The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 73
  1. #26
    Senior Member OGROK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by JHarris View Post
    Its easier to something your leverages? Yeah.. Im not sure what you are getting at there
    What I'm saying is, carrying huge globs of fat around is more a liability in something like olympic lifting than it is in powerlifting because you are going to lose your leverages faster, so that is one reason for less of a strength-size correlation than with powerlifting.

    The reason I want to focus on powerlifting here is because olympic lifting has many more components to it than pure strength, so it's kind of fallacious to pull out some olympic lifter and go "here, strength doesn't equal size!" when there are many, many factors going into how good of an olympic lifter someone is that have very little to do with strength.
    Last edited by OGROK; 12-07-2008 at 11:19 PM.

  2. #27
    Senior Member JHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by OGROK View Post
    What I'm saying is, carrying huge globs of fat around is more a liability in something like olympic lifting than it is in powerlifting because you are going to lose your leverages faster, so that is one reason for less of a strength-size correlation than with powerlifting.

    The reason I want to focus on powerlifting here is because olympic lifting has many more components to it than pure strength, so it's kind of fallacious to pull out some olympic lifter and go "here, strength doesn't equal size!" when there are many, many factors going into how good of an olympic lifter someone is that have very little to do with strength.
    Its not fallacious, though. He squats 275kg+, full olympic style without any sort of equipment besides shoes and a singlet. You are telling me that that is not ridiculously impressive strength? Once you accept that, my point that he is not huge really comes into play.

  3. #28
    Nuttin to it but to do it Chalky Palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    516
    JHarris, pointing out a select few people that break the mold does not solidify your argument, the point is that 90% of the time the bigger guys are stronger, so to get stronger it would be better advice to say you need to get bigger to do this. Stop arguing.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

    Best Raw Lifts- B 315 S 405 D 555
    Workout Journal

  4. #29
    Senior Member OGROK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    997
    Yeah, and honestly you are looking at guys who are at the top 0.001% of their weight class. Of course they are going to be incredibly strong for their size. That's why they are able to compete on an elite level. On the other hand, your chances of being able to handle that kind of weight go up exponentially as you get bigger.
    Last edited by OGROK; 12-07-2008 at 11:32 PM.

  5. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    0
    Back to the subject at hand. Your stats say you are 18%. Try getting down to 9% and I think you would notice a big difference.

  6. #31
    All Natural Power Lunar Effect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Chalky Palms View Post
    all rep ranges should be utilized, but more weight on the bar = more mass on the ass, you can argue with your venuto articles but the biggest guy and the smallest guy in the gym are usually the strongest/weakest accordingly.
    Who's arguing? There was a general curiosity about the relationship between strength and hypertrophy, and that article pretty much explians the whole concept of neural vs cellular adaptations. What is there to debate?

  7. #32
    Nuttin to it but to do it Chalky Palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    516
    the fact that there is so much more that goes into it then just high rep vs. low rep. It isn't that cut and dry and saying that something answers all your questions is stupid because it doesn't come close. Different types of exercise style yield different types of hypertrophy, there is hypertrophy to make you more dense and hypertrophy that makes you less dense and bigger but this has a lot more to do with movements and specific training then just a rep range. My advice: if you want to be bigger, get stronger and eat more, simple as that.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

    Best Raw Lifts- B 315 S 405 D 555
    Workout Journal

  8. #33
    Senior Member JHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    256
    See, that's the thing; a large percentage good (not the absolute top level, even) of olympic lifters are very strong without being very big. I've already agreed that it is easier to gain strength by trying to make BOTH size and neural gains. I've said it a few times, in fact. But that doesn't take away from my point that it is still possible to just make neural gains and get very strong.

    Again, the majority of people could get much, much stronger without gaining any weight. Yes, Rybakov (that lifter picture) is in that .001% that is near his potential strength for his size.. but that's why it actually does support my argument.

    Its not necessarily better advice to just get bigger as that advice can counter the goals of some athletes. That's been the point I have been trying to get across. I agree that you are more likely to handle heavy weight when you are bigger. I've never said anything different.

  9. #34
    All Natural Power Lunar Effect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Chalky Palms View Post
    the fact that there is so much more that goes into it then just high rep vs. low rep. It isn't that cut and dry and saying that something answers all your questions is stupid because it doesn't come close. Different types of exercise style yield different types of hypertrophy, there is hypertrophy to make you more dense and hypertrophy that makes you less dense and bigger but this has a lot more to do with movements and specific training then just a rep range. My advice: if you want to be bigger, get stronger and eat more, simple as that.
    So then I guess you do feel that some things are cut and dry?

  10. #35
    Senior Member OGROK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by JHarris View Post
    See, that's the thing; a large percentage good (not the absolute top level, even) of olympic lifters are very strong without being very big. I've already agreed that it is easier to gain strength by trying to make BOTH size and neural gains. I've said it a few times, in fact. But that doesn't take away from my point that it is still possible to just make neural gains and get very strong.

    Again, the majority of people could get much, much stronger without gaining any weight. Yes, Rybakov (that lifter picture) is in that .001% that is near his potential strength for his size.. but that's why it actually does support my argument.

    Its not necessarily better advice to just get bigger as that advice can counter the goals of some athletes. That's been the point I have been trying to get across. I agree that you are more likely to handle heavy weight when you are bigger. I've never said anything different.
    What I am saying here is there is absolutely a limit to how strong you get at a certain size. While there might be some world record holder who can deadlift 600 lbs at 135lbs, that dude is a genetic freak, and someone with more normal genetics would NEED to be 200+ lbs to ever handle that weight no matter how hard they train. So strength potential is very dependant on size. In olympic lifting, not as much, but remember olympic lifting is less of a pure strength sport in comparison to powerlifting, so powerlifting comparisons are much more relevant here. And it's very clear that in powerlifting the bigger guys are almost always much stronger than the smaller guys. At a certain point there is a diminishing return as the weight classes get heavier and heavier, you aren't going to see 500lb guys dominating because they get too damn fat and lose their leverages -- in olympic lifting this cutoff is much lower since there is so much technique involved, which is probably one of the reasons the SHW's aren't way stronger than some of the lighter classes.

    So it's like I said before. There are freaks out there that are incredibly strong for their bodyweight, but if YOU, a normal person with normal genetics, wants to throw up huge numbers, you need to get big.
    Last edited by OGROK; 12-08-2008 at 09:08 AM.

  11. #36
    Senior Member JHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    256
    First off, again, the olympic lifting argument is still valid here because I am referring to their squat numbers. Yes, the Olympic squat is harder than the powerlifting squat, but most people can manage the technique once they gain the flexibility for it.

    Yes, technique is a big issue in the actual competition lifts. That being said, when's the last time you or just about anyone on this board put 500lbs over his head? 400? You can say technique all you like, but that takes a ridiculous amount of strength. However, I've really been trying to point out their squat strength - big numbers without being big guys.

    As I've said before, I am not a big guy. My training partners aren't big. Yet we all are very strong. Yes, we could get stronger if we got bigger. No question. But since we are in a sport that values strength and not size, we don't - therefore we maximize our strength with what we have. People might be surprised how strong you can get.. yes, a normal person, not a 'genetic freak', without gaining mass. It may take longer, but if your sport doesn't value huge size (and a lot don't, let's face it), or you just don't want to get a lot bigger, than there is still hope. That's the point.

  12. #37
    Senior Member brihead301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    4,565
    A very strong person will have a much easier time training for "hypertrophy" then a not-so-strong person.

    Point being, get all the big lifts up to a very respectable level, even if you aren't training specifically for size. Once you have a very strong and solid foundation to work with, then training for looks will be a much easier task.
    How to Find Your Dream Job
    My personal blog/website dedicated to giving answers on the age old question - how to escape the "rat race". I now play guitar for a living!

  13. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Pilot View Post
    Help me understand the difference between size and strength.
    How much you can lift also depends on your leverages.

  14. #39
    Nuttin to it but to do it Chalky Palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunar Effect View Post
    So then I guess you do feel that some things are cut and dry?
    I bet you think you are pretty smart don't you? I said high rep= hypertrophy and low rep= strength gains is too cut and dry, I never said getting big isn't cut and dry because someone that lifts heavy and eats a lot WILL get big, I can guarantee you that, quit trying to switch my words around, fag.
    Last edited by Chalky Palms; 12-08-2008 at 03:54 PM.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

    Best Raw Lifts- B 315 S 405 D 555
    Workout Journal

  15. #40
    Senior Member Big Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    409
    Lol this is a heated thread.
    I think we can all agree
    Ďpossible to gain strength without adding size... to a certain point.í
    the point in which ur strength wonít go higher without adding muscle mass... dependant on the individualís genetics.

  16. #41
    All Natural Power Lunar Effect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Jay View Post
    Lol this is a heated thread.
    I think we can all agree
    Ďpossible to gain strength without adding size... to a certain point.í
    the point in which ur strength wonít go higher without adding muscle mass... dependant on the individualís genetics.
    Tell me about it. I'm still not even sure where all the hostility from CP is coming from. In the article it actually states:

    There is not a distinct line where neural adaptations end and structural/metabolic adaptations begin; rather it is a continuum, like temperature or colors of a rainbow.

    So Venuto isn't even saying that rep ranges are cut and dry. He is just giving general guidelines. And that was the basic question posed - "How do strength and hypertrophy relate to various rep ranges?" Of course diet factors in...so do tons of other things that we could go on for months about.
    Last edited by Lunar Effect; 12-08-2008 at 04:50 PM.

  17. #42
    Nuttin to it but to do it Chalky Palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunar Effect View Post
    Tell me about it. I'm still not even sure where all the hostility from CP is coming from. In the article it actually states:

    There is not a distinct line where neural adaptations end and structural/metabolic adaptations begin; rather it is a continuum, like temperature or colors of a rainbow.

    So Venuto isn't even saying that rep ranges are cut and dry. He is just giving general guidelines. And that was the basic question posed - "How do strength and hypertrophy relate to various rep ranges?" Of course diet factors in...so do tons of other things that we could go on for months about.

    But hey...nothing much more amusing than being called a "fag" by someone substantially weaker...
    Haha wow, quit trying to act like you didn't just dispute what I said. I was arguing that it wasn't cut and dry because you so nicely bolded a selective part of my quote making it seem like I said it was cut and dry when I was talking about two different things. I don't remember claiming anywhere that I was stronger than you but nice that you point that out, and since you are so amused by it here you go again, fag.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

    Best Raw Lifts- B 315 S 405 D 555
    Workout Journal

  18. #43
    All Natural Power Lunar Effect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Chalky Palms View Post
    since you are so amused by it here you go again, fag.
    http://www.wannabebigforums.com/guidelines.php

    Check Rule #3

  19. #44
    Nuttin to it but to do it Chalky Palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    516
    thanks hall monitor, anyway, I take it back, you aren't a fag, but you did change my words around and then pretend to agree with me later, now go burn some fat and feed the muscle.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

    Best Raw Lifts- B 315 S 405 D 555
    Workout Journal

  20. #45
    Getting There... Irish Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    779
    Too far.
    - Slave & Master At The Same Damn Time -
    Hoping To Compete Natty Early 2011

  21. #46
    The Flyfisher rbtrout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    So. Cal.
    Posts
    2,155
    I'm a car guy. Always have been. I look at size/strength like horsepower/torque. You can build a motor to make horsepower, but it won't necessarily make alot of torque. BUT, if you build a motor to make torque and lots of it, you will get horsepower.
    In other words, you can build yourself to get big, but no necessarily strong. BUT, typically, if you build yourself to get really strong, you will get big, as well.
    Give chalk a chance.


    49 years old

    665 squat
    700 deadlift
    325 bench

  22. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by rbtrout View Post
    I'm a car guy. Always have been. I look at size/strength like horsepower/torque. You can build a motor to make horsepower, but it won't necessarily make alot of torque. BUT, if you build a motor to make torque and lots of it, you will get horsepower.
    In other words, you can build yourself to get big, but no necessarily strong. BUT, typically, if you build yourself to get really strong, you will get big, as well.
    I like this, I can respect this
    Last edited by primal21; 12-08-2008 at 06:11 PM.

  23. #48
    Getting un-streamlined Progress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    3,000
    Quote Originally Posted by rbtrout View Post
    I'm a car guy. Always have been. I look at size/strength like horsepower/torque. You can build a motor to make horsepower, but it won't necessarily make alot of torque. BUT, if you build a motor to make torque and lots of it, you will get horsepower.
    In other words, you can build yourself to get big, but no necessarily strong. BUT, typically, if you build yourself to get really strong, you will get big, as well.
    There's no replacement for displacement.

    Unless of course you're talking about BMW's new TD.

    Sorry for going off-topic.

  24. #49
    Senior Member berfles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Chalky Palms View Post
    I bet you think you are pretty smart don't you? I said high rep= hypertrophy and low rep= strength gains is too cut and dry, I never said getting big isn't cut and dry because someone that lifts heavy and eats a lot WILL get big, I can guarantee you that, quit trying to switch my words around, fag.
    Wow, what a completely ****ty attitude. I can see someone wasn't on the debate team in high school.
    22 - 5'10@236lbs!
    Bench - 325 (old)
    Squat - 455x2 (old)
    Deadlift - 500(old)

    Total: 1280lbs 100% raw




    The key to my exercise program is this one simple truth: I hate my body.

  25. #50
    Nuttin to it but to do it Chalky Palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by berfles View Post
    Wow, what a completely ****ty attitude. I can see someone wasn't on the debate team in high school.
    you are right, I wasn't on the debate team, and I wasn't in band either.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

    Best Raw Lifts- B 315 S 405 D 555
    Workout Journal

Similar Threads

  1. The bench Press
    By Reinier in forum Bodybuilding & Weight Training
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-01-2010, 04:39 PM
  2. Got Strength?
    By THE BRUTE in forum Powerlifting and Strength Training
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-26-2008, 12:11 PM
  3. RESULTS results thread
    By KingWilder in forum AtLarge Nutrition Supplements
    Replies: 754
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 01:40 PM
  4. Article On Muscle Growth.. Total Bullshit?
    By MonStar1023 in forum Bodybuilding & Weight Training
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-10-2001, 11:12 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •