Strength training faggots, Mark rippedchode, SSfags BTFO ht

>>37991919
>well.blogs.nytimes.com
>fails to understand the importance of actual real strength and the impact of it on the human body
>wants bloated "fake" muscles that cant lift jack shit
>doesnt understand hypertrophy
>forms an opinion over the results of 1 study that may or may not be legitimately controlled and disregards years of scientific experience as well as plenty of other factors to consider heavy weights.

who's BTFO bro?

>>37991919
I'm not a SS, Rippetoe, or "train for strength" memer, but his article is a giant piece of shit. Did you even read it?

Lel. Ok you go ahead and lift light weight faggot.

>>37991919
author of the article is clueless. lifting 80-90% 1RM 8-10 times? lulz.

anyway, the actual study had a sample group, probably shittily controlled/selected, of a whopping 49, split into 2 groups, and only over a time period of 12 weeks. their abstract is also total shit and doesn't actually include methods used to determine ...well, anything. further, the bench press WAS significantly different, by a large factor (as in, over 50% greater in low-rep group)

hardly a study worthy of publication or further research, and hardly 'btfo'.

maybe read and analyze the article you post rather than just read the headline like some airheaded twat next time.

>GRETCHEN
>ntytimes
>GRETCHEN

literally everything discredited instantly

File: Rep-Ranges.png (42KB, 1008x1008px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1008x1008px

>>37991919
Jesus christ we've discussed this study so many times now. The conclusion to the study was that muscle failure leads to muscle growth regardless of rep range, not ''OMG Kathy this means we can lift 2kg kettlebells to get that Kim K booty, GOALS AF''.

Also see pic related

>>37991997
> bloated "fake" muscles
there is no such things.there's only cns strength.
muscle is muscle.
dont be such a butthurt ss victim.

>>37992108
i was sure someone would say this but you just dont get my point.

I cant quite remember the name of the particular example right now but all im saying is powerlifters tend to have a harder grainier look when they cut down compared to bodybuilders.

a bigger muscle is always a stronger muscle but that doesn't mean there are no differences in hypertrophy and that those differences dont affect how the muscle looks

>>37992108
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html
>Wimps might have the last laugh on gym-obsessed hunks - gram-for-gram, bodybuilders' muscles are weaker than those of people who never touch weights, research has shown.

Basically they have more muscle, but a gram of bodybuilder muscle is weaker than that of a regular DYEL's muscle. So yes, you can have ''bloated'' or ''fake'' muscle.

>>37992166
This makes sense, evolution has produced a front loading effect and diminishing returns.

>>37992191
I have no idea what you meant by that but ok

What are you downloading OP?

>>37992191
that's not the point, again.
if that study had compared average joes to powerlifters the results would have been greatly reversed.

is it that hard for you to understand that pure strength training produces more strength gains and fewer hypertrophy than bodybuilding training?

Have you never seen the skinny kids at local powerlifting contests having small arms but benching quite big?

come on dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_hypertrophy

>>37991919
http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/66160-demise-starting-strength.html

u understand the reason why rippetoe is liked is because he got a phd and renounced it because kinesiology field regularly produces bad articles right

>>37992250
>>37992071
PIC FUCKING RELATED

>>37992161
Watch some Greg Nuckols videos on myofib vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

>>37992250
Your post has nothing to do with mine. I was just giving reasons why I thought the idea of bloated, fake muscle made sense.

Fuck off autist

File: 1428877389176.png (45KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 554x439px

>>37991919
Cool, but I enjoy strength training so I am going to continue to strength train.

>>37992281
>>37992333
calm down shitheads

i know pic is related why are you linking it to me dipshit? i pretty much said the same thing

and to the second guy your post was dogshit anyway so fuck off

Dumb article. They are comparing 10 rep sets to 25 rep sets, both of which would be considered "low weight, high reps".

If anything, this kinda proves that "low weight, high reps" is worthless.

It's basic physiology though. Lift big weights for less reps gets pretty much the same result that lift smaller weights for more reps. The basic in strenght and hypertrophy is lift a bit more than your last session.

>>37992369
>is it that hard for you to understand that pure strength training produces more strength gains and fewer hypertrophy than bodybuilding training
If you had actually looked at the picture you would see what was wrong with that statement.

And what exactly was wrong with the second post? Saying something is dogshit doesn't work when you don't specify what was dogshit

>>37992071
>The conclusion to the study was that muscle failure leads to muscle growth regardless of rep range,

Lol arthur jones BTFO'd everyone 40 years ago

>>37992419
that picture cites studies that CONTROLLED sets and volume and only changed rep ranges.

Pure strength or powerlifting training does not do that.
for example if in those studies the 3-5 rep group did let's say 3 sets of 3-5 reps at a high 1RM%, a powerlifter does not do the same thing. powerlifters tend to have significantly lower volume and much higher intensity than even someone who trains at the 3-5 rep ranges and frequently include peaking techniques etc in their training.

jesus fuck stop being an obnoxious ass.

the second post was poorly written that's what I mean, you didnt get your point across properly.

>>37992507
controlled for intensity and volume *

>>37991919
Says you need to go hard and wear yourself out. Basically it's all about getting full muscle activation. See also that "lift harder (faster) with the same weight for more gains study"

Never heard of the 20 rep squat program for size gains? A classic. Google it.

>>37992433
which is why speed sets also work, right?

not failure. activation.

>>37992161
>>37992166
Are you people fucking retarded?
Bodybuilders just have a weaker CNS therefor less relative strength. How fucking dumb can this board get?

>>37992391
Scientists should never do sny research on fitness seeing most of them are fucking nerds who dont know shit.

>>37992566
that is a big part of the reason why but not all of it.

File: 1387314993461.jpg (13KB, 177x278px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 177x278px

>>37992166
>gram of bodybuilder muscle is weaker than that of a regular DYEL's muscle

you guys don't understand how much shit science there is. it's very hard to design good studies and very hard to properly interpret the results. a lot of people on /fit/ seem to think that if something is written in a peer reviewed article it's fact, but that's very far from the truth.

exercise science in particular is absolutely awful, and greg nuckols is even worse. he's a blogger, not a scientist. he has no clue whether something is good science or not.

>>37992663
Then explain exactly what's wrong with the study.

>>37992713
in this particular case it's meaningless because both routines are bad.

>>37992663
strengtheory usually has some pretty decent articles.

>>37992713
not him, but >>37992029

>>37992191

no it doesnt. strength is a skill which improves with practice

hypertrophy has no impact on skill, but does theoretically offer a larger pool of contractile fibres

therefore, two ppl who have trained the skill to the same degree, but one has more muscle, the one with more muscle will be able to move more weight

>>37991919
>comparing 10 reps to 25 or more reps

both groups are in a relatively high rep category. 3-5 is good for raw strength(myofibrillar hypertrophy), 8 is a what i would consider a good higher rep range for muscle volume alone(sarcoplasmic hypertrophy).

so it seems like both groups trained only sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which by itself is pretty shitty. need dat dere myofibrillar too

>>37992029
i bet that the bench was so much better in that group because its the only one people really pushed themselves on, like everyone you see at the gym. and if they had put as much effort into the rest of the routine they actually would have gotten a better end-study result

>>37992930
irrelevant. in that way of thinking that applies to every single study ever done, which means that it's a controlled factor - and thus, irrelevant.

>>37991919
Have you ever lifted light weights to failure? It fucking SUUUUUUUUUUCKS. Even if it's equally effective I don't know why anyone would do it.

>>37992883

the myofibrilar/sarcoplasmic dichotomy isnt as straight forward as you make out

it really only comes into effect at the extreme end of the bodybuidling continuum

for all intents and purposes the ratio between them isnt an issue for 99% of people, and certainly not for natural athelets

>>37992970
i know they cross over between the rep ranges, but in my personal experience I started out with a 10-12 rep range and had longer lasting pumps, basically, from increased muscle storage or sarcoplasmic. then i did only lower reps and got way stronger but only really looked big fresh out of the gym, which i attribute to myofibrillar. and now that switch between 5-6 reps and 8-10 rep sets every week or so Ive been gaining more and seeing benefits of each.

>>37993091
>i know they cross over between the rep ranges, but in my personal experience I started out with a 10-12 rep range and had longer lasting pumps, basically, from increased muscle storage or sarcoplasmic. then i did only lower reps and got way stronger but only really looked big fresh out of the gym, which i attribute to myofibrillar. and now that switch between 5-6 reps and 8-10 rep sets every week or so Ive been gaining more and seeing benefits of each.

honestly not sure if this is a troll post

>>37992108
Learn the difference between myofibrilar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you fucking twink

>>37993471
thats my anecdotal evidence, nigger.

if I'm somehow misunderstanding the two types of hypertrophy, then say how

>>37992166
That would explain why I can do pull ups and easily throw my DYEL friends around while their can't do either.

>>37992970
It's not straightforward as both forms of hypertrophy are needed for training. Without the sarcoplasmic growth, glycogen stores would be depleted long before training was done, and without myofibrilar, you wouldn't be able to generate enough force.

That being said, the ratio isn't necessarily something to ignore unless you're talking to someone who has never picked up a weight in their life. It is a ratio that should be considered in any decent program. You wouldn't pull a weekly 5RM for bicep curls because a) it's stupid considering the size of the muscle in the first place, and b) because myofibrilar hypertrophy of the bicep isn't all that useful in powerlifting and definitely bodybuilding

>>37993583
>current year
>still thinking sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy are separable

>>37993666
>thinking you cant exercise in a certain way to emphasize one or the other

>>37993666
I never said they were inherently separable, but the appearance and function of muscles that have different ratios of each do differ

>>37993610
>I'm somehow misunderstanding the two types of hypertrophy, then say how

the pumps you experience have to do with there being a greater build up of metabolites in your tissue, onthing to do with myofibrilar or sarcoplasic muscle being trained

>>37993666

this. although i say the extreme end of the bbing spectrum it might does become real, and especially if the trainee is on drugs

otherwise yeah

Olympians BTFO!
Sedentary desk-jockeys confirmed for strongest and most athletic humans!

>>37993814
"during sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases with no accompanying increase in muscular strength"

File: why is his face not all pixlfuzzzy?.jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

>>37991919
>An upsettingly large number of studies done now involve the researchers fucking with their statistics so that they get a positive result rather than a ambiguous or even negative result.
>Journals that are most prone to this a Biology, Sports Sciences and Psychology Journals.
Nice try m8.