# When training for strength...



## the OMU (Oct 7, 2006)

should you still eat as much as u do when training hypertrophy? Im curious if you'll lose muscle if you dont since not eating as much for muscle training may cause atrophy.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 7, 2006)

the OMU said:


> should you still eat as much as u do when training hypertrophy? Im curious if you'll lose muscle if you dont since not eating as much for muscle training may cause atrophy.



Training for strength while in a caloric surplus would yeild some gains in muscle more than likely.  If you don't want to gain weight and size while lifting, then just eat enough to maintain ur bodyweight.  Muscle atrophy should only occur if you stop lifting or go into a caloric deficit.


----------



## Double D (Oct 7, 2006)

Good answer PW. I always figure if I am going to lift for strength, I want to be sure to eat enough and get enough positive foods into me. I'd rather go over then be under your maintenence level.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 7, 2006)

the OMU said:


> should you still eat as much as u do when training hypertrophy? Im curious if you'll lose muscle if you dont since not eating as much for muscle training may cause atrophy.



You could lose muscle while strength training if you are in a caloric deficit.  That's why you want to make sure you lose the weight gradually, keep a high protein intake, eat very frequently, and keep lifting heavy.  Do all of that and you should minimize any muscle loss while cutting.

If you are trying to gain muscle and strength at the same time, then train for strength and eat a caloric surplus.  Most strength training programs involve accessory work that is moderate to high volume at an intensity level sufficient to cause hypertrophy anyway.


----------



## the OMU (Oct 7, 2006)

Ok so aside from my question, can lifting heavy weights in fewer reps (for strength training) really increase the volume of an exercise? I thought u would need to increase your sets and some other shit like that. 

Are there any other ways to increase the volume of an exercise or is it just increasing the sets and reps of an exercise?


----------



## GFR (Oct 7, 2006)

the OMU said:


> should you still eat as much as u do when training hypertrophy? Im curious if you'll lose muscle if you dont since not eating as much for muscle training may cause atrophy.


Strength training and hypertrophy are the same thing...muscle gets stronger muscle gets bigger. Eat!!!!!


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 7, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Strength training and hypertrophy are the same thing...muscle gets stronger muscle gets bigger. Eat!!!!!



But if he doesn't WANT to get bigger, he could eat maintenance level cals and still become stronger with his training geared in the right direction correct?


----------



## Plateau_Max (Oct 8, 2006)

Gaining strength without making large gains in size means you're looking for greater muscle density.  Make sure you're lifting heavy but you want more rep stamina and enough reps to really make a difference.  

Lifting low reps, high weight, with a calorie surplus is a baseline strategy for gaining size, but if you're looking for just strength then eat for maintenance only, and up your protein balance while lowering your fat, keep your carbs about the same.  A good idea for strength is to start with your heaviest set and work your way down so that you're getting all of your reps out on each set.  Make sense?  So instead of a rep tree like 12-10-8-6 increasing weight each time you'll have more like 10-10-12-12 decreasing the weight.

I could go into more depth about Power lifting for fast twitch and all that, but just keep all that in mind as far as your diet goes.

Oh and on another note, starting with the heaviest set means you need to be completely warmed up before hand, I suggest reading the guide to a proper warmup for some good tips on that.


----------



## the OMU (Oct 8, 2006)

Plateau_Max said:


> Gaining strength without making large gains in size means you're looking for greater muscle density.  Make sure you're lifting heavy but you want more rep stamina and enough reps to really make a difference.
> 
> Lifting low reps, high weight, with a calorie surplus is a baseline strategy for gaining size, but if you're looking for just strength then eat for maintenance only, and up your protein balance while lowering your fat, keep your carbs about the same.  A good idea for strength is to start with your heaviest set and work your way down so that you're getting all of your reps out on each set.  Make sense?  So instead of a rep tree like 12-10-8-6 increasing weight each time you'll have more like 10-10-12-12 decreasing the weight.
> 
> ...



Alright so you're saying that i would gain more size/hypertrophy with compound exercises if i did them in low reps then in higher reps as long as long as i eat a calorie surplus? Usually i do 7-9 reps when db shoulder pressing so will i get more overall shoulder thickness if i do them around the 3-6 reps range?


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

Dammit has no one heard of neuromuscular efficiency??  You don't have to be big to be strong.  And you don't have to get bigger to get stronger.  It has nothing to do with muscle density.  

If you don't lift with enough volume sufficient for hypertrophy and aren't in a caloric surplus but lift heavy enough and provide the CNS with enough recovery between bouts of exercise you can provoke neural adaptations and perhaps increase MU recruitment.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> Dammit has no one heard of neuromuscular efficiency??  You don't have to be big to be strong.  And you don't have to get bigger to get stronger.  It has nothing to do with muscle density.
> 
> If you don't lift with enough volume sufficient for hypertrophy and aren't in a caloric surplus but lift heavy enough and provide the CNS with enough recovery between bouts of exercise you can provoke neural adaptations and perhaps increase MU recruitment.



For you disbelievers, take 140-180 BW olympic and powerlifters as an example. You have people lifting double and triple BW by neural efficiency, not weight gain.

Maintain you calories and you will maintain your weight. Force your body to adapt neurally to overcome the new stress in the form of increased weight on your exercises.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

Plateau_Max said:


> Gaining strength without making large gains in size means you're looking for greater muscle density.  Make sure you're lifting heavy but you want more rep stamina and enough reps to really make a difference.
> 
> Lifting low reps, high weight, with a calorie surplus is a baseline strategy for gaining size, but if you're looking for just strength then eat for maintenance only, and up your protein balance while lowering your fat, keep your carbs about the same.  A good idea for strength is to start with your heaviest set and work your way down so that you're getting all of your reps out on each set.  Make sense?  So instead of a rep tree like 12-10-8-6 increasing weight each time you'll have more like 10-10-12-12 decreasing the weight.
> 
> ...



I don't really agree with this advice.  Getting stronger without weight gain is not about increasing muscle density.  I don't even know what that is, unless you are referring to myofibrilar hypertrophy, which still involves muscle growth.  Strength gains without size gains are the result of neuromuscular efficiency as Griffin said.  You can recruit a greater percentage of available motor units, their firing rate improves (Rate coding), motor unit synchrnization improves, co-contraction decreases, and intermuscular coordination improves as well.  I would also imagine that enzyme concentrations for proteins involved in the phosphagen energy system might also improve.

Pyramids are not the only way to train, so suggesting a way of alternating the pyramid loading wave to provoke increased strength gains is too specific.  The best way to improve neuromuscular efficiency is to incorporate maximal effort and dynamic effort training into your program, assuming you are past the beginner or early intermediate stage where low to moderate intensity weights are sufficienct to invoke neural adaptations.  You can read more about this in the sticky I wrote on designing resistance training programs.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> For you disbelievers, take 140-180 BW olympic and powerlifters as an example. You have people lifting double and triple BW by neural efficiency, not weight gain.
> .



Wrong!!! It's called genetics...they are light and strong because they were born  that way not because of how they trained.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Wrong!!! It's called genetics...they are light and strong because they were born  that way not because of how they trained.



...

Are you saying that it's not possible to train exclusively for strength?


----------



## Seanp156 (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> Dammit has no one heard of neuromuscular efficiency??  You don't have to be big to be strong.  And you don't have to get bigger to get stronger.  It has nothing to do with muscle density.
> 
> If you don't lift with enough volume sufficient for hypertrophy and aren't in a caloric surplus but lift heavy enough and provide the CNS with enough recovery between bouts of exercise you can provoke neural adaptations and perhaps increase MU recruitment.



For sure.. You don't have to get big(ger) to get/be strong(er). At my powerlifting meet, there were some pretty small guys there, but one of them had a bigger squat than me, another had a bigger bench than me, but at the same time, I deadlifted more than many people in the 220-275lbs weight classes.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> ...
> 
> Are you saying that it's not possible to train exclusively for strength?


Yes.


----------



## Double D (Oct 8, 2006)

Seanp156 said:


> For sure.. You don't have to get big(ger) to get/be strong(er). At my powerlifting meet, there were some pretty small guys there, but one of them had a bigger squat than me, another had a bigger bench than me, but at the same time, I deadlifted more than many people in the 220-275lbs weight classes.



Alot of this has to do with genetics in the first place.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Yes.



so you think a person can't get stronger without getting bigger?


----------



## Double D (Oct 8, 2006)

I am positive a person can get stronger without getting bigger.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> so you think a person can't get stronger without getting bigger?


Yes, it goes against all science. Sure you can get a tiny bit stronger by learning form and things like that but over the years to get stronger you have to get bigger.


----------



## kenwood (Oct 8, 2006)

I agree with Foreman .


----------



## zootroid (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Yes, it goes against all science. Sure you can get a tiny bit stronger by learning form and things like that but over the years to get stronger you have to get bigger.



I also agree with this. You need more muscle mass to support a greater amount of weight.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/hypertrophy.html


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

http://muscle.ucsd.edu/musintro/hypertrophy.shtml


----------



## kenwood (Oct 8, 2006)

i know i was stuck on all of my lifts about 2months ago. at the time i weighed 155-160lbs and then i clean bulked to 180lbs and my strength gains went through the roof!


----------



## Double D (Oct 8, 2006)

I would like to hear P and CP comment on this.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Double D said:


> I would like to hear P and CP comment on this.


I wouldnt


----------



## Double D (Oct 8, 2006)

Shocking.


----------



## Seanp156 (Oct 8, 2006)

Double D said:


> Shocking.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

To my knowledge...

Greater muscle size means greater potential for muscle strength (hence why many powerlifters still include some hypertrophy work). I'm unsure as to whether the converse (I think it's the converse...) is true. However, I can say from experience that getting stronger with no weight change is entirely possible (I can't claim, however, that there has been no change in muscle mass because I don't know my BW). Neural adaptations do occur and efficiency does increase. The body adapts, plain and simple. Whether it's given enough food to adapt in the form of increasing in size or whether it becomes more efficient depends on your caloric intake.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

Double D said:


> I would like to hear P and CP comment on this.



My comment is that Foreman is spouting bullshit.  Improvements in neuromuscular efficiency are well documented.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

kenwood said:


> i know i was stuck on all of my lifts about 2months ago. at the time i weighed 155-160lbs and then i clean bulked to 180lbs and my strength gains went through the roof!



You didn't clean bulk 25 pounds in 2 months.  Sorry, it didn't happen.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> My comment is that Foreman is spouting bullshit.  Improvements in neuromuscular efficiency are well documented.


 Neuromuscular efficiency will not take your dead lift from 300lbs to 600lbs without significant skeletal  muscle hypertrophy. You sir are full of BS on this topic and have never once posted any real scientific evidence to back your claims up.


----------



## assassin (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> You didn't clean bulk 25 pounds in 2 months.  Sorry, it didn't happen.


 

IT HAPPENED!!


----------



## assassin (Oct 8, 2006)

stronger not always meen bigger but to get much stronger you will most likely get much bigger......

is this it ??


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Neuromuscular efficiency will not take your dead lift from 300lbs to 600lbs without significant skeletal  muscle hypertrophy. You sir are full of BS on this topic and have never once posted any real scientific evidence to back your claims up.



Ah, but what if you have been doing hypertrophy for the past three years? Then your muscles have the necessary potential to gain that much neuromuscular efficiency.


----------



## kenwood (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> You didn't clean bulk 25 pounds in 2 months.  Sorry, it didn't happen.



lol it happend and my strength went through the roof! 

and my bf% stayed the same 

some of it might be water retention


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> Ah, but what if you have been doing hypertrophy for the past three years? Then your muscles have the necessary potential to gain that much neuromuscular efficiency.


Get big...get strong. Simple as that. Can the body gain strength or the  appearance of strength from technique, balance and neuromuscular efficiency????  Yes, but it is insignificant compared to the power off the force.


----------



## Seanp156 (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> Ah, but what if you have been doing hypertrophy for the past three years? Then your muscles have the necessary potential to gain that much neuromuscular efficiency.



That's a very valid point. It can take your system as while to adapt to increased muscle mass from a strength standpoint. I weigh less than I did a year ago, but I'm deadlifting 120+ lbs more.



kenwood said:


> lol it happend and my strength went through the roof!
> 
> and my bf% stayed the same
> 
> some of it might be water retention



I doubt you had an accurate way(Bodpod, hydrostatic weigh) to measure your bodyfat before you started to now. If you gained 25lbs in 2 months, at least ~10lbs of that will have been from fat unless you're juicing, even that's generous.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Get big...get strong. Simple as that. Can the body gain strength or the  appearance of strength from technique, balance and neuromuscular efficiency????  Yes, but it is insignificant compared to the power off the force.



The power of the force? This is beginning to sound like Star Wars. All joking aside, I'm not quite sure what you were referring to, but...

I'm assuming you mean that, when you're bigger, it's a lot easier to gain strength than through neural adaptations alone. I would definitely agree that it's easier, but the question was whether it's possible to do it both ways (I think). Besides, why eat more calories and risk getting fat and unhealthy when you can just eat right around maintenance and dip above and below on occasion and still make good strength gains?


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> The power of the force? This is beginning to sound like Star Wars. All joking aside, I'm not quite sure what you were referring to, but... *It was a Darth Vader joke....all I could hear in my head was him saying that...then killing you and CP for disrespecting him.*
> 
> I'm assuming you mean that, when you're bigger, it's a lot easier to gain strength than through neural adaptations alone. I would definitely agree that it's easier, but the question was whether it's possible to do it both ways (I think). Besides, why eat more calories and risk getting fat and unhealthy when you can just eat right around maintenance and dip above and below on occasion and still make good strength gains?



Take a guy who has shit form on any lift....lets say dead lift. He can max  300lbs and he is 200lbs at 11% BF.....now get a great coach to train him and in  2 months he can lift 400lbs but is still 200lbs at 11%..........that is not what  I'm talking about...that is improving skill and technique.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Take a guy who has shit form on any lift....lets say dead lift. He can max  300lbs and he is 200lbs at 11% BF.....now get a great coach to train him and in  2 months he can lift 400lbs but is still 200lbs at 11%..........that is not what  I'm talking about...that is improving skill and technique.



Isn't that essentially the same as improving neural efficiency? The body is getting used to performing the exercise and automatically does said exercise as efficiently as possible. Coaching aside, this could happen to anyone who begins improving his/her form.

As for someone with form that, while not perfect, is not likely to see any significant improvements, are you claiming that s/he cannot gain significant strength without hypertrophy? I know my form for my lifts hasn't changed anytime recently, but they go up slowly and steadily (slowly mostly because I don't lift as frequently as I would like to).


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Neuromuscular efficiency will not take your dead lift from 300lbs to 600lbs without significant skeletal  muscle hypertrophy. You sir are full of BS on this topic and have never once posted any real scientific evidence to back your claims up.



Have you ever read a single book on the topic of exercise physiology?  I'll get some quotes for you:



			
				NSCA's Essentials of Personal Training by Roger Earle and Thomas Baechle said:
			
		

> Recent evidence suggests that resistance training can also increase maximal motor unit firing rates.  *This would also increase muscle force production capability independent of hypertrophy.*





> Other work has shown changes in motor neuron excitability and increases in motor unit synchronization following resitstance training.





> Neural factors have also been inferred from observations that unilteral resistance training results in increases in strength of the untrained limb, as well as from observations that isometric resistance training at one joint angle results in strength increases that are larger at the trained angle than at other joint angles.






			
				The Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir Zatsiorsky said:
			
		

> The method of maximal effort is considered superior for improving both intramuscular and intermuscular coordination; the muscles and central nervous system adapt only to the load placed upon them.  *This method should be used to bring forth the greatest strength incrememnts.*





> Lifting maximal weight has a number of effect on motor units: A maximum number of MUs are acivated, the fastest MUs are recruited, the discharge frequency of motoneurons is at its highest, and the activity of MUs is synchronous.





> One objective of heavy resistance training is to "teach" an athelete to recruit all the necessary MUs at a firing rate that is optimal for producing a fused tetanus in each motor fiber.  When submaximal weights are lifted, an intermediate number of MUs are activated; the fastest MUs are not recruited; the discharge frequency of motorneurons is submaximal; and MU activity is asynchronous.  It is easy to see the differences in intramuscular coordination between exercises with maximal versus submaximal weight lifting.  Accordingly, exercises with moderate resistance are not an effective means of training for strength development, particularly when improved intramuscular coordination is desired






			
				Serious Strength Training by Tudor Bompa said:
			
		

> The capacity to recruit FT muscle fibers.  This ability depends largel on training content.  Use of maximum loads, with high application of force against resistance, is the only type of training that completel involves the powerful fast twitch motor units.





> Strength depends not only on the size of the muscle and the total number of cross bridges, but also on the CNS' capacity to "drive" that muscle.
> 
> High activation of the CNS also results in inhibition of the antagonistic muscles.  When maximum force is applied, therefore, the antagonistic muscles are coordinated in such a way that they do not oppose the movement - allowing the athlete to lift even heavier weights.





> *One of the main objectives of maximum strength training is to teach the body to eliminate CNS inhibition, which results in a huge improvement of strength potential.*




GG.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Seanp156 (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> *Isn't that essentially the same as improving neural efficiency?* The body is getting used to performing the exercise and automatically does said exercise as efficiently as possible. Coaching aside, this could happen to anyone who begins improving his/her form.
> 
> As for someone with form that, while not perfect, is not likely to see any significant improvements, are you claiming that s/he cannot gain significant strength without hypertrophy? I know my form for my lifts hasn't changed anytime recently, but they go up slowly and steadily (slowly mostly because I don't lift as frequently as I would like to).



I don't think so, I think of neuralmuscular efficiency as the brains/CNS's way of generating more force per the amount of muscle the body has. Having better form doesn't mean your muscles are generating more force, it just means the force generated has a better path to follow to allow movement of more weight.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

Seanp156 said:


> I don't think so, I think of neuralmuscular efficiency as the brains/CNS's way of generating more force per the amount of muscle the body has. Having better form doesn't mean your muscles are generating more force, it just means the force generated has a better path to follow to allow movement of more weight.



That is called intermuscular coordination.  You are improving the efficiency of your learned motor programs such that you can do more work with a given amount of muscle mass.  This can and will transfer to other activities, though the activity trained will experience the most benefit.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 8, 2006)

Seanp156 said:


> I don't think so, I think of neuralmuscular efficiency as the brains/CNS's way of generating more force per the amount of muscle the body has. Having better form doesn't mean your muscles are generating more force, it just means the force generated has a better path to follow to allow movement of more weight.



neurological efficiency is everythign to do with enhanced motor unit recruitment as well as increased proprioception and joint kinematics.  Increase your technique and you have better intra and inter muscular coordination.....better firing patterns, and better movement or exercise efficiency.  Thay is an enhancement of neurological efficiency.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> That is called intermuscular coordination.  You are improving the efficiency of your learned motor programs such that you can do more work with a given amount of muscle mass.  This can and will transfer to other activities, though the activity trained will experience the most benefit.



beat me to it.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 8, 2006)

*The effects of accentuated eccentric loading on strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural adaptations in trained individuals.*

Brandenburg JP, Docherty D., Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pg. 25-32, 2002.

The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and neuromuscular adaptations for dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) training and dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) training (resistance training employing an accentuated load during eccentric actions). Male subjects active in resistance training were assigned to either a DCER training group (n = 10) or a DAER training group (n = 8) for 9 weeks. Subjects in the DCER group performed 4 sets of 10 repetitions with a load of 75% concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM). Subjects in the DAER group performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions with a concentric load of 75% of 1RM and an eccentric load of approximately 120% of concentric 1RM. *Three measures reflecting adaptation of elbow flexors and extensors were recorded pretraining and posttraining: concentric 1RM, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and specific tension. *Strength was assessed at midtraining periods. *No significant changes in muscle CSA were observed in either group.* Both training groups experienced significant increases in concentric 1RM and specific tension of both the elbow flexors and extensors, but compared with DCER training, DAER training produced significantly greater increases in concentric 1RM of the elbow extensors. These results suggest that, for some exercises, DAER training may be more effective than DCER training in developing strength within a 9-week training phase. *However, for trained subjects, neither protocol is effective in eliciting muscle hypertrophy.*


----------



## Seanp156 (Oct 8, 2006)

Cowfunk0wn3d!


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> Isn't that essentially the same as improving neural efficiency? The body is getting used to performing the exercise and automatically does said exercise as efficiently as possible. Coaching aside, this could happen to anyone who begins improving his/her form.
> 
> As for someone with form that, while not perfect, is not likely to see any significant improvements, are you claiming that s/he cannot gain significant strength without hypertrophy? I know my form for my lifts hasn't changed anytime recently, but they go up slowly and steadily (slowly mostly because I don't lift as frequently as I would like to).


Ok you are doing what CP  and some others here like to do. Lets make this  simple....if you play football it's not  just about speed, strength, balance and  size...it's about learning the game and developing your skills.You just work on  neural efficiency and your bench will go from  200lbs   to a 275 lbs ....I will  do the same but also grow through skeletal muscular hypertrophy and have a 500lb  bench. All sports require skill and development beyond strength training  but  that is not the topic here.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Take a guy who has shit form on any lift....lets say dead lift. He can max  300lbs and he is 200lbs at 11% BF.....now get a great coach to train him and in  2 months he can lift 400lbs but is still 200lbs at 11%..........that is not what  I'm talking about...that is improving skill and technique.



Improvements in Intramuscular(recruitment of more fibers in the same muscle)  and intermuscular(recruitment of multiple muscle groups) coordination are well documented.  Opening a single book should give you the info you don't believe exists.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Have you ever read a single book on the topic of exercise physiology?  I'll get some quotes for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like usual you are off topic and full of shit. I have said a billion times   every sport takes more than just strength training   Jesus Christ CP do you need to win a fake argument so much that  you change the topic and focus in 1% of the discussion and ignore the  rest?

Yes getting strong or fast  takes more than skeletal muscular  hypertrophy....no shit even kenwood knows that Get on topic or just stop  your BS spin. Idiot!


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Improvements in Intramuscular(recruitment of more fibers in the same muscle)  and intermuscular(recruitment of multiple muscle groups) coordination are well documented.  Opening a single book should give you the info you don't believe exists.


Again you are off topic and have yet to prove skeletal muscular hypertrophy is  not necessary to continue to build strength year after year .


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Again you are off topic and have yet to prove skeletal muscular hypertrophy is not necessary to continue to build strength year after year .



It's not, open a book.

EDIT:Eventually you will reach a peak in the amount of strength that you will be able to attain at that size.  IMO you will never attain that.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Does cardiovascular endurance aid/increase strength???? Hell Yes .

Does  doing a certain exercise over and over again aid you in performance because your  body learns it's task???? Hell yes.

Does a strong positive mental  attitude make you perform better ???? Hell yes.

Lets not whack off to  irrelevant common sense all day here gents. When did I say on any thread any of  these and more things didn't aid in strength??? You guys kill me.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Like usual you are off topic and full of shit. I have said a billion times   every sport takes more than just strength training   Jesus Christ CP do you need to win a fake argument so much that  you change the topic and focus in 1% of the discussion and ignore the  rest?
> 
> Yes getting strong or fast  takes more than skeletal muscular  hypertrophy....no shit even kenwood knows that Get on topic or just stop  your BS spin. Idiot!



Off topic?  You said you can't get stronger without getting bigger, and that you can't train for strength.  That is just plain wrong.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Off topic?  You said you can't get stronger without getting bigger, and that you can't train for strength.  That is just plain wrong.


*You are a liar!!! *I never said that on this thread. Do you want  me to quote every post I have made here to prove my point or will you admit you  were wrong to say that??

It seems now that you have lost this argument  you are only capable of making things upon to cover your BS.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

So you think a person can't get stronger without getting bigger



ForemanRules said:


> Yes, it goes against all science.



Originally Posted by PWGriffin  
...

Are you saying that it's not possible to train exclusively for strength? 

Yes.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> *You are a liar!!! *I never said that on this thread. Do you want  me to quote every post I have made here to prove my point or will you admit you  were wrong to say that??
> 
> It seems now that you have lost this argument  you are only capable of making things upon to cover your BS.





Here's you go:



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Strength training and hypertrophy are the same thing...muscle gets stronger muscle gets bigger. Eat!!!!!







			
				PWGriffin said:
			
		

> Are you saying that it's not possible to train exclusively for strength?



Response:


			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes.







			
				PWGriffin said:
			
		

> so you think a person can't get stronger without getting bigger?



Response:


			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes, it goes against all science. Sure you can get a tiny bit stronger by learning form and things like that but over the years to get stronger you have to get bigger.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

Foreman is one of those "im never wrong I know everything" guys...

Saying things like "it goes against all science" yet knows nothing about human physiology.  He prolly doesn't even understand the information presented to him.  I am really dissapointed.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> So you think a person can't get stronger without getting bigger
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please try to act a step above CP and his ilk.

Here is the full quote son 



ForemanRules said:


> Yes, it goes against all science. *Sure you can get a tiny bit stronger by learning form and things like that* but over the years to get stronger you have to get bigger.



Pathetic.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Please try to act a step above CP and his ilk.
> 
> Here is the full quote son
> 
> ...



A tiny bit?  Did you read the quotes I presented to you?  Obviously not.  This one from Tudor Bompa, which I highlighted:



> One of the main objectives of maximum strength training is to teach the body to eliminate CNS inhibition, which results in a huge improvement of strength potential.




He used the words "huge improvement of strength potential," which is quite different from your "tiny bit stronger."  Of course, that's irrelevant.  He's only a PhD and practically the father of periodization in the Western world.  His opinion doesn't hold a candle to yours.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

Seanp156 said:


> I don't think so, I think of neuralmuscular efficiency as the brains/CNS's way of generating more force per the amount of muscle the body has. Having better form doesn't mean your muscles are generating more force, it just means the force generated has a better path to follow to allow movement of more weight.



I think I'm confusing neural and neuromuscular efficiency. Perhaps neuromuscular is taking the most efficient path as you said and neural is having more efficient firing patterns, ie generating more force per unit of muscle.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Get big...get strong. Simple as that. *Can the body gain strength or the  appearance of strength from technique, balance and neuromuscular efficiency????  Yes,* but it is insignificant compared to the power off the force.





ForemanRules said:


> Yes, it goes against all science. *Sure you can get a tiny bit stronger by learning form and things like that* but over the years to get stronger you have to get bigger.





ForemanRules said:


> Neuromuscular efficiency will not take your dead lift from 300lbs to 600lbs without significant skeletal muscle hypertrophy. You sir are full of BS on this topic and have never once posted any real scientific evidence to back your claims up.



I'm right here and you have shown no proof.



ForemanRules said:


> *Take a guy who has shit form on any lift....lets say dead lift. He can max 300lbs and he is 200lbs at 11% BF.....now get a great coach to train him and in 2 months he can lift 400lbs but is still 200lbs at 11%..........that is not what I'm talking about...that is improving skill and technique*.



Well look at that quote from me 




ForemanRules said:


> Ok you are doing what CP and some others here like to do. Lets make this simple....if you play football it's not just about speed, strength, balance and size...it's about learning the game and developing your skills.*You just work on neural efficiency and your bench will go from 200lbs to a 275 lbs ..*..I will do the same but also grow through skeletal muscular hypertrophy and have a 500lb bench. All sports require skill and development beyond strength training but that is not the topic here.


Again I say it can be done to a degree....had enough yet ???


ForemanRules said:


> *Does cardiovascular endurance aid/increase strength???? Hell Yes .
> 
> Does  doing a certain exercise over and over again aid you in performance because your  body learns it's task???? Hell yes.
> 
> ...




*Ouch..

*I hate to say it  but I had some respect from you but yo*u *wrong again and now are trying  to twist what I have said. Get a grip son, if you knew anything about basic   anatomy and physiology you would not have started this losing battle.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> A tiny bit?  Did you read the quotes I presented to you?  Obviously not.  This one from Tudor Bompa, which I highlighted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now you are just getting desperate....did I say a tiny bit or none....Give me a  break your argument is beyond stupid. 

  Why don't you start a fight  over what is a good color car and what is a semi good color car  Idiot.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Now you are just getting desperate....did I say a tiny bit or none....Give me a  break your argument is beyond stupid.
> 
> Why don't you start a fight  over what is a good color car and what is a semi good color car  Idiot.



You amuse me in the way a jester amuses a king. Silly child...


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> You amuse me in the way a jester amuses a king. Silly child...



I could care less what a newbie thinks, you have so much to learn and if you  stick with it like most do not you will see that much of what is posted here is  a joke. Weightlifting is so simple and basic...only the meat heads try to make  it some revolutionary new science...LMAO.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:


> You amuse me in the way a jester amuses a king. Silly child...



      

Yeah what does cowpimp know about anatomy and physiology....it's not like he's read books or taken tests or went to college for it or anything.  I mean, aside from training people for a living....reading a thousand books for fun, and taking college courses and certification courses..he has nothing to back him up.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I could care less what a newbie thinks, you have so much to learn and if you  stick with it like most do not you will see that much of what is posted here is  a joke. Weightlifting is so simple and basic...only the meat heads try to make  it some revolutionary new science...LMAO.



Yeah we should all just use a bunch of drugs and lie about how big and strong we are and call everyone idiots.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> Yeah what does cowpimp know about anatomy and physiology....it's not like he's read books or taken tests or went to college for it or anything.  I mean, aside from training people for a living....reading a thousand books for fun, and taking college courses and certification courses..he has nothing to back him up.


I have read it as well and he ignores it. He has not proven his point with facts  and he can only twist what I say because he has no real argument.

Let me  ask you this. Take a 25 year old man who is full grown at 5'8'' and 150 at 11%  body fat. he can bench raw 125, dead lift 200 and squat 200....now 5 years  latter he is 5'8'' and 160 with 11% BF , his raw bench is 400, dead lift it 650,  and his raw squat 650....possible??? Typical with training only for  strength???

If you believe this I have a bridge I want to sell you.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

So what you're really saying, Foreman, is that there is no consistency in your arguments and you contradict yourself.  You say one thing and then backpeddle later when you are proven wrong.

I don't care if you think I'm right.  You're obviously very confident in your "knowledge," so that's fine.  I think there is enough proof to contradict your baseless argument that other people won't get the wrong idea.

You need to stop calling me names too.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> Yeah we should all just use a bunch of drugs and lie about how big and strong we are and call everyone idiots.


Many people on this site  are idiots, epically when they disregard science and  spew out M&F pseudo science. As for people using drugs and lying you will  have to be very specific about that. Many here are full of shit so you need to  point out who you are calling a liar.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I could care less what a newbie thinks, you have so much to learn and if you  stick with it like most do not you will see that much of what is posted here is  a joke. Weightlifting is so simple and basic...only the meat heads try to make  it some revolutionary new science...LMAO.



Your ignorance is sad, yet amusing.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> So what you're really saying, Foreman, is that there is no consistency in your arguments and you contradict yourself.  You say one thing and then backpeddle later when you are proven wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you think I'm right.  You're obviously very confident in your "knowledge," so that's fine.  I think there is enough proof to contradict your baseless argument that other people won't get the wrong idea.
> 
> You need to stop calling me names too.



I will not argue  with a liar. My opinions are based in fact and have been known for a long time  here. *Yes cardiovascular endurance, technique, mental confidence and many more  things aid in strength....that was never disputed by me*. I have never  contradicted myself and posted links to definitions I and most scientists  believe in. I did not see you even try to dispute them because you would look  like a fool  if you even attempted it....all you can do is attack me and try to  lie about what I said.

I will stop calling you names....that is the only thing you have me on .


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Your ignorance is sad, yet amusing.


Dale you don't know  a thing about training.....it cracks me up that you think you do.  You go use your new theories to bench 300 or squat 450, you can  do it!!!....I did that at 15 with just hard work and eating good.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I will not argue  with a liar. My opinions are based in fact and have been known for a long time  here. *Yes cardiovascular endurance, technique, mental confidence and many more  things aid in strength....that was never disputed by me*. I have never  contradicted myself and posted links to definitions I and most scientists  believe in. I did not see you even try to dispute them because you would look  like a fool  if you even attempted it....all you can do is attack me and try to  lie about what I said.
> 
> I will stop calling you names....that is the only thing you have me on .



I don't need to argue with you anymore.  Like I said, you have been proven wrong already, and any competent reader can see that.  That's all I am concerned with.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Dale you don't know a thing about training.....it cracks me up that you think you do.



You have 2 people with a CSCS and another going to school for exercise science telling you that you are wrong.  Why would any of us go through the hassle of digging up info when you will just say it isn't true with absolutely nothing backing up your claim.  CP posted several references and you just brushed them off.  Your lack of knowledge regarding training explains your need for steroids to get strong.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Dale you don't know  a thing about training.....it cracks me up that you think you do.  You go use your new theories to bench 300 or squat 450, you can  do it!!!....I did that at 15 with just hard work and eating good.



I believe your strength claims like I believe you know anything about training.

Interesting how your claims are right where most of the junior PL records sit.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> You have 2 people with a CSCS and another going to school for exercise science telling you that you are wrong.  Why would any of us go through the hassle of digging up info when you will just say it isn't true with absolutely nothing backing up your claim.  CP posted several references and you just brushed them off.  Your lack of knowledge regarding training explains your need for steroids to get strong.


I am wrong about what exactly....please show the post where I said only skeletal muscular hypertrophy causes strength increases 


I benched 405 raw at 19, ATQ raw squated 500+ ( I was about 2220) also Dale, what can you do naturally. When you put in 7 years naturally then do only one cycle...then train another 10 years naturally befoire you do your second cycle you can point fingers.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> I believe your strength claims like I believe you know anything about training.
> 
> Interesting how your claims are right where most of the junior PL records sit.


In 1985 the state bench record was 420 raw, I was doing 385 in the gym  naturally...the Nation record must have been more. I had only the bench, all my  other lifts were shit. Could I have gone on a cycle and set a state  record....hell yes. But I was 100% against steroid use and not good enough to  set a start or national record without them.

On a side note I doubt 95% of what I read on the net....do you know why, because I did not see 19 year olds with 22 inch arms and 800 deads when I was a kid.

Just a question Dale, what do you think this full of crap slob can bench right now? 200lbs???


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> PWGriffin said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...









ForemanRules said:


> Strength training and hypertrophy are the same thing






ForemanRules said:


> Yes, it goes against all science. Sure you can get a tiny bit stronger by learning form and things like that



Here are 3 examples of you being wrong.  I will give you the part about needing to get bigger over the long run to get stronger because eventually you will hit a wall.

Strength training and hypertrophy are definitely not the same thing, and you won't find a single person with any amount of knowledge who would agree that they are.

Plus, the high school dropout agrees with you.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> In 1985 the state bench record was 420 raw, I was doing 385 in the gym  naturally...the Nation record must have been more. I had only the bench, all my  other lifts were shit. Could I have gone on a cycle and set a state  record....hell yes. But I was 100% against steroid use and not good enough to  set a start or national record without them.
> 
> On a side note I doubt 95% of what I read on the net....do you know why, because I did not see 19 year olds with 22 inch arms and 800 deads when I was a kid.
> 
> Just a question Dale, what do you think this full of crap slob can bench right now? 200lbs???



At 260 and on roids, I would hope you could get at least 450.  Assuming you were of average size in high school, I don't believe you got 300BP/450Sq at 15 like you don't believe the other folk on the internet.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Here are 3 examples of you being wrong.  I will give you the part about needing to get bigger over the long run to get stronger because eventually you will hit a wall.
> 
> Strength training and hypertrophy are definitely not the same thing, and you won't find a single person with any amount of knowledge who would agree that they are.
> 
> Plus, the high school dropout agrees with you.





Dale Mabry said:


> Not a single person said you could put 155lbs on your bench, retard. What was said is that you can increase your strength significantly without hypertrophy, you said it can only be accomplished "*a litle bit".* I would consider 50lbs more than "a little bit".


http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1471217&postcount=81

3 times....I say a tiny bit and you say a little bit 
Dude you are a joke and your argument is  pathetic.


When you prove that skeletal muscle hypertrophy does not  build strength I will agree with you on all things.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1471217&postcount=81
> 
> 3 times....I say a tiny bit and you say a little bit
> Dude you are a joke and your argument is  pathetic.
> ...



I never said hypertrophy doesn't build strength, I said that hypertrophy is not necessary for strength, and that they are not the same thing.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> At 260 and on roids, I would hope you could get at least 450.  Assuming you were of average size in high school, I don't believe you got 300BP/450Sq at 15 like you don't believe the other folk on the internet.


That's  fair enough, with my shoulder injury and 5 months off 450 would be  a challenge especially since I have not benched in about 8 months and only lift once every 7-10 days now.



As for 15 that was a long time ago and I'm very proud of what I did. Dosent mean shit in the real world so I wont argue with some dude on the net about what happened 24 years ago.  


It is amazing that you do believe I am 260


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> I never said hypertrophy doesn't build strength, I said that h*ypertrophy is not necessary for strength*, and that they are not the same thing.


Well like you said in your other post gaining 155lbs on your bench will take  hypertrophy...it's the play on words you guys do that cracks me up.....such  hypocrites



Dale Mabry said:


> Not a single person said you could put 155lbs on your bench, retard. What was said is that you can increase your strength significantly without hypertrophy, you said it can only be accomplished "a litle bit". I would consider 50lbs more than "a little bit".


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

So can you gain 30lbs on your Bench without hypertrophy??? Hell yes.....Next question...ROFL x  100,000


----------



## MyK (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I could care less what a newbie thinks, you have so much to learn and if you  stick with it like most do not you will see that much of what is posted here is  a joke. Weightlifting is so simple and basic...only the meat heads try to make  it some revolutionary new science...LMAO.



I agree 100%


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

MyK said:


> I agree 100%



get off foreman's jock for 4 seconds plz and thx.


----------



## MyK (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> get off foreman's jock for 4 seconds plz and thx.



where am I on foremans "jock"?

um, nowhere! thats what I thought, just cuz you like to cockride dale, P, and CP. doesn't give you the right to project your cocksucking faggotry onto me!

dont ever attack me again!


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> get off foreman's jock for 4 seconds plz and thx.


get off cowpimps jock for 4 seconds plz and thx.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> get off cowpimps jock for 4 seconds plz and thx.





MyK said:


> where am I on foremans "jock"?
> 
> um, nowhere! thats what I thought, just cuz you like to cockride dale, P, and CP. doesn't give you the right to project your cocksucking faggotry onto me!
> 
> dont ever attack me again!


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


>


cocksucking faggotry 


That has to be the quote of the month


----------



## wilwn (Oct 8, 2006)

hot thread eh?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> It is amazing that you do believe I am 260



I see fat shits over 260lbs on a daily basis, not that rare these days.


----------



## the OMU (Oct 9, 2006)

Foreman, why the fuck are u arguing with a moderator. All the things he says in this forum are 100% true. Ive been looking at the posts in this forum before i registered and all the things he has been saying have helped everyone. I read a post on cowpimp a while ago saying that strengthening your triceps will boost your bench up a ton and some other moron saying that you'll need a strong chest for that to happen, and because of cowpimps tip my bench weint up from 315 to 340 in a week.

And yes u can get stronger without getting bigger. Strength is about skill, technique and core strength


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

the OMU said:


> Foreman, why the fuck are u arguing with a moderator. All the things he says in this forum are 100% true. Ive been looking at the posts in this forum before i registered and all the things he has been saying have helped everyone. I read a post on cowpimp a while ago saying that strengthening your triceps will boost your bench up a ton and some other moron saying that you'll need a strong chest for that to happen, and because of cowpimps tip my bench weint up from 315 to 340 in a week.
> 
> And yes u can get stronger without getting bigger. Strength is about skill, technique and core strength



You are  preaching to the quire, I was lost but now I'm found. I have been doing CP's  non-hypertrophy workout for only a day and my bench is up 75Lbs. Some people  would call that improved technique but they are fools...it is 100% pure strength  increase.

My goal is to gain another 100lbs on my bench with this amazing  non science workout.


----------



## goob (Oct 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> You are  preaching to the quire, I was lost but now I'm found. I have been doing CP's  non-hypertrophy workout for only a day and my bench is up 75Lbs. Some people  would call that improved technique but they are fools...it is 100% pure strength  increase.
> 
> My goal is to gain another 100lbs on my bench with this amazing  non science workout.



You might want to speak to kenwood.......


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

goob said:


> You might want to speak to kenwood.......


The sad fact is he isn't much worse than some of the "experts" here.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

That was my point, your original post was wrong, and you needed to backtrack...That was all I was saying.

You called CP an idiot, even though you were having a discussion no one else was having, at least you won that discussion, although I don't think it is very difficult to win a discussion you have with yourself.

You said none of us knew what we were talking about, and then made up stuff and said we were saying it.  Any person who has read this thread knows you were wrong, except for maybe you, and sadly you still won't admit that your initial statement was false.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

You argue like a woman


Lie and twist facts, then change the topic and make things up....wow baby just cool it for now.


----------



## MyK (Oct 9, 2006)

ForemanRules is 100% right! it is the rest of you flatworlders that are wrong. The worst part is that you cannot admit it because it will shatter your ego!


----------



## the OMU (Oct 9, 2006)

Jesus christ just shut the fuck up foreman.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

the OMU said:


> Jesus christ just shut the fuck up foreman.


Another highly intelligent and informative post.


----------



## MyK (Oct 9, 2006)

the OMU said:


> Jesus christ just shut the fuck up foreman.



thats what they said to Nicolaus Copernicus


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> thats what they said to Nicolaus Copernicus



Go back to polishing foreman's knob and stealing his pics in open chat, son.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Go back to polishing foreman's knob and stealing his pics in open chat, son.


----------



## MyK (Oct 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Go back to polishing foreman's knob and stealing his pics in open chat, son.



ah I see, only people who blindly believe all of your twisted lies are allowed into the training forum! my bad! 

I hope I havent disturbed the flock!


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

All of you really need to be ashamed of yourselves here.


----------



## MyK (Oct 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:


>


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> ForemanRules is 100% right! it is the rest of you flatworlders that are wrong. The worst part is that you cannot admit it because it will shatter your ego!


I thought it was round.  I'm always the last to know.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> thats what they said to *Nicolaus Copernicus*


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> ah I see, only people who blindly believe all of your twisted lies are allowed into the training forum! my bad!
> 
> I hope I havent disturbed the flock!



Foreman is the only troll allowed in here, cookie.


----------



## MyK (Oct 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Foreman is the only troll allowed in here, cookie.



I have read the debate and FormanRules is 100% right! as always! he is never wrong!


btw, how did you know about the "cookie" thing?


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

*Troll (Internet)*


In Dale terminology, a *troll* is often someone who comes into an established community such as an IronMagazine, and posts science, or helpfull facts designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize Dale Mabry .


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Foreman is the only *troll* allowed in here, cookie.



*Troll (Internet)*


In Dale terminology, a *troll* is often someone who comes into an established community such as an IronMagazine, and posts science, or helpfull facts designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize Dale Mabry and the flat world society.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> I have read the debate and FormanRules is 100% right! as always! he is never wrong!
> 
> 
> btw, how did you know about the "cookie" thing?



BigDyl told me, Foreman told him.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> I have read the debate and FormanRules is 100% right! as always! he is never wrong!
> 
> 
> btw, how did you know about the "cookie" thing?


 


Dale Mabry said:


> BigDyl told me, Foreman told him.


 
Is this "cookie" word now a different way of saying VD?


----------



## Seanp156 (Oct 9, 2006)

I think the best idea may be to lock the thread...


----------



## Double D (Oct 9, 2006)

MyK said:


> I have read the debate and FormanRules is 100% right! as always! he is never wrong!



I am not commenting on who I believe is right and wrong, however I am most certain that Foreman is not always right. Not that he is wrong in this thread, but then again about the only place he hangs out in is open chat.


----------



## Double D (Oct 9, 2006)

Seanp156 said:


> I think the best idea may be to lock the thread...



Its pretty close, besides theres no way this thread is ever going to end.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 9, 2006)

No No NO....................don't lock it.

it's funny to hear people argue over a point they all agree on.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> No No NO....................don't lock it.
> 
> it's funny to hear people argue over a point they all agree on.


----------



## Trouble (Oct 9, 2006)

Strentgth and hypertrophy are indeed two different physical processes.

Strengthing is to recruit new myocytes that are preprogrammed for type IIb fibers to thicken and elongate existing fibers.  There is some reprogramming of type I fibers to type II over time.  Thus, muscle volume gains are minimal - this is about improving muscle dynamics.  The force differential (potential tensile strength) of extant fibers improves with stepped / incremental loading at moderate volume.  Typically, the energetic profile is one of dependence on type II stored energy and lipid droplets.  This is androgen receptor density driven event. The training actively promotes very HIGH LEVELS of ACh activity in motor unit gap junctions due to the dynamic intensity level of exertion.  Longer rest intervals are required due to the heavy hit to the CNS (the very high level of CNS activation in specific fibers) and the fast exhaustion, slow energy replenishment - so that stored fats are essential.

This is why at low, low body fats, strength gains are much difficult.

Hypertrophic growth is to recruit new myocytes to induce thickening of type I fibers, encourage conversion of existing type I to type II fibers, and possibly to catalyze splitting of extant type II fibers to increase their number within key muscle groups.  Hypertrophy requries higher volume, lower intensity workouts that deplete stored both stored and readily existing energy supply (and thus does not energetically favor one fiber type over the other) - it hits both due to that higher volume depletion of fast energy (glucose) and then glycogen and creatine depletion.  The CNS is hit hard, but not at the hightest intensity level.  Recovery is much quicker, both within workouts and between workouts.  The amount of AR stimulated per fiber is far below that of training for strength because of the sheer number of fibers hit and the parsing of a limited load of available androgen among those fibers.

The energetics are different. The CNS stimulation levels are different. The AR and RXR_LXR nuclear receptor responses are different - that means, at the gene level itself, response is quite different.

Can you gain concommitant strength and mass (at the same time)?

Yes.  under two scenarios:

Androgen supersaturation. Fast strength and mass gains - but, the gain in fat and muscle are often proportional when the pure mass (not water) rate is higher than a few pounds per week. When the gains are lower and fat gain is lower in proportion, the lean mass and strength gains may be retained as the start point included solid glucose tolerance (necessary for optimal AR upregulation while preserving insulin anabolic activity).

Active recomposition following a change in key inputs: diet and training program, featuring a reduction in body fat, improvement in cardiovascular conditioning - and therefore glucose tolerance - with an attendant shift in mass from fat to lean muscle mass and support tissue.  The gain in mass with recomposition has less dramatic AR upregulation (compared to AAS use). Gains are lean, strength and mass gains are moderate.

How does the latter work?  As in the first case, you are improving androgen uptake and repressing cortisol binding to AR (and de-repressing androgen receptor activity by decreasing estrogen-like hormones from fat that occupy AR / depress hGH production, and reduce repair and replacement processes).
By vastly improving cellular energetics in skeletal muscle, liver, adipose, thyoid and gut, you improve new tissue synthesis and discourage CNS and muscle cell atrophy from excess inflammation and cell damage.

How do we know this? From recent (2002-2006) high intensity exertion (endurance or resistance training) studies of optimal nutrition *during exertion* to minimize cortisol and immune system backlash to excessive oxidative damage in CNS/muscle and liver.  Protein in the form of ketogenic aminoacids to discourage proteolysis and glucose to fuel cells and reduce CNS hypoxia and hypoglycemia.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

Trouble said:


> Strentgth and hypertrophy are indeed two different physical processes.
> 
> Strengthing is to recruit new myocytes that are preprogrammed for type IIb fibers to thicken and elongate existing fibers.  There is some reprogramming of type I fibers to type II over time.  Thus, muscle volume gains are minimal - this is about improving muscle dynamics.  The force differential (potential tensile strength) of extant fibers improves with stepped / incremental loading at moderate volume.  Typically, the energetic profile is one of dependence on type II stored energy and lipid droplets.  This is androgen receptor density driven event. The training actively promotes very HIGH LEVELS of ACh activity in motor unit gap junctions due to the dynamic intensity level of exertion.  Longer rest intervals are required due to the heavy hit to the CNS (the very high level of CNS activation in specific fibers) and the fast exhaustion, slow energy replenishment - so that stored fats are essential.
> 
> ...



That is exactly what Foreman was saying, he just didn't want to type it all out.  Plus, he wanted to use more scientific terms like "a little bit", flatworlders, and idiot.


----------



## Trouble (Oct 9, 2006)

Then is this issue a matter of semantics?


On one item, Foreman is wrong.  He misattributes his increase in strength to better technique.  It is MUCH more likely due to improved cardiovascular fitness and insulin sensitivity.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

Trouble said:


> Then is this issue a matter of semantics?



I was kidding...good times.


----------



## Trouble (Oct 9, 2006)

Well shit, Dale. You know I am nerd..with respect to recognizing humor.
I am an INTJ, remember?  We are equallty shitty at making small talk, detecting a joke, and flirting.

I cannot even use emoticons.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

Trouble said:


> Strentgth and hypertrophy are indeed two different physical processes.
> 
> Strengthing is to recruit new myocytes that are preprogrammed for type IIb fibers to thicken and elongate existing fibers.  There is some reprogramming of type I fibers to type II over time.  Thus, muscle volume gains are minimal - this is about improving muscle dynamics.  The force differential (potential tensile strength) of extant fibers improves with stepped / incremental loading at moderate volume.  Typically, the energetic profile is one of dependence on type II stored energy and lipid droplets.  This is androgen receptor density driven event. The training actively promotes very HIGH LEVELS of ACh activity in motor unit gap junctions due to the dynamic intensity level of exertion.  Longer rest intervals are required due to the heavy hit to the CNS (the very high level of CNS activation in specific fibers) and the fast exhaustion, slow energy replenishment - so that stored fats are essential.
> 
> ...


Post links that back up your claims please.

I assume you wrote that since you do not site a source so summerise it and tell us what your opinion is.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

Trouble said:


> Then is this issue a matter of semantics?
> 
> 
> On one item, Foreman is wrong.  He misattributes his increase in strength to better technique.  It is MUCH more likely due to improved cardiovascular fitness and insulin sensitivity.


Nope. I mentioned cardiovascular fitness  as well as mental, health,  CNS...ect...and on and on. I never mentioned my strength increases, but  most of  them came from skeletal muscular hypertrophy   


This is not about semantics as I had once thoght it is all about the EGO.


----------



## Trouble (Oct 9, 2006)

IF you maintain that your strength increases are derived from AAS induced changes in muscle tensile strength performance, you may be right.

If you feel its derived from cycles of hypertrophy and muscle fiber revision (thickening, strengthening, change in energy efficiency), when we are in agreement.

If you assert that your muscle strength is derived from hypertrophy gains, that is where YOU must prove that hypertrophy and strength gains are synonmyous under non-AAS assisted conditions.

Let's start with the basics: definition of hypertrophy.

hypertrophy (hīpûr'trəfē) , enlargement of a tissue or organ of the body resulting from an increase in the size of its cells. Such growth accompanies an increase in the functioning of the tissue. In normal physiology the growth in size of muscles (e.g., in an athlete as a result of increased exercise) and also the enlargement of a uterus in pregnancy are caused by hypertrophy of muscle cells. In pathology the thickening of the heart muscle from overstrain, as in hypertension (high blood pressure), is the result of hypertrophy. An organ subjected to extra work (e.g., the one kidney left to function after surgical removal of the other) usually compensates by enlarging; in such cases hyperplasia, an increase in the number of cells, generally accompanies hypertrophy.

Here we have a bit of confusion.

Are we talking about the size of the cell, or a state of hyperplasia?

Or both?

Increases in strength are caused by changes in _myocyte fiber indentity and myocyte / tube size._ This is brought about by changes in energetic efficiency.  Mytocyte number - skeletal muscle cell hypertrophy (hyperplasia) is a different critter.

The problem is one of semantics.  The following article is probably one of the most important to date in understanding change in cellular differentiation with nuclear regulator factors.


Skeletal myocyte hypertrophy requires mTOR kinase activity and S6K1. Park IH,  Erbay E, Nuzzi P, Chen J. Department of Cell and Structural Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Exp Cell Res. 2005 Sep 10;309(1):211-9.

The protein kinase mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a central regulator of cell proliferation and growth, with the ribosomal subunit S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) as one of the key downstream signaling effectors. A critical role of mTOR signaling in skeletal muscle differentiation has been identified recently, and an unusual regulatory mechanism independent of mTOR kinase activity and S6K1 is revealed. An mTOR pathway has also been reported to regulate skeletal muscle hypertrophy, but the regulatory mechanism is not completely understood. Here, we report the investigation of mTOR's function in insulin growth factor I (IGF-I)-induced C2C12 myotube hypertrophy. Added at a later stage when rapamycin no longer had any effect on normal myocyte differentiation, rapamycin completely blocked myocyte hypertrophy as measured by myotube diameter. Importantly, a concerted increase of average myonuclei per myotube was observed in IGF-I-stimulated myotubes, which was also inhibited by rapamycin added at a time when it no longer affected normal differentiation. The mTOR protein level, its catalytic activity, its phosphorylation on Ser2448, and the activity of S6K1 were all found increased in IGF-I-stimulated myotubes compared to unstimulated myotubes. Using C2C12 cells stably expressing rapamycin-resistant forms of mTOR and S6K1, we provide genetic evidence for the requirement of mTOR and its downstream effector S6K1 in the regulation of myotube hypertrophy. Our results suggest distinct mTOR signaling mechanisms in different stages of skeletal muscle development: While mTOR regulates the initial myoblast differentiation in a kinase-independent and S6K1-independent manner, the hypertrophic function of mTOR requires its kinase activity and employs S6K1 as a downstream effector.

So insulin-driven IGF-1 is influential in myoblast identity and its size - up to a point.  Beyond that point, its muscle energy driven by fatty acid utilization that drives strength.

Insulin is requisite for fatty acid driven muscle metabolism. And THAT drives the maintenance of muscle mass (NOT FUCKING HYPERPLASIA).

THE ORPHAN NUCLEAR RECEPTOR, NOR-1, IS A TARGET OF {beta}- ADRENERGIC SIGNALING IN SKELETAL MUSCLE. Pearen MA,  Ryall JG, Maxwell MA,  Ohkura N, Lynch GS, Muscat GE. 

Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Division of Molecular Genetics and Development, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia; Basic and Clinical Myology Laboratory, Department of Physiology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia; Tumor Endocrinology Project, National Cancer Center Research Institute, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku,Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.

beta-adrenergic receptor (beta-AR) agonists induce Nur77 mRNA expression in the C2C12 skeletal muscle cell culture model, and elicit skeletal muscle hypertrophy. We have previously demonstrated that Nur77 (NR4A1) is involved in lipolysis and gene expression associated with the regulation of lipid homeostasis. Subsequently, it was demonstrated by another group that beta-AR agonists and cold exposure induced Nur77 expression in brown adipocytes and brown adipose tissue, respectively. Moreover, NOR-1 (NR4A3) was hyper-induced by cold exposure in the nur77-/- animal model. These studies underscored the importance of understanding the role of NOR-1(NR4A3) in skeletal muscle. In this context we observed 30-480 min of beta-AR agonist treatment significantly and transiently increased expression of the orphan nuclear receptor NOR-1 in both mouse skeletal muscle tissue (plantaris) and C2C12 skeletal muscle cells. Specific beta2- and beta3-AR agonists had similar effects as the pan-agonist, and were blocked by the beta-AR antagonist propranolol. Moreover, in agreement with these observations, isoprenaline also significantly increased the activity of the NOR-1 promoter. Stable exogenous expression of a NOR-1 siRNA (but not the negative control siRNA) in skeletal muscle cells significantly repressed endogenous NOR-1 mRNA expression, and led to changes in the expression of genes involved in the control of lipid utilization and muscle mass underscored by a dramatic increase in myostatin mRNA expression. Concordantly, the myostatin promoter was repressed by NOR-1 expression. In conclusion, NOR-1 is highly responsive to beta-adrenergic signaling, and regulates the expression of genes controlling fatty acid utilization and muscle mass.

The first paper cited is critical - it defines the nuclear receptor pathway initiation of hypertrophy and hyperplasia as stepwise events.

Here is an elegant description of the hypertrophy and hyperplasia.

http://anton.free.net.ph/hypertrophy_hyperplasia.pdf.

Thus, to dramatically increase overall muscle mass, you must have an increase in hypertrophy and hyperplasia.

The authors of the hypertrophy and hyperplasia paper where apparently ignorant of work advancing on the molecular programming of muscle cell differentiation.

Differential signalling mechanisms predisposing primary human skeletal muscle cells to altered proliferation and differentiation: roles of IGF-I and TNFalpha.

Foulstone EJ, Huser C, Crown AL, Holly JM, Stewart CE.  Division of Surgery, University of Bristol.  Exp Cell Res. 2004 Mar 10;294(1):223-35.

To gain a clearer insight into the mechanisms of skeletal muscle cell growth, differentiation and maintenance, we have developed a primary adult human skeletal muscle cell model. Cells were cultured from biopsies of rectus muscle from the anterior abdominal wall of patients undergoing elective surgery. Under differentiating conditions, all cultures formed myotubes, irrespective of initial myoblast number. Stimulation with both IGF-I and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) increased cellular proliferation but while IGF-I subsequently increased myoblast differentiation, via both hyperplasia and hypertrophy, TNFalpha inhibited the initiation of differentiation, but did not induce apoptosis. Addition of IGF-I stimulated both the MAP kinase and the phosphatidylinositide 3-kinase (PI 3-kinase) signalling pathways while treatment with TNFalpha preferentially led to MAP kinase activation although with a very different profile of activation compared to IGF-I. Data using the MEK inhibitor UO126 showed MAP kinase activity is not only needed for cellular proliferation but is also necessary for both the initiation and the progression of primary human myoblast differentiation. The PI 3-kinase pathway is also involved in differentiation, but activation of this pathway could not relieve inhibition of differentiation by TNFalpha or UO126. Our results show that the controlled temporal and amplitude of activation of multiple signalling pathways is needed for successful myoblast differentiation.

That requires both spot on insulin sensitivity to drive IGF-1/hGH activity, and for upregulated fatty acid utilization of interfiber lipid droplet stores.

Now, if you wish to drive real hyperplasia, you need to overdrive gene control constraints on both hypertrophy and tissue hyperplasia via recruitment of new myocytes and differentiation.  And this my friends, requires long chronic bouts of high intensity training (many years, not a handful).

There are some tradeoffs in hyperplasia.  Its not just muscle cells that undergo hyperplasty.  Other cells do as well.  When you push cell numbers beyond normal limits with insulin, there are consequences and risks, because the presumption is that differentiation is controlled.  It ain't necessarily so...

Anytime, Foreman, that you want to discuss skeletal muscle molecular dynamics, just whistle.

_Its my metier._


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

I do not believe hyperplasia is caused by natural weight lifting


----------



## Trouble (Oct 9, 2006)

10-yr old hints that hyperplasia is possible.

Muscle fiber hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and capillary density in college men after resistance training. McCall GE, Byrnes WC, Dickinson A, Pattany PM,
Fleck SJ. University of Colorado, Boulder 80309, USA.  J Appl Physiol. 1996 Nov;81(5):2004-12.

Twelve male subjects with recreational resistance training backgrounds completed 12 wk of intensified resistance training (3 sessions/wk; 8 exercises/session; 3 sets/exercise; 10 repetitions maximum/set). All major muscle groups were trained, with four exercises emphasizing the forearm flexors. After training, strength (1-repetition maximum preacher curl) increased by 25% (P < 0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed an increase in the biceps brachii muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) (from 11.8 +/- 2.7 to 13.3 +/- 2.6 cm2; n = 8; P < 0.05). Muscle biopsies of the biceps brachii revealed increases (P < 0.05) in fiber areas for type I (from 4,196 +/- 859 to 4,617 +/- 1,116 microns2; n = 11) and II fibers (from 6,378 +/- 1,552 to 7,474 +/- 2,017 microns2; n = 11). Fiber number estimated from the above measurements did not change after training (293.2 +/- 61.5 x 10(3) pretraining; 297.5 +/- 69.5 x 10(3) posttraining; n = 8). However, the magnitude of muscle fiber hypertrophy may influence this response because those subjects with less relative muscle fiber hypertrophy, but similar increases in muscle CSA, showed evidence of an increase in fiber number. Capillaries per fiber increased significantly (P < 0.05) for both type I (from 4.9 +/- 0.6 to 5.5 +/- 0.7; n = 10) and II fibers (from 5.1 +/- 0.8 to 6.2 +/- 0.7; n = 10). No changes occurred in capillaries per fiber area or muscle area. In conclusion, resistance training resulted in hypertrophy of the total muscle CSA and fiber areas with no change in estimated fiber number, whereas capillary changes were proportional to muscle fiber growth.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

*Possible but still from what I have read it seems unlikley for the natural adult  trainer.*



[SIZE=+1]*Exercise-induced skeletal muscle growth. Hypertrophy or hyperplasia?*[/SIZE]

*Taylor NA*, *Wilkinson JG*.

Postnatal skeletal muscle growth in humans is generally ascribed to enlargement of existing muscle fibres rather than to cellular proliferation. Some evidence of muscle fibre division or splitting was provided in the nineteenth century. This evidence has more recently been supported by fibres obtained from regenerating muscle, and from muscle which has undergone stress-induced growth. Numerous investigators have reported indirect evidence for exercise-induced hypertrophy and hyperplasia. These findings are largely founded on secondary observations of fibre size or number differences expressed relative to muscle cross-sectional area. Since these observations in humans are open to methodological criticism, researchers have developed 3 animal models to represent exercise-induced human muscle growth. These include compensatory hypertrophy, stretch-induced hypertrophy, and weight lifting in trained animals. The results and criticisms of the experiments which have used these models are discussed in this review. In studies of muscle cross-sectional area, errors are created by fibres terminating intrafascicularly. Longitudinal growth of such fibres result in an overestimation of fibre number, and with the use of penniform muscles where fibres do not run parallel to the longitudinal axis of the muscle, the error is compounded. It was concluded that hyperplasia is not yet substantiated, and that new fibres, if present, may be the result of the development of satellite cells. Further experiments are required before a definitive answer can be provided. It is suggested that rigidly controlled exercise studies using contralateral control, fusiform muscles with analysis of individually teased muscle fibres be performed.


----------



## Double D (Oct 9, 2006)

Hey Foreman your turn to post what you read......


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 9, 2006)

I never knew body building was so damn complicated....so much for just pushing and pulling.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I never knew body building was so damn complicated....so much for just pushing and pulling.



That's dating.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> That's dating.


Oh damn, now I'm even more confused.


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I never knew body building was so damn complicated....so much for just pushing and pulling.


Keep your porno in open chat son, we be tryn to have an intellsigent debate here


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 9, 2006)

I've created a monster.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Keep your porno in open chat son, we be *tryn* to have an *intellsigent* debate here


Otay!


----------



## GFR (Oct 9, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> I've created a monster.


You created nothing


----------



## GFR (Oct 10, 2006)

Trouble said:


> 10-yr old hints that hyperplasia is possible.
> 
> Muscle fiber hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and capillary density in college men after resistance training. McCall GE, Byrnes WC, Dickinson A, Pattany PM,
> Fleck SJ. University of Colorado, Boulder 80309, USA.  J Appl Physiol. 1996 Nov;81(5):2004-12.
> ...


 A link would be nice


----------



## GFR (Oct 10, 2006)

Trouble said:


> IF you maintain that your strength increases are derived from AAS induced changes in muscle tensile strength performance, you may be right.
> 
> If you feel its derived from cycles of hypertrophy and muscle fiber revision (thickening, strengthening, change in energy efficiency), when we are in agreement.
> 
> ...


Again....please give a link to your cut and paste.
.


----------



## GFR (Oct 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Post links that back up your claims please.
> 
> I assume you wrote that since you do not site a source so summerise it and tell us what your opinion is.


Typical....no answer


----------



## ZECH (Oct 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Typical....no answer



Again, give her time. Some people have lives. And for once, I would love to see you post some science that you demand of others.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 10, 2006)

She cites sources in all her posts.  That is sufficient.


----------



## GFR (Oct 11, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Again, give her time. Some people have lives. And for once, I would love to see you post some science that you demand of others.


I'm not looking for an answer, just making a point that she need not nit pick me and I will not nit pick her.


----------



## god hand (Oct 13, 2006)

What I think Foreman is trying to say is that you can increase your strength at the same weight, BUT only for so long. At 150lbs you can go from benching 100lbs to 300lbs, but at 150lbs you cant go from benching 300lbs to 600lbs without gaining some muscle.

*Let's be serious........*


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 13, 2006)

god hand said:


> What I think Foreman is trying to say is that you can increase your strength at the same weight, BUT only for so long. At 150lbs you can go from benching 100lbs to 300lbs, but at 150lbs you cant go from benching 300lbs to 600lbs without gaining some muscle.
> 
> *Let's be serious........*



well that's just stupid obvious, but why does it have to be drastic?  

Foreman used a couple of examples like that with I think a 600lb deadlift or something or other...But how many people EVER hit those kind of numbers.  If we set reasonable goals for a person...I'm sure we could train an individual to reach those goals without significant hypertrophy.  At least that's what I think.  

All I'm saying is gains in strength are possible without hypertrophy...and those gains aren't insignificant...


----------



## god hand (Oct 13, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> well that's just stupid obvious, but why does it have to be drastic?
> 
> Foreman used a couple of examples like that with I think a 600lb deadlift or something or other...But how many people EVER hit those kind of numbers.  If we set reasonable goals for a person...I'm sure we could train an individual to reach those goals without significant hypertrophy.  At least that's what I think.
> 
> All I'm saying is gains in strength are possible without hypertrophy...and those gains aren't insignificant...



U should have said that from the get go!


----------



## GFR (Oct 13, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> well that's just stupid obvious, but why does it have to be drastic?
> 
> Foreman used a couple of examples like that with I think a 600lb deadlift or something or other...But how many people EVER hit those kind of numbers.  If we set reasonable goals for a person...I'm sure we could train an individual to reach those goals without significant hypertrophy.  At least that's what I think.
> 
> All I'm saying is gains in strength are possible without hypertrophy...and those gains aren't insignificant...


ok....then a 200 dead to a 350 dead,,,,,,hypertrophy??? or not


----------



## assassin (Oct 13, 2006)

take kenwood as an example his bench went from 130 lbs to 295 in  two weeks ...while making massive gains as he went from 160 lbs-185!!


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> ok....then a 200 dead to a 350 dead,,,,,,hypertrophy??? or not



SeanP said he's 12lbs lighter and deadlifts 120lbs more I think....so hypothetically speaking, I think it's possible.


----------



## assassin (Oct 13, 2006)

if that was true then his bf% went down a lot ofcourse..


----------



## god hand (Oct 13, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> SeanP said he's 12lbs lighter and deadlifts 120lbs more I think....so hypothetically speaking, I think it's possible.


U can lose weight and gain muscle. If u were 400lbs benchin 200, I wouldnt be surprised if u started working out and lost 150lbs while add l50 to your bench.


----------



## GFR (Oct 13, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> SeanP said he's 12lbs lighter and deadlifts 120lbs more I think....so hypothetically speaking, I think it's possible.


sure, he  lost fat and lost muscle from his upperebody. Skill and technique can make you move weight  better but that is not increasing real power.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 13, 2006)

i can't believe this is still going on.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> sure, he  lost fat and lost muscle from his upperebody. Skill and technique can make you move weight  better but that is not increasing real power.



Please define "real power" and "fake power," or whatever type of power you think he has developed.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 13, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Please define "real power" and *"fake power,"* or whatever type of power you think he has developed.



HAHHAA  LoL.............


----------



## GFR (Oct 13, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Please define "real power" and *"fake power,*" or whatever type of power you think he has developed.


We had a weight lifting coach train us for only one day in high school....long story short he got some of us to increase opur dead lift by 75lbs in just one day. That is technique growth, not your body getting stronger. 

Please show me where I said *fake power*....I don't remember saying that.


----------



## god hand (Oct 13, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> i can't believe this is still going on.



Should have been around when I posted in the training forum. Shit use to get real ugly.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 13, 2006)

Ugly but funny.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 13, 2006)

Nevermind.  Arguing with you is pointless Foreman.  You can't ever use any facts to backup your statements, yet claim everyone else's references are bunk.


----------



## GFR (Oct 13, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Nevermind.  Arguing with you is pointless Foreman.  You can't ever use any facts to backup your statements, yet claim everyone else's references are bunk.


You lose when you spit in the face of science....bet that is getting old for you. 


Go pick a fight with a person you can best son ( try KEFE or PWGriffin ).


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 14, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> We had a weight lifting coach train us for only one day in high school....long story short he got some of us to increase opur dead lift by 75lbs in just one day. That is technique growth, not your body getting stronger.
> 
> Please show me where I said *fake power*....I don't remember saying that.



So he lost muscle and can move 120lbs more and that doesn't mean anything??

I'm done.


----------

