No, I was a skinny 18 year old. I started competitive bodybuilding (NPC) and worked with professional trainers and nutritionists to develop a plan. Three months later, BANG! I was in the middle-weight class. Almost everyone I work out with gained more than 20lbs. of lean mass in their first two or three months.
I don't understand. Are you saying you permanently change the static length of a muscle with endurance exercise? And how does that lead to definition?
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
If you're still maintaining that you put on 68 pounds of _muscle_ in 90 days I don't believe it. A pound of muscle has 600 calories (most of muscle is water afterall). That's 150 grams of protein per pound. So you'd have had to be making perfect efficient use of over 100 grams of protein each and every day.
I've read a lot of stuff and I've never once read anything by a professional (they have superior genetics) saying that they put anything like this on when they started working out. There was more going on here if you really did increase your body weight by 68 pounds in 90 days.
Koing
Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
- Oct 11, 2000
- 16,843
- 2
- 0
Ditto man.
No ONE PUTS on 68lbs of MUSCLE in 90 days! You have to be totally insane if you think you put that much on. It would be more believeable if it was over the course of a year if you were completely untrained and really skinny.
The difference between me at night 178.2lbs measured on digital scales used for Olympic competitions, not the type of scales from any store and before I compete in a competition at 165lbs is 13.2lbs alone! That is no cutting of any serious amount. Its just eating less food the day before I compete and just drinking less water. Most of that 13.2lbs difference is water. I drink a lot of water. 2 litres in the 2hrs I train alone then more throughout the day.
check out this guy, he gained 27 pounds in 13 days, interesting read....
Thread on bodybuilding.com forums
that has pics and chitter chatter
Atricle about how he did it
Thread on bodybuilding.com forums
that has pics and chitter chatter
Atricle about how he did it
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,977
- 294
- 126
Actually research has shown that 2 things happen:
1. you get microscopic tears in your muscles when you overload the muscle
2. your muscle cells can divide; you are not born with an ever decreasing number of muscles
The two are not related. The cell division does make "more" muscle. Repaired tears leave behind scare tissue, not more muscle.
The effect is not static; the tonicity of the muscle is short-lived. The tension in the muscle can relax in as little as four days of atrophy.
So you're saying there's no permanent change in the length of the muscle, only a temporary shortening?
I still don't understand, how does that increase definition?
LOL!!! I find it funny that anyone can take the idea of muscle weighing more than fat, and turn it into a "1 pound = 1 pound" thing.
The person who wrote this needs help.
The guys is wrong or has no point on most of these statements.
>2. A lot of cardio is the most efficient way to lose body fat. FALSE!
What is a lot? Of course doing tons of cardio will make you lose muscle and body fat but
your body doesnt really go catabolic that easily. You can be safe doing 40-60 mins of cardio
and still be fine.
3. You can gain 20 pounds of muscle in a few months. FALSE!
Hmmm...I gained about 20-30 pounds over the summer (3 months) and had no clue what I
was doing. But this guy is 5'4 165 (non -competition) so maybe its true for him he shouldnt speak for everyone else.
>4. The best way to lose fat is to eat very few calories. FALSE!
What is very few?!? To lose fat the best way is to lower your caloric intake, do cardio several days a week, and lift
on the other days.
>6. Calories are the only thing that counts when trying to lose fat or gain muscle. FALSE!
Does anyone actually believe this? Calories do play a huge part in muscle gain/fat loss but no one
believes its the only things that counts.
>7. A woman will get muscles as big as a guy if she lifts heavier weight (8-12 reps). FALSE!
Does anyone actually believe that most woman from lifting will get as big as guys?
>8. Muscle weighs more than fat. FALSE!
Everyone takes this to be muscle weighs more than fat for the same volume. Of course two objects of
the same weight have the same weight.
>9. You can put on a lot of muscle and lose a lot of fat at the same time. FALSE!
What is a lot?!?! If a person is really out of shape, they could easily put on a good
20 lbs of muscle while losing a lot of fat at the same time
10. The more protein I consume, the more muscle I will put on my body. FALSE!
So whats his point. Obviously protein plays an important part of any bodybuilder's diet.
No one thinks that eating massive amounts of protein will make them huge. Truthfully, I
dont really notice much of a difference in gains from when I eat normally then from when
I supplement with protein shakes.
>2. A lot of cardio is the most efficient way to lose body fat. FALSE!
What is a lot? Of course doing tons of cardio will make you lose muscle and body fat but
your body doesnt really go catabolic that easily. You can be safe doing 40-60 mins of cardio
and still be fine.
3. You can gain 20 pounds of muscle in a few months. FALSE!
Hmmm...I gained about 20-30 pounds over the summer (3 months) and had no clue what I
was doing. But this guy is 5'4 165 (non -competition) so maybe its true for him he shouldnt speak for everyone else.
>4. The best way to lose fat is to eat very few calories. FALSE!
What is very few?!? To lose fat the best way is to lower your caloric intake, do cardio several days a week, and lift
on the other days.
>6. Calories are the only thing that counts when trying to lose fat or gain muscle. FALSE!
Does anyone actually believe this? Calories do play a huge part in muscle gain/fat loss but no one
believes its the only things that counts.
>7. A woman will get muscles as big as a guy if she lifts heavier weight (8-12 reps). FALSE!
Does anyone actually believe that most woman from lifting will get as big as guys?
>8. Muscle weighs more than fat. FALSE!
Everyone takes this to be muscle weighs more than fat for the same volume. Of course two objects of
the same weight have the same weight.
>9. You can put on a lot of muscle and lose a lot of fat at the same time. FALSE!
What is a lot?!?! If a person is really out of shape, they could easily put on a good
20 lbs of muscle while losing a lot of fat at the same time
10. The more protein I consume, the more muscle I will put on my body. FALSE!
So whats his point. Obviously protein plays an important part of any bodybuilder's diet.
No one thinks that eating massive amounts of protein will make them huge. Truthfully, I
dont really notice much of a difference in gains from when I eat normally then from when
I supplement with protein shakes.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,977
- 294
- 126
Amused, he was wrong because he implied you cannot overload with lighter weights. (The myth around here that muscle doesn't grow from endurance workouts is utter bull.) Lifting heavier weight fewer times will not promote the same responses in tonicity as lower weight more times. (All tonicity is temporal but the author didn't debate the source of one's definition, he rebuked the idea that you can train effectively with lighter weights.) The more you do the movement the more efficient your nerves are able to control the individual nerve endings that lead into each individual muscle, which is something called fine motor control. (Whereas powerlifters hone intense control of the whole muscle mass.) The muscle responds by tightening up in more places and shortening the muscle more noticeably. (Whereas powerlifters have one large clumped mass of tonicity.) Endurance workouts tend to thin out the muscle as the blood flow becomes more efficient (microcapillaries proliferate) into the muscle, the muscle traps less lactic acid during workout, and the enzymes that support endurance proliferate. (The blood flow, nutrient absorbtion, and water retention "responses" are quite different in the muscles of focused powerlifters.) So in conclusion, you'll get more like the "Soloflex Man" look by using lots of repetition than by using heavy weights.
Muscles will repond by growing when doing cardio. Cardio workouts do not take away muscle!
Ian, the untrained individual individuals gains muscle slower than a trained individual. The untrained individual gains most of their strength responses from nerve changes. The untrained individual can gain more lean mass faster, true, but not more muscle.
The truth is that bodybuilders get fatter in the off season and do it to bulk up their muscle. Your gains are most likely to happen when you have an excess of nutrients, not an excess of calories. The problem is that its hard to get the right natural nutrients into the body without overeating. Who really has the stomach that can scarf down raw eggs and grissle and leafy greens and such on a regular basis? That kind of diet gives people alot of foul smelling flatuation and makes them poop like rabbits.
I'd like to know how much of that is Muscle, Fat, and Water. My guess is that it was, at the very least, 80% water.
apoppin
Lifer
Actually, a POUND of GOLD weighs LESS than a POUND of either cotton or lead.
Good article - many good points all in one place . . . you "critics" can nitpick them all you want.
Sure, in a totally untrained person. They initially get a few pounds of leg muscle if they get up from the TV and start running. Those adaptations happen rapidly, what about continuing to add an appreciable amount of muscle? How is extensive endurance training going to help? What about the upper body if you just run or bike? How do you reasonably incorporate periodization into an endurance workout? If you want muscle hypertrophy, lift increasingly heavy weights, eat, adapt, get stronger and bigger.
How do you explain distance runners who look like toothpicks, including their legs? A high amount of cardiovascular exercise is catabolic and definitely not conducive to muscle growth. Moderate amounts of cardio are fine and are an essential component of developing overall health. The author's words here were "excessive cardio". Part of the problem is that he doesn't even attempt to define what that is.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with "excessive cardio." The runners and cyclists and rowers who love what they do are the ones who stay active as part of their lifestyle and don't have to worry about expanding ass syndrome. If you go that route and get serious, you're probably going to develop great cardiovascular fitness, get really good at covering long distances, and develop a physique that at least somewhat resembles the professionals in your sport. You may not have as much muscle mass to burn calories at rest as you could potentially have with a different training approach, but who cares, as long as you're able to get outside and burn massive amounts of calories doing something you love to do.
I agree that the author's point here on #2 could be misleading. There are people who will take this as a license to never do any cardio. What he's trying to do is dispel the notion among some people that lifting weights = getting big and bulky, and that you should only do cardio if you want to lose weight. A better approach would be to discuss the relative merits of weight training and cardio, and give some recommendations as to how to allocate time and intensity to each activity to most effectively gain strength, boost metabolism, and lose fat in an average person with limited time who leads an otherwise fairly sedentary life. That gets a little more in depth than a "top 10 list" allows for.
Once a trainee has diet and lifting techniques and strategies in order, their best period of muscular development will be in the relatively early stages of focused, disciplined training. Or not. Most people accomplish a lot in the beginning without knowing anything. Either way, the gains begin to taper off as the years go by and you get closer to the limits of your genetic potential. It's a game of diminishing returns. By the time a natural lifter has several years under his belt, annual muscle gains are most likely in the < 5 lb range.
Neural adaptations are another issue. Yes, they're responsible for a lot of the beginner's strength gains. They happen rapidly. There's also an initial burst of hypertrophy when you move from the couch to the gym. The person who wishes to lift heavier weights must eventually grow muscles of thicker cross section to be able to lift them, and that happens more quickly in the earlier stages of a lifter's career.
Yes, bodybuilders think in terms of bulking and cutting, in two distinct phases. They know not to try to do it simultaneously, because that's a good recipe for stagnation. Progress tends to be much slower if you don't make up your mind and go with bulking or cutting. Which was another of the author's points that was contested. The conditions for gaining weight (muscle & fat) and losing weight (fat & hopefully minimal muscle) are directly opposed. One requires caloric surplus, the other a deficit. Hormone levels and protein synthesis adjust accordingly for each condition and compound the problem of trying to do two things at once. Sure, you can cruise along at near-maintenance levels of calories while you lift and never put your body in a favorable state for gaining or losing. That's not the most effective use of your time and effort if you plan to make changes in your body composition though.
Every single bodybuilding forum on the internet will espouse the basic principle of bulking and cutting. Even with the frighteningly massive amounts of hormonal manipulation and drug use they undergo, the pros do it that way. Why should recreational natural lifters, who can't skirt the given limits of their endocrine system, do it any differently?
The author should clarify this though. In fact, he could completely reverse this "myth" if he qualified it correctly. LBM gain and fat loss can be done simultaneously to varying degrees of success in untrained beginners, de-trained individuals (e.g., formerly muscular people coming back to the gym), and steroid users. Considering beginners are his primary audience, this should be addressed. He should point out that committed beginners who jump into a cutting cycle with both feet (start lifting, doing cardio, dieting) can make big changes in appearance in a short time. Ala the 12-week transformation that's made Bill Phillips rich.
I still don't understand the muscle-shortening and definition idea. If I temporarily shorten a muscle in an agonist/antagonist pair, what does that do for definition? And what does that have to do with the subcutaneous fat that presumably is obscuring it in the first place (i.e., the very definition of "definition")?
The original article isn't making any earth-shattering revelations. There's a lot of "duh" stuff in there. There are also a lot of idiots in this country -- people who believe if they eat at Subway once a day or drink a can of SlimFast and change nothing else, that it constitutes a weight loss plan. People who think counting fat grams is the answer to their problems, w/o considering any energy balance issue. Etc. etc. This article is more for them. Ketosis, anabolics, specific protein requirements, etc., are a bit much for someone in that position to digest.
It's relatively accurate. A couple of things could be clarified, but I've seen and heard articles/news stories/gym advice that are a LOT worse than this. If I saw it in a newspaper, I'd actually be surprised that some useful advice made it into a mainstream media health story.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,977
- 294
- 126
Hypertrophy does and will happen from any type of overload training, heavy or light. Heavy weights do not ellicit any more response than light weights, the changes are different. Marathon and distance runners are constantly challenging their fat stores and cutting them to the limits of safety, therefore they are on the extreme. You don't look like a toothpick eating a normal diet unless you have a disease or are overtraining, but then again those are not what I was debating, or was it? I am pretty sure my point was that overloading the muscle will make your muscle grow, which is what you meant by "hypertrophy". (Hypertrophy = Grow, for those that are trying to follow along.) Overtraining a muscle will unfortunately make the muscle vulnerable to re-absorbtion. Too much of anything is bad, no?
The cross-section of the muscle is another point that isn't necessarily relevant; some people have naturally longer (thinner) muscles yet are just as capable of being incredibly strong in their own way. These muscles are generally tied to "slow twitch" muscle, the muscle that has greater sub-capillary density than "fast twitch", therefore is extremely well-suited for endurance. (Fast twitch is great at storing phosphagen and can generally put out more raw power in a shorter amount of time but actually less power across a timeline.) People with naturally alot of slow twitch muscle aren't going to get the same gains in size or strength as someone with naturally large proportions of fast twitch mucles. But that doesn't mean their muscles don't respond to overloading. It just so happens that few American sports reward the guy with disproportionate amounts of slow or fast twitch muscle, whereas a true 50/50 mix is often ideal.
Actually I believe perfect practice makes perfect performance. Cyclists that train on their cycles will be good at cycling. Rowers that train rowing will be good at rowing. The body gets very good at whatever task its applied to, and will pretty well maintain a plateau when it reaches a comfortable level of effort. To get over the plateau one must overload. A good cyclist will not necessarily be very good at long distance running or vise versa, they are different motor skills and the muscles are used differently for each effort.
Thats actually not what we observed in scientific studies of high schoolers to college men and women. The untrained individuals were far slower to gain than the ones that seriously trained. If you've reached your plateau then its not likely your gains will be as incredible as when you have room left to grow, true, but the untrained older gentlemen in the group showed almost no changes except in lean body mass when compared to trained men in their same age group. There seems to be a real physical limitation to serious growth without the help of anabolics once people hit their mid- to late twenties.
Eventually the natural resting length of the muscle is trainable over the scale of time in years. The longer you hold the muscle at a certain length the more likely it is to assume that length indefinitely. I assumed the previous guy asking the question was talking about short term benefits.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Just becuase you had 11% body fat (15.4 lbs) doesnt mean that the remaining 124.6 lbs you had was muscle mass. You have many other components in your body besides muscle, and as your body grows through weight training, you are not solely gaining muscle.
The degree of hypertrophy is far different. Are you saying you can build serious mass by running? My point in bringing up the distance runner's physique is to illustrate what high levels of cardiovascular exercise will tend to do to the body. Those guys are cramming down food and are still skinny.
Of course any exercise is better than nothing. People getting active for the first time in a long time will see muscular changes quickly. Like I said, untrained people that start running will gain a little bit of leg muscle rapidly. What happens after that?
I stand by my assertion that periodized weight training promotes hypertrophy to a greater degree than cardiovascular exercise (ultra-high reps, ultra-low resistance).
It's totally relevant. The cross-section of the entire muscle directly determines the amount of force a muscle can exert. It's what changes when you begin to lift weights and synthesize protein. It's a measure of hypertrophy, which was my point in mentioning it.
I'd can look that up on Medline if you have the title/authors. I'm confused, are you saying the subjects in this study are high schoolers and college age -- (I'm assuming) ~15-22 yr olds? If so, how can you make any conclusions about older people? And as for the reduction in growth potential with aging, of course that's true. Testosterone peaks at some point in your adult life and falls from there. How does that relate to the difference between trained/untrained individuals with comparable hormonal profiles (the only reasonable comparison you can make)? Again, I'd have to at least see the abstract to figure out what's going on here.
Anyway, we're veering off into the difference between neural and muscular adaptation in a specific early time frame of the training of a specific age range of subjects. That really is straying far away from the original point I was trying to contend which was #9 on the author's list -- the part about not bulking and cutting simultaneously. You originally said:
And in response to Ian's valid argument that an out of shape fatass can gain LBM and lose fat simultaneously, you said
Perhaps I confused things by choosing to quote the latter statement rather than your original statement on the matter. Sorry.
Regardless, my thoughts on bulking and cutting simultaneously haven't changed from my previous post. Simultaneously gaining LBM and losing fat in appreciable quantities only tends to happen in the untrained/de-trained/chemically-assisted. Trying to bulk and cut at the same time is not a very reasonable proposition for the average lifter.What does that have to do with muscular definition in the human body? And, so you hold a muscle at a certain length and it shortens -- that means you made yourself inflexible, are possibly upsetting the balance between agonist/antagonist muscles, and are possibly compromising joint stability. Why would you want to do that?
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,977
- 294
- 126
Okay, I'm going to post replies to sections in order, from 1-6 respective order to the quotes. This should save some space.
1. Yes, you can build serious bulk with sprinting. A skinny runner may be the result of something other than his diet. It may be because the goal of running is usually for covering distance for time. You gain speed alot of times by either cutting weight altogether, or by shifting muscle mass to where it helps most. I stand by my assertion that someone can bulk up by running.
2. No, the cross-section is immaterial to the force generated. The range of motion has more effect on power than diameter of the muscle.
3. You'd have to search through the research from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Berg is who led the classes. It was long term research that may still be going on to some degree. I'll have to trust Dr. Berg as he's the one that stated the history of the research. I really didn't care for the field of Exercise Physiology and was in it as an elective for a degree in Education. Was kind of hoping that it was a more exciting field than it turned out to be.
4/5. I thought we were talking about gaining muscle and not LBM. I tie the idea of bulking up to adding raw muscle mass. Its easy to lose site of the topics when the threads get so long.
6. Actually the resting length of the muscle doesn't necessarily affect your range of motion. We are talking relative lengths. Muscle toneness in the trained individual is more compact than that of someone in an untrained individual. Whoever, the range of motion is normally greater for the trained individual than the untrained. Would you not agree a joint is more stable when both sides of the joint have a balanced tension against them? Untrained individuals often get injuries from have laxness in the tendons around their joints for the very opposite reason. I've seen alot of fallen arches from untrained people trying to suddenly become marathon runners.
1. Yes, you can build serious bulk with sprinting. A skinny runner may be the result of something other than his diet. It may be because the goal of running is usually for covering distance for time. You gain speed alot of times by either cutting weight altogether, or by shifting muscle mass to where it helps most. I stand by my assertion that someone can bulk up by running.
2. No, the cross-section is immaterial to the force generated. The range of motion has more effect on power than diameter of the muscle.
3. You'd have to search through the research from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Berg is who led the classes. It was long term research that may still be going on to some degree. I'll have to trust Dr. Berg as he's the one that stated the history of the research. I really didn't care for the field of Exercise Physiology and was in it as an elective for a degree in Education. Was kind of hoping that it was a more exciting field than it turned out to be.
4/5. I thought we were talking about gaining muscle and not LBM. I tie the idea of bulking up to adding raw muscle mass. Its easy to lose site of the topics when the threads get so long.
6. Actually the resting length of the muscle doesn't necessarily affect your range of motion. We are talking relative lengths. Muscle toneness in the trained individual is more compact than that of someone in an untrained individual. Whoever, the range of motion is normally greater for the trained individual than the untrained. Would you not agree a joint is more stable when both sides of the joint have a balanced tension against them? Untrained individuals often get injuries from have laxness in the tendons around their joints for the very opposite reason. I've seen alot of fallen arches from untrained people trying to suddenly become marathon runners.
Whoa, huge difference from endurance training. You're totally changing positions on me here. That's HIIT-style cardio, which is far more effective at burning fat and sparing muscle than moderate heart-rate, long-distance cardio. And competitive sprinters do a lot more weight training than distance guys, which further blurs the difference between "runner" and "lifter". Sprinters train with weights for explosive power. They are completely different athletes from endurance athletes. Your original point was about endurance cardio being used to build muscle. If you meant sprinting/HIIT, you should have said that.
Besides, the elite sprinter still doesn't have bigger muscles than the elite weight lifter.
(BTW, HIIT + weights is an excellent training regimen IMHO)
lol, I'm trying to find a link here and all I come up with are discussions of how big the dinosaurs could have been based on assumed muscular size.
Finally found something! Gray's Anatomy p365
Cross sectional area of a muscle is proportional to the weight it can lift over a distance.
Yes, the length of the lever is important too. But you can't change the length of your bones or muscles. You can increase the range of motion with stretching, but only to a point. And excessive flexibility is bad news for joints in athletic events, but that's academic. I was speaking in terms of hypertrophy, in terms of things you can change. Muscle cross-sectional area can be increased by lifting weights. That allows you to lift bigger weights.
OK, I will take a look.
I'm having trouble with that too4/5. I thought we were talking about gaining muscle and not LBM. I tie the idea of bulking up to adding raw muscle mass. Its easy to lose site of the topics when the threads get so long.
I agree that balance is good for the joint. I just am unclear how one of the muscles in a pair can be shortened without losing that balance. The ends of the muscle are fixed. If one gets shorter and tighter, the opposing muscle can't get shorter and tighter to maintain the balance. It's constrained by its pinned ends.6. Actually the resting length of the muscle doesn't necessarily affect your range of motion. We are talking relative lengths. Muscle toneness in the trained individual is more compact than that of someone in an untrained individual. Whoever, the range of motion is normally greater for the trained individual than the untrained. Would you not agree a joint is more stable when both sides of the joint have a balanced tension against them? Untrained individuals often get injuries from have laxness in the tendons around their joints for the very opposite reason. I've seen alot of fallen arches from untrained people trying to suddenly become marathon runners.
How does muscle shortening lead to definition in the human body?
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,977
- 294
- 126
Okay, try to relate the next numbers to the new quotes, not to the old one.
1. Overload promotes muscle growth. Extreme training attacks the muscle growth while its vulnerable, and some of the proteins that make up the muscle is reabsorbed. Again, you are talking about an extreme of overtraining. I am talking about cardiovascular training. Cardiovascular training does not promote muscle loss. Any overtraining eventually leads to a breakdown, which is why some marathon runners tend to look anorexic. I've met some pretty built marathon runners that weren't competitive but could easily complete the marathon and they do not have the anorexic look to them.
2. Thats because when you measure the work its force over time. The range of motion has the greater effect. If you do not have great flexibility don't expect to be a superior athlete. But its only one ingredient, you still have to generate power over that range.
3. But you're confusing stretching with power generation over the same range of motion. The range of motion must be learnt. If you can move the range of motion doesn't mean you can generate power throughout that range of motion. Try some isokinetic workouts. The only equipment I know that can do these workouts can measure your power over that range. You'll get a real appreciation for what I mean about a learnt range of motion. Its the most effective training I've ever seen and had the chance to watch a world class sprinter train on it almost daily. Its the shzzzt! Its also very expensive.
4. Dr. Berg is awesome. You should just go take one of his classes!
5.
6. When I say shorten it is only relative. We are talking about tightening up millions of individual fibers. The quantitative effect is good muscle tone. You'd be amazed how much resting tension gets put into a joint as you become more buff from working out. If both sides of the joint tighten then there is a balance. Ever hung a garage door? Good example of balancing tension with weight; a blance allows movement of the door with little effort. Good tight joints allow for quicker, more efficient movement.
I'm kind of guessing you believe in the "muscle bound" theory. Joints do not become less mobile as you increase muscle mass. The guys that walk around and do not look limber do so by choice. The tonicity of the muscle doesn't restrict the movement, rather restricted movement is learnt.
1. Overload promotes muscle growth. Extreme training attacks the muscle growth while its vulnerable, and some of the proteins that make up the muscle is reabsorbed. Again, you are talking about an extreme of overtraining. I am talking about cardiovascular training. Cardiovascular training does not promote muscle loss. Any overtraining eventually leads to a breakdown, which is why some marathon runners tend to look anorexic. I've met some pretty built marathon runners that weren't competitive but could easily complete the marathon and they do not have the anorexic look to them.
2. Thats because when you measure the work its force over time. The range of motion has the greater effect. If you do not have great flexibility don't expect to be a superior athlete. But its only one ingredient, you still have to generate power over that range.
3. But you're confusing stretching with power generation over the same range of motion. The range of motion must be learnt. If you can move the range of motion doesn't mean you can generate power throughout that range of motion. Try some isokinetic workouts. The only equipment I know that can do these workouts can measure your power over that range. You'll get a real appreciation for what I mean about a learnt range of motion. Its the most effective training I've ever seen and had the chance to watch a world class sprinter train on it almost daily. Its the shzzzt! Its also very expensive.
4. Dr. Berg is awesome. You should just go take one of his classes!
5.
6. When I say shorten it is only relative. We are talking about tightening up millions of individual fibers. The quantitative effect is good muscle tone. You'd be amazed how much resting tension gets put into a joint as you become more buff from working out. If both sides of the joint tighten then there is a balance. Ever hung a garage door? Good example of balancing tension with weight; a blance allows movement of the door with little effort. Good tight joints allow for quicker, more efficient movement.
I'm kind of guessing you believe in the "muscle bound" theory. Joints do not become less mobile as you increase muscle mass. The guys that walk around and do not look limber do so by choice. The tonicity of the muscle doesn't restrict the movement, rather restricted movement is learnt.
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
Oh most definitely, there's a difference between adding mass and looking "cut." To me, being cut is where you have less fat over the muscles, thus giving you more defition so you can see the lines. In contrast, gaining mass involves the exact opposite of conditioning where you gain your mass from lifting heavier weights for fewer sets. What this article is trying to argue is that lifting smaller weights and running does NOT give you "cut," in which case it does because you are in essence losing the fat over your muscles to get the definition.
it isn't. lead is DENSER but not HEAVIER.
the problem is, heavier is used synonymously with Denser. hence the writer is wrong. everyone that says muscle is heavier, they mean denser. so ya, the writer is off base. he could have tried to correct the use of the term but i think he missed the boat on this one.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter