starting strength gym
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 137

Thread: muscle mass and tonnage

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by zft View Post
    Thanks for simplifying for my simpleton brain, but my simpleton brain feels the need to point out that the best way to get stronger may not be the best way to get bigger when it's possible to get bigger via adaptations outside of an increase in contractile tissue.
    Actually it is. Bodybuilders like to get as big as possible and try to maximize both. But the size you get from strength increases outstrips the size you get from just doing pumpy stuff. Andy Baker's been referenced here to point to value in hypertrophy training, but I'm pretty sure I've either read or heard something from him to the tune of "getting your squat to 500 will do more for the size of your legs than any hypertrophy work you can do". To see a fun little example of how little a pump actually makes your muscles bigger, look up the video on youtube where Brian Shaw and Eddie Hall do a bodybuilder/bro type "arms" workout. They measure arm circumference before and after. They both gained an inch on each arm from the workout. Aside from that one inch, the remaining size difference between their arms and say, most anyone else's, comes from them having become extremely fucking strong.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zft View Post
    The only thing that this says is that there exist adaptations that will increase muscle volume outside of contractile tissue increases and that perhaps there are stimuli which will increase muscle volume more than the specific stimuli involved in optimal strength increases. That final point does not say that hypertrophy-based training does not result in increases in contractile tissue. I'm not talking about neural anything.
    Wonderful. Now, what will happen to your thighs if you get your squat up from 507 x 5 to 606 x 5?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    Actually it is. Bodybuilders like to get as big as possible and try to maximize both. But the size you get from strength increases outstrips the size you get from just doing pumpy stuff. Andy Baker's been referenced here to point to value in hypertrophy training, but I'm pretty sure I've either read or heard something from him to the tune of "getting your squat to 500 will do more for the size of your legs than any hypertrophy work you can do". To see a fun little example of how little a pump actually makes your muscles bigger, look up the video on youtube where Brian Shaw and Eddie Hall do a bodybuilder/bro type "arms" workout. They measure arm circumference before and after. They both gained an inch on each arm from the workout. Aside from that one inch, the remaining size difference between their arms and say, most anyone else's, comes from them having become extremely fucking strong.
    That's a rather bold and confident claim for the quality of evidence you provide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Wonderful. Now, what will happen to your thighs if you get your squat up from 507 x 5 to 606 x 5?
    If I increase my squat by 100 lbs, of course my legs will get bigger because they are now happily full of more contractile tissue. That is not what I am disputing. The only thing which I'm disputing is the claim that training optimally for strength is (necessarily) the same thing as training optimally for size.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Wonderful. Now, what will happen to your thighs if you get your squat up from 507 x 5 to 606 x 5?
    I'm pretty sure zft is mistaking size for aesthetics.
    If you want your muscles to look better, aka more definition, my understanding is you get to the lowest bodyfat percentage that you can and you do bodybuilding pumpy stuff, good luck with that.
    If you just want your thighs to be bigger, you get stronger on your Squat/Deadlift and secondary exercises if you are an intermediate/advanced lifter.

    Our friend clearly chose the latter, so I don't get his lack of understanding. He must have noticed what happened to his body as he got up to a 507 x 5 squat, so why does he want to do sets of 12 and leg extensions so badly?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zft View Post
    If I increase my squat by 100 lbs, of course my legs will get bigger because they are now happily full of more contractile tissue. That is not what I am disputing. The only thing which I'm disputing is the claim that training optimally for strength is (necessarily) the same thing as training optimally for size.
    What is this alternative optimal way to train for size?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    Spam bots Red/Henry will be missed.
    I suppose it is good to have a few of these guys around willfully misinterpreting the material for argumentative purposes; it may help forum readers think critically about the topics.
    I find this phenomenon quite amazing. Here you got a guy basically giving away invaluable knowledge on using barbells to improve everything, but there is a segment of pedantic nitpickers trying to find the tiniest flaws in arguments he made ten years ago. It seems like one of those diseases of the modern age.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by francesco.decaro View Post
    I'm pretty sure zft is mistaking size for aesthetics.
    Quote Originally Posted by francesco.decaro View Post
    Our friend clearly chose the latter, so I don't get his lack of understanding. He must have noticed what happened to his body as he got up to a 507 x 5 squat, so why does he want to do sets of 12 and leg extensions so badly?
    It's really like the you guys have the reading comprehension of a third grader. Do you really think I'm confused about the fact that strength training results in hypertrophy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    What is this alternative optimal way to train for size?
    I didn't claim that there is necessarily such an alternative way. But, as is clearly written in PP:ST, certain training methodologies do result in different distributions of hypertrophy (i.e., the distribution of sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy). People in the business of getting big solely for purpose of getting big seem to empirically favor a distribution towards the sarcoplasmic end of things. (And yes, I know---as I'm sure you're already thinking, people do a lot of things which are suboptimal and what is common practice may not be (and often isn't) ideal.) Perhaps you can more rapidly accumulate muscle volume with that type of training (and the perhaps the maximal theoretical accumulation is greater) vs. training which results in optimal progression in regards to strength.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    What is this alternative optimal way to train for size?
    From the quote that zft provided from PPST, it would seem in a way that maximizes size, where size is a function of amount of contractile tissue and the amount of glycogen and high-energy phosphates in each cell.

    Quote Originally Posted by francesco.decaro View Post
    I He must have noticed what happened to his body as he got up to a 507 x 5 squat, so why does he want to do sets of 12 and leg extensions so badly?
    He never said he wanted to do sets of 12, it seems to me like he is simply trying to understand. But your Rip cosplay is blocking your ability to critically think. And before you accuse me of being an above-parallel-squatting weakling, I too have squatted over 500x5, and I'm not even fat or on TRT like the rest of the board.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    604

    Default

    I think maybe what people are trying to say is that if you want a heavier sarcoplasmic hypertrophy response, you do sets of 8-12 reps and pump a bunch of shit into your muscles. This is how most people in the gym lift, and are often dismayed when they get sick, take a short break from “exercising,” etc., and lose 3/4 of their size.

    A guy who deadlifts 500 is pretty much always going to have a nice, thick muscular appearance until the day he dies. My grandfather was like that. He was a 500+ deadlifter back in the day and stopped lifting in the 1960’s after he took a hit to his torso from a carnival ride. When he died of cancer in 2001, I’ll never forget wondering why his forearms still looked so jacked.

    Pity it wasn’t until years after his death I understood why.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by zft View Post
    I didn't claim that there is necessarily such an alternative way. But, as is clearly written in PP:ST, certain training methodologies do result in different distributions of hypertrophy (i.e., the distribution of sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy). People in the business of getting big solely for purpose of getting big seem to empirically favor a distribution towards the sarcoplasmic end of things. (And yes, I know---as I'm sure you're already thinking, people do a lot of things which are suboptimal and what is common practice may not be (and often isn't) ideal.) Perhaps you can more rapidly accumulate muscle volume with that type of training (and the perhaps the maximal theoretical accumulation is greater) vs. training which results in optimal progression in regards to strength.
    Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say.

    Quote Originally Posted by asm44 View Post
    He never said he wanted to do sets of 12, it seems to me like he is simply trying to understand. But your Rip cosplay is blocking your ability to critically think. And before you accuse me of being an above-parallel-squatting weakling, I too have squatted over 500x5, and I'm not even fat or on TRT like the rest of the board.
    Right. Everybody else is fat and on steroids but you, and everybody is a nutswinger. Standard deal. So how come neither of you guys can tell us how to get bigger than heavy sets of 5?

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •