodyfat percentage and build of the person (i.e. smaller bones, larger bones etc.).

It is well known as well that the rep ranges as well would affect the improvement of the muscle (i.e. 1-5 strength, 5-15 hypertrophy of the muscle and 15+ muscular endurance). The lower rep ranges have been shown to target type 2 muscle fibres which increases speed.

Also the increase of mass of the person would surely increase the ammount of force the kick the player has. As we already know that Force is mass * acceleration, by increasing the mass of the spring (increasing mass of person) the force of the shot would increase thereforth.

Personally i feel that there would be nothing lost by doing a strength programme. I'm just offering my advice though. Take it if you wish, if not don't worry.

[The Troll Toll]

(Original post by Science211)
What your confusing though is that weight is equal to strength though.

And what you're confusing is how to write sentences where the words go together in a way that makes sense and is relevant to the conversation.

If silent ninja was to do a programme in a gym focusing on strength then he would improve his performance. What the test doesn't also take into account if bodyfat percentage and build of the person (i.e. smaller bones, larger bones etc.).

See above.

It is well known as well that the rep ranges as well would affect the improvement of the muscle (i.e. 1-5 strength, 5-15 hypertrophy of the muscle and 15+ muscular endurance). The lower rep ranges have been shown to target type 2 muscle fibres.

See above.

Also the increase of mass of the person would surely increase the ammount of force the kick the player has. As we already know that Force is mass * acceleration, by increasing the mass of the spring (increasing mass of person) the force of the shot would increase thereforth.

See above.

Personally i feel that there would be nothing lost by doing a strength programme. I'm just offering my advice though. Take it if you wish, if not don't worry.

See above.

[tooosh]

(Original post by Science211)
What your confusing though is that weight isn't equal to strength though. If silent ninja was to do a programme in a gym focusing on strength then he would improve his performance. What the test doesn't also take into account if bodyfat percentage and build of the person (i.e. smaller bones, larger bones etc.).

It is well known as well that the rep ranges as well would affect the improvement of the muscle (i.e. 1-5 strength, 5-15 hypertrophy of the muscle and 15+ muscular endurance). The lower rep ranges have been shown to target type 2 muscle fibres which increases speed.

Also the increase of mass of the person would surely increase the ammount of force the kick the player has. As we already know that Force is mass * acceleration, by increasing the mass of the spring (increasing mass of person) the force of the shot would increase thereforth.

Personally i feel that there would be nothing lost by doing a strength programme. I'm just offering my advice though. Take it if you wish, if not don't worry.

I agree a strength program would help speed and power if you don't gain weight though. Your equation is wrong, f=ma doesn't mean increasing the mass increases force output, it increases the force required to move that mass at acceleration a... which works against the idea of gaining weight.

[stefl14]

(Original post by The Blind Monk)
I think the point is pretty simple about weight training:
It will probably help the majority of athletes to be stronger than they currently are since some degree of limit strength is necessary for all tasks. In addition, limit strength is a very trainable quality in comparison to the majority of motor qualities. The point is not that athletes necessarily need to be strong in absolute terms but whether they would benefit from resistance training, which is true in the vast majority of cases. What form this takes is another question entirely.

With regard to IRL's point about biomechanics: if you're trying to improve yourself, it's not as if you can make your limbs longer or make your limb ratios closer to the what you can get for your sport. You can only make yourself stronger, faster, more flexible or improve your endurance. Might as well focus on what you can do with your genetics rather than just bitch about the limitations.


This is untrue and even if it were true, the vast majority of sprinters lift for a reason: it improves the performance at their sport. This is not to say that the best sprinters are the best lifters but merely that weight training does improve sprint times in the vast majority of individuals.


The point remains that if you resistance train in a sensible manner, you will hit harder. You might as well train the motor qualities you can do get better at your chosen sport. Genetics may determine how far you can go but if you're serious about training, you might as well do what you can do maximise your potential.


Doesn't change the fact that the majority of people will run faster if they lift weights. Increasing your leg strength will make you run faster even if you don't sprint up until a certain point. This is not to say that the biggest squatter is the fastest sprinter, but it is probable for many people that increasing their squat will decrease their sprint times.


Explain. It seems quite obvious that lactic acid exists.

Finally, it depends on what you mean by 'explosiveness.' It's probable that if you coach someone to do kettlebell swings, jumps, cleans and other fast lifts that they will be able to jump higher, run faster etc which will transfer over in a tangible way to the majority of what most people would describe as 'athletic' activities.

That's probably the most common misconception surrounding boxing. I know as I am a boxer and have learnt the science behind it for years. Training with heavy weights will make you a little faster at throwing punches due to the stimulation and building of fast twitch fibers but the gains will be minute at best. The raw power of a punch has nothing whatsoever to do with strength: all strength will do is make you a better pusher. I am not particularly strong and can punch probably 3x as hard as some of the meatheads who lift 3x what I can. The power of a punch is determined by two things.

1) Speed: While lifting heavy could improve this, the gains will be marginal. It's not like sprinting where strength heavily contributes to speed because you are generating force from the grounds upwards. Contraction speed for punches will increase fractionally and it will make basically no difference whatsoever. A boxer is better off training the legs heavy for foots peed as training the upperbody will make barely and difference to punching speed. The speed of a punch is instead determined by both natural ability and relaxation before the punch hits.

2) The weight behind the punch. Don't say lifting will make you heavier because then you have to fight heavier fighters so the power advantage from being heavier is negated. The weight behind the punch is instead determined by technique. This is by far the most important factor determining punching power. Making sure your whole body weight turns into the punch upon impact is what matters here. I won't go into details about how this is achieved but this is the most important factor influencing power.

In summary, raw punching power is determined by momentum which, as most of you will know, is the product of mass and velocity.

[PeoplesChampion]

This thread is silly.

If you enjoy lifting heavy, then do it. I enjoy smashing PR's and feeling better in myself, I don't see any wrong in that.

[Smousers]

Just because you write essays and talk for hours with long winded sentences doesnt mean you know what your talking about. I study Sport Science and Strength is different to Power, Power involves speed. Strength training will not make you quicker. The way you perform the moves is crucial, Sprinters do plyometrics and other applied speed work. Boxing punch is down to technique not how fat someone is or a formula you learnt in physics, its how well you can translate leg power through your body to your fist, it requires synchronisation and good core muscles.

Posted from TSR Mobile

[JFitLDN]

IMO is best to incorporate both low/high rep work into your routine, its the best of both worlds. In order to progress and build muscle you need to get stronger and at the same time its good to to work with 8-12 reps for muscular growth.

From my experience i enjoy lifting heavy and attaining new PR's as well as combining it with hypertrophy work., that manly feel you have when you're squatting ATG over 100kg>>>>>

Look at NFL/Rugby players, they add on mass by performing heavy weights on compounds & olympic lifts.

As stated earlier its best to do both, E.G. Mondays and Tuesdays workouts are more catered towards strength while Thurs/Fri I focus more on drop sets, supersets and forced reps.