starting strength gym
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 146

Thread: Lifting Light Weights Is Just as Good at Building Muscle as Heavy Weights

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by raw32 View Post
    Actually, it doesn't. How do you know the limb that got stronger (the one that wasn't directly trained) didn't also get bigger? I didn't see any measurements of the limbs in the study, but maybe I just missed them.
    They calculated the volume of the muscle using MRI which was the measurement for hypertrophy.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    However, since this debate is over whether or not there can be a neurological increase in strength without a concurrent increase in hypertrophy any study which shows this to occur would disprove your contention and confirm your ignorance in this area.

    Remember it was YOU who said that strength increases could not occur without an increase in muscular size.

    So here we are, you have placed it upon me to prove that strength and hypertrophy are not synonymous terms. I would say that any situation which results in an improvement in strength without even training the muscle would show this. Remember, my contention is that the terms strength and hypertrophy are not synonymous.

    Here I present to you the study showing exactly that:

    http://jap.physiology.org/content/96....full.pdf+html

    Furthermore, this information is also used in clinical practice to preserve strength in an injured limb following injury. Therefore wouldn't you agree that thse terms are not synonymous?

    Furthermore it doesn't matter what has the greatest impact on increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy or neurological factors. As I have said previously muscle size will ultimately represent the ceiling for strength. I was just showing that the two terms are not synonymous. Therefore your remark about "training the injured limb having the greatest impact is irrelevant, regardless of how absolutely fucking stupid such a statement is.

    But please, feel free to continue to redefine the argument during the conversation.
    Let's hypothesize there exists a method to take a person and increase his squat one rep max by one pound with no associated change in lean muscle mass, regardless of prior training experience. Consider a young man who wishes to get stronger. We will train him using the hypothesized method. He begins training with a one rep max of 100 pounds. We complete the method and he now can squat 101 pounds. We have achieved our goal - he is measurably stronger, and by using our hypothesized method, he has experienced no change in lean muscle mass.

    Consider a young man who wishes to get stronger. We will train him using the previously hypothesized method. He begins training with a one rep max of 101 pounds. We complete the method and he now can squat 102 pounds. We have achieved our goal - he is measurably stronger, and by using our hypothesized method, he has experienced no change in lean muscle mass.

    I see no logical reason why, using the assumed hypothesis, we could not train this young man to squat an arbitrary amount of weight, having experienced no change in lean muscle mass. But I believe this is a contradiction, revealing the hypothesis to be false.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    2,414

    Default

    I think where this thread got misguided is the disconnect between theory and application. Is it possible to increase strength without increasing body mass? Yes, it is. But, is this adaptation something that can be appreciably programmed? Probably not. There are lots of things in the human body that are possible, so the argument that it CAN'T happen, may not be completely true, however, I believe Rip has already predigested this topic with a healthy dose of reality.

    The generally accepted theories of increased strength are 1) increased cross sectional area of the muscle, 2) improved neuromuscular efficiency (timely recruitment of a necessary size and quantity of motor units), and 3) increased number of sarcomeres in series.

    The literature is fairly clear that the neuromuscular efficiency piece happens immediately upon the beginning of a training program. The human body is capable of adapting to new stresses remarkably easy. The extent of which this improvement is measured is largely dependent on the person's genetics and the body part that is being forced to adapt to a stress. To the best of my knowledge, this improvement happens extremely rapidly, and further improvements take an extremely long time. I know of no textbook, research study, or anything else for that matter that states this adaptation occurs in an appreciable amount after the initial rapid improvements. If someone knows of such literature, please pass it along.

    The addition of sarcomeres in series is another adaptation that occurs very slowly. Most of our knowledge of sarcomeres in series comes from case studies in which atrophied muscles are biopsied and it is found that they have a much lower number of sarcomeres in series, so the parallel is made that the converse would also happen....you stress the muscle and it must add sarcomeres in order to accomodate the stress.

    That leaves us with an increase in cross sectional area, which is generally considered to occur through hypertrophy or hyperplasia. Granted, not many experts out there still buy into the hyperplasia theory, but it is still found in the literature from time to time. Compared to the other two mechanisms, hypertrophy occurs more readily than adding sarcomeres (theoretically) and begins to occur almost immediately upon the implementation of an adaptive stress.

    The muscle tissue is damaged through training, there is an inflammatory response to repair the damage, and according to the myonuclear domain theory, skeletal satellite (stem) cells donate their nucleus to the adjacent muscle fiber and then the basement membrane dissolves, and the satellite cell blends into the muscle fiber. As a result, the number of nuclei increase, and the cross sectional area increases. Since muscle satellite cells are inhibited by contact with other satellite cells, so when this satellite cell blends with the muscle fiber, adjacent satellite cells divide to replace the lost satellite cell.

    So the debate really is, what leads to the greatest increases in strength? If we argue this question, almost nobody can argue against hypertrophy. Are the other adaptations possible...yes, but does it make sense to rely on such adaptations when their overall effect is far less than what can be gained through hypertrophy?

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maine View Post
    Let's hypothesize there exists a method to take a person and increase his squat one rep max by one pound with no associated change in lean muscle mass, regardless of prior training experience. Consider a young man who wishes to get stronger. We will train him using the hypothesized method. He begins training with a one rep max of 100 pounds. We complete the method and he now can squat 101 pounds. We have achieved our goal - he is measurably stronger, and by using our hypothesized method, he has experienced no change in lean muscle mass.

    Consider a young man who wishes to get stronger. We will train him using the previously hypothesized method. He begins training with a one rep max of 101 pounds. We complete the method and he now can squat 102 pounds. We have achieved our goal - he is measurably stronger, and by using our hypothesized method, he has experienced no change in lean muscle mass.

    I see no logical reason why, using the assumed hypothesis, we could not train this young man to squat an arbitrary amount of weight, having experienced no change in lean muscle mass. But I believe this is a contradiction, revealing the hypothesis to be false.

    This same young man enters the gym and proceeds to walk over to the squat rack. But before he can make it to the squat rack he must walk half of the distance. However before he can get half way there he must walk a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

    Because this young man must complete an infinite number of small tasks there is no way he will ever make it to the squat rack. Congratulation, you just identified Zeno's Paradox!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

    I guess this young man will never it make it to the rack.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    2,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    This same young man enters the gym and proceeds to walk over to the squat rack. But before he can make it to the squat rack he must walk half of the distance. However before he can get half way there he must walk a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

    Because this young man must complete an infinite number of small tasks there is no way he will ever make it to the squat rack. Congratulation, you just identified Zeno's Paradox!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes


    I guess this young man will never it make it to the rack.
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you please qualify your experience, academic achievements, etc? Are you currently a personal trainer, a nutritionist, or something else? Are you an undergraduate, in grad school, completed a PhD?

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    4,164

    Default

    He has a beastly keyboard. Probably an advanced intermediate keyboard if not fully into the realm of advanced.

    That is all SDG has.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    SumDumGoi will never answer anything about his background, qualifications, experience, or those of anyone (if anyone) he's coached. He never did in years on bb.com, he'll never do it here.

    We can only conclude that he doesn't know shit. Which is certainly a conclusion matching the content of his posts.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    This same young man enters the gym and proceeds to walk over to the squat rack. But before he can make it to the squat rack he must walk half of the distance. However before he can get half way there he must walk a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

    Because this young man must complete an infinite number of small tasks there is no way he will ever make it to the squat rack. Congratulation, you just identified Zeno's Paradox!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

    I guess this young man will never it make it to the rack.
    I don't think you will ever get to the point.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by william_morris217 View Post
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you please qualify your experience, academic achievements, etc? Are you currently a personal trainer, a nutritionist, or something else? Are you an undergraduate, in grad school, completed a PhD?
    I see no reason to mock SDG for that post. Maine's example was trivially false.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    10,438

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by f4thpathway View Post
    He has a beastly keyboard. Probably an advanced intermediate keyboard if not fully into the realm of advanced.

    That is all SDG has.
    That and almost 3000 posts on bodybuilding.com, which says a lot about him.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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