Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Bench Press - Which is better? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)

    The principles are still the same - someone with bigger muscles is going to have more prominent muscles at any bodyfat percentage than someone who has smaller muscles.

    Please do post evidence of your argument.
    I would post evidence as in pictures, but i don't have any photos or pictures as now my argument is if you made both exactly the same except for the distance.

    What you don't seem to realise is that i have mentioned, though not in the right words i suppose, that sprinters will have more prominent muscles... but prominence is still different to definition, which i suppose is what the OP might be wanting. (why do something if you don't do it right)

    i realise the words i use i suppose are due to void of having a better term... but they still mean the same... when you talk of big and small muscles... are you meaning in mass, or in the sense that they are sprint Vs long distance??

    and let me back this up with an experience... at the club I do my training, there are guys who are in my swim team who work out in the gym in a short (sprint) muscle type sense. When they do swimming, they do do longer distances, though they have trouble as their muscle isn't used enough. One of them is as close as i can get to my muscle mass, body mass, fat percentage, height and everything else. As i am fit for swimming sprints my muscles are strong enough and big enough to beat him, but due to the longer distances which i prefer, I have a better overall definition. He is probably stronger than me by far, but you probably wouldn't know.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    I would post evidence as in pictures, but i don't have any photos or pictures as now my argument is if you made both exactly the same except for the distance.

    What you don't seem to realise is that i have mentioned, though not in the right words i suppose, that sprinters will have more prominent muscles... but prominence is still different to definition, which i suppose is what the OP might be wanting. (why do something if you don't do it right)
    Go and find the official definition for muscle definition then and pair it up with some scientific studies or training articles. If what you're saying is true there must be 1000s of articles out there on the topic proving you right.

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    and let me back this up with an experience... at the club I do my training, there are guys who are in my swim team who work out in the gym in a short (sprint) muscle type sense. When they do swimming, they do do longer distances, though they have trouble as their muscle isn't used enough. One of them is as close as i can get to my muscle mass, body mass, fat percentage, height and everything else. As i am fit for swimming sprints my muscles are strong enough and big enough to beat him, but due to the longer distances which i prefer, I have a better overall definition. He is probably stronger than me by far, but you probably wouldn't know.
    This adds nothing to your argument.

    You are slightly more muscular than your mate and/or slightly leaner - by genetics, by type of training, by diet, whatever.

    i realise the words i use i suppose are due to void of having a better term... but they still mean the same... when you talk of big and small muscles... are you meaning in mass, or in the sense that they are sprint Vs long distance??
    A bigger muscle is able to exert a greater amount of force, thus sprinters have bigger muscles than long distance runners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    listen, i am not going to criticize you, its a waste of time. I have gone into fitness and conditioning, but maybe not as much as you. I am not saying that I am 100% right, and the argument that i suppose i have side tracked to is more whether long distance endurance type muscles have more definition than short sprint type muscles.

    My second paragraph, please quote from it so i know exactly what part of it you are meaning.

    And ok true, bigorexia and the aesthetic appeal don't have anything to do with the debate, but it should be a slight factor, cause obviously this guy is wanting to build muscle, but there is the difference between just building it, and building it and gaining definition. I have seen many guys smaller than i am, but stronger with more muscle and less fat, but looking less defined... so depending on what this guy wants he should consider the choices.

    Does he want to look disproportioned and huge? or nicely proportioned.

    I find it hilarious that you seem to feel i have no clue what i am talking about.
    This is merely an opinion of yours, all be it a shoddy one. As long as one trains his physique appropriately and incorporates all muscle groups into his training then he/she has little to fear in the way of "disproportion". The OP has said he wants to look bigger, dont question his motives, either provide advice or **** off, since you obviously have no knowledge I suggest you do the latter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    haha yea guys ignore my research and experience. Just love how people don't ask why they should or shouldn't trust what people say. lol

    From now on, whatever i post here is all false and me lying about the topic.

    Fair enough, not sure exactly what rep range is (though i figured it is probably repetition range)
    But knowing terms doesn't prove you are right...
    give us sources to prove what you say, their are numerous accounts that definition is linked to body fat and it's common sense, so where do you get your theory from?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    This is merely an opinion of yours, all be it a shoddy one. As long as one trains his physique appropriately and incorporates all muscle groups into his training then he/she has little to fear in the way of "disproportion". The OP has said he wants to look bigger, dont question his motives, either provide advice or **** off, since you obviously have no knowledge I suggest you do the latter.
    Ok yea that is my opinion... but we don't fully know the OP's motives, looking bigger is actually very vague.

    I agree that if you worked all muscle groups correctly then you wouldn't look disproportioned, but sometimes it can still look a bit wrong if the muscles are ALL just too big like being too small...

    I have provided him with what he actually asked for, you gave the advice which has less to do with what he was asking...

    40 kg 3x10 is better or worse than 60 Kg 2x5... the 40 Kg will give him a better definition while building some muscle (which i suppose i assume is what he might be wanting) whereas the 60 Kg will build the muscle, but he would have to work it more times to keep it there and define it enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Ok a body builder knows how to build muscle and define it at times... but not sure how well you know swimmers, we tend to have much better bodies than a body builder... big muscles freak people out. bit of size is fine as i am bigger than other people... And i am mentioning this from many girls points of view... body builders freak them out, the size and strength is impressive and they do have a certain sense of definition but its different to a swimmer's body (obviously swimming still reduces fat considerably while building and defining muscle)<-- reason why i am saying defining here is cause you can get someone who has some muscle and almost has 0% body fat, and if they have shorter muscles they don't necessarily look as defined as longer muscles

    Long = endurance (tends to seem smaller)
    Short = Sprint (appears much larger and the fibers are clumped up together
    )
    This = Ultimate fail. Endurance or sprint athletes capabilitys is to do with the proportion of muscle fibres not the length of their muscles.

    Type 1 for sprinting type 2 for endurance i think.

    basic basic knowledge, The bloke asking this question wants to put on muscle he didn't say whether it was for the purpose of attracting girls~(unless i misread the op), he wants to know how to put on muscle not whether big muscles freaks girls out.

    I'm covered in fat all over and still get girls because the biggest turn off to girls is an abundance of stupidity, which you sir seem to have.
    Offline

    1
    growth = 3x10, 2x5 = strength.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Ok yea that is my opinion... but we don't fully know the OP's motives, looking bigger is actually very vague.

    I agree that if you worked all muscle groups correctly then you wouldn't look disproportioned, but sometimes it can still look a bit wrong if the muscles are ALL just too big like being too small...

    I have provided him with what he actually asked for, you gave the advice which has less to do with what he was asking...

    40 kg 3x10 is better or worse than 60 Kg 2x5... the 40 Kg will give him a better definition while building some muscle (which i suppose i assume is what he might be wanting) whereas the 60 Kg will build the muscle, but he would have to work it more times to keep it there and define it enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    This = Ultimate fail. Endurance or sprint athletes capabilitys is to do with the proportion of muscle fibres not the length of their muscles.

    Type 1 for sprinting type 2 for endurance i think.

    basic basic knowledge, The bloke asking this question wants to put on muscle he didn't say whether it was for the purpose of attracting girls~(unless i misread the op), he wants to know how to put on muscle not whether big muscles freaks girls out.

    I'm covered in fat all over and still get girls because the biggest turn off to girls is an abundance of stupidity, which you sir seem to have.
    have you been reading anything? listen, i use the term short muscle (which btw a lot of people i know also use in the same context) for sprint type muscles... and long muscle for endurance type muscles.

    I realise he wants to build muscle, i have also stated that in a few of my posts, but logically i would assume that someone wouldn't want to build their muscle but be too big or look unnatural, and as an added bonus, why not be more defined too where i am saying doesn't only attract women but can still help get more noticed...

    And thats really rich calling me stupid, you really have no clue, this may not be my main expertise, but one of the posts before this one has backed me up on my first post... which is what this whole thing is about.

    This really has gone too far, i have side tracked majorly i must confess... but this is mainly about which is better for building muscle.

    40 Kg 3x10 or 60Kg 2x5... strength is still associated with bigger muscle right?? well that goes with the 60 kg 2x5... but the 40 Kg 3x10 builds muscle but makes it appear that there is better muscle (ie better defined)...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It takes years and years to get as huge as pro-bodybuilders, lifting 60kg instead of 40kg isn't going to blow you up into Arnie.

    Also no one is going to grow from benching 40kg unless they are a 100lb malnourished POW being re-fed.

    You don't get 'better' or 'worse' muscle, it either grows or atrophies that is all it can do. Definition is to do with water retention and fat storage, nothing to do with what rep range you ******* do.

    Stop posting please.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by FluxD)
    It takes years and years to get as huge as pro-bodybuilders, lifting 60kg instead of 40kg isn't going to blow you up into Arnie.

    Also no one is going to grow from benching 40kg unless they are a 100lb malnourished POW being re-fed.

    You don't get 'better' or 'worse' muscle, it either grows or atrophies that is all it can do. Definition is to do with water retention and fat storage, nothing to do with what rep range you ******* do.

    Stop posting please.
    Don't be so rude, i grow 40kg, 40kg is big weight, i'm only 110kg, that's not far from half my body weight :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    If someone told you the sky was green, would you laugh at them or ask them what qualifies them to make this statement?

    What you are denying is common knowledge among the knowledgeable and what you are claiming is known to be a gross misconception among the ignorant. If you've "done your research", as you say, then you've been doing it wrong.
    Well if you say that, have checked out other posts, many of them have backed up my initial post, which to me sounds like i might have been right.

    So prove me wrong if you can, you have just criticised what i have written but not my initial reply to this thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I can do 40kg with one hand (dbs) and I'm a skinny ******* ectomorph .

    Anyway this thread makes me nauseous.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by FluxD)
    I can do 40kg with one hand (dbs) and I'm a skinny ******* ectomorph .

    Anyway this thread makes me nauseous.
    I can dead that, with great diffcuilty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And now I know why I don't post in this fitness forum!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You can dead 40kg? Holy **** good job man.

    My goal for 2010 is to get my dead from empty bar to 40kg, going to run westside periodization template hopefully by dec 2010 will have got it.

    Not counting on anything though, might need to juice the juice to get to it. I tried the bar and two 1.25kg plates but couldn't even break it off the floor .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Ok yea that is my opinion... but we don't fully know the OP's motives, looking bigger is actually very vague.

    I agree that if you worked all muscle groups correctly then you wouldn't look disproportioned, but sometimes it can still look a bit wrong if the muscles are ALL just too big like being too small...

    I have provided him with what he actually asked for, you gave the advice which has less to do with what he was asking...

    40 kg 3x10 is better or worse than 60 Kg 2x5... the 40 Kg will give him a better definition while building some muscle (which i suppose i assume is what he might be wanting) whereas the 60 Kg will build the muscle, but he would have to work it more times to keep it there and define it enough.
    Are you seriously pushing the higher reps for definition angle, are you serious??!!! Thanks, you have officially certified your ineptitude. Why dont you do the researcg, you know how to navigate through the net do you not? Why not find out for yourself how incorrect you are? All you've done is provide your infantile opinion and continued to show your ******* irritating stupidity. What vague about "getting bigger", it means hypertrophy, growth. Definition is purely dependent on bodyfat ratio, I've cut for contests twice, you have not and I know how it ******* works. I despise, I mean truly hate with a passion those who try to dispute things which I know and have done.

    What the **** is "work more times to define it more", what the hell? Why are you trying to irritate posters? I'm gonna go do my back session, I hope you can use the hours of my absence to do some research and learn a thing or two.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Well if you say that, have checked out other posts, many of them have backed up my initial post, which to me sounds like i might have been right.

    So prove me wrong if you can, you have just criticised what i have written but not my initial reply to this thread.
    NO ONE HAS BACKED YOU UP, NOT A SINGLE GUY ON THIS THREAD HAS AGREED WITH YOU ON ANYTHING
    Offline

    1
    I had to juice and hit igf-1 to break the 40kg barrier, I tryed 45 but ended up in bed for about a week after.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam656)
    I had to juice and hit igf-1 to break the 40kg barrier, I tryed 45 but ended up in bed for about a week after.
    Jesus H Christ
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.