starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Useful article from t-nation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    2,285

    Default Useful article from t-nation

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Discussing programming variables and how they apply to powerlifters and bodybuilders.

    http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_...n_powerlifters

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Useful how? The whole point of the article seems to be that you can't successfully gain muscle (hypertrophy) while training 3-4 compound lifts a workout (i.e. SS), but if you're a relative newb and you're not strong in the first place using traditional bodybuilding methods aren't going to be near as successful. Just my two cents though.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Posts
    9,733

    Default

    Interesting article. I'll probably do some hypertrophy specific stuff in the near future.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,084

    Default

    Didnt read the second page as all the information presented on the first can be found in practical programming. The first page is pretty much myrofiber vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (which is all about the reps).

    And honestly the russian PL they compare to collemen; looks much better and healthier. Sure colemen is more muscular but is also pretty repulsive looking if you ask me

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    375

    Default

    I seriously cant understand why a person would want to look like Ronnie Coleman. Only two words: Disgusting and impractical.
    Last edited by BarbellSissy; 05-24-2011 at 05:30 PM. Reason: Brain fart

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarbellSissy View Post
    I seriously cant understand why a person would want to look like Ronnie Coleman. Only two words: Disgusting and impractical.
    All bodybuilders have been looking similarly gross since the mid eighties or so. People like Reg Park or Larry Scott looked great in the natural days, people like Ahnold and Serge nubret looked good in dianabol fuelled he-man kind of way. But now they no longer look human. The whole point of bodybuilding was to sort of look at the beauty of the high primed athletic human form, a bit like admiring a racehorse. But these days bodybuilders look about as far from a beatiful natural form as possible. Whatever long list of homrones they use makes them look about as good as a highly sculpted and polished turd.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,414

    Default

    Just found some pics of larry scott, it seems he used a lot of functional multi joint exercises, that even a crossfitter would be familiar with.




    The results were not fucking bad:


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    267

    Default

    In order to look good, there has to be some elements of BB training involved.

    If you look at the WSBB template, the main lifts are done ME/DE style and almost all accessory work is done RE style, which is essentially BB training. SS will get you started but once you get past that stage, its time to do other things to bring it all together.

    And none of us here will ever look like Ronnie, so don't worry.... unless you train fulltime and have an arsenal of anabolic compounds, there isn't enough years in your life to look like that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    463

    Default

    Interesting, but here's another view on rep ranges and hypertrophy: http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/...ionalmyth.html

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    That hypertrophy can vary in its functional value is obvious. I've never understood though how the idea became so popular in internet land that it was due to the degree of sarcoplasmic growth. Clearly there is a CNS component that explains why high %RM produces stronger muscle per unit of CSA, but morphologically it is more an issue of contractile vs non-contractile protein acretion (not all the protein in the muscle contributes to force production). Lots of sets and reps at lower %RM does not require an adaptation to maximize force production capabilities, it requires one that protects the muscle against being beaten up, the result is lots of collagen and structural proteins.
    Last edited by LimieJosh; 05-25-2011 at 06:46 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •