I can lift 1/2/3/4 now by doing Texas Method, why am I still dyel?

eat more

>>41612172
Now I'm skinny fat, thanks alot!

Because 1/2/3/4 is dyel.
Go 2/3/4/5 you little girl.

>>41612148
because 1/2/3/4 isnt strong. thats supposed to be the point where youre not embarrassed for people to see your shitty lifts. youre supposed to lift in a home gym by yourself until 1/2/3/4, then youre allowed to go to a commercial gym

>>41612217
But I'm in a powerlifting gym?

>>41612217
over 95% of men at commercial gyms can't do that

maybe you meant a powerlifting gym, that would be fitting then

>>41612185
then you ate too much. 1 lbs gain per 2-3 weeks is plenty. do some cardio and you won't gain much fat if any

>>41612148
because you fell for low volume pussy programming

train harder, do more sets, and eat more

>>41612148
stop posting these cuckold images and get some self respect

>>41612225
sorry. its illegal to lift in any gym if you cant 1/2/3/4. expect the police to come and take you to the dyel gulag shortly

>>41612148
You trained for strenght, so you got strong but not much bigger

>>41612574
How do I get big now?

>>41613184

Do sets of 8-12, with a focus on slow controlled reps. Each set should last at least 40 seconds.

post a picture of yourself
for how long have you been lifting?

>>41612148
I'm at 2/3/5/7 (1RM). Most people look DYEL at 1/2/3/4. The fastest way to get out of dyel is making 1/2/3/4 your 12RM.

Because you are doing strength training

>>41612148
Eat more, get at 1/2/3 for 8 reps sets across and you will get big in no time.

Plus this advice is legit: >>41613192

>>41613371
Agree except for make it like 8 rep max. I hit 2/3/4/5 at around that time.

File: grr.png (425KB, 607x523px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 607x523px

>>41612148
Does anyone actually get off on Blacked? The production is great and the chicks are elite but honestly the dudes dicks are way too big. The fucking and blowjobs are really really slow and barely half the dick even goes in. Whether I'm self-inserting as the guy or the girl, I just can't get into it. Waste.

File: Screenshot-2016-05-27-05.18.38.jpg (40KB, 918x750px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 918x750px

>A ton of factors influence strength beyond muscle size and skill with the movements used to test strength. The strength of individual muscle fibers, normalized muscle force, muscle moment arms, and body proportions can all have significant, independent effects on strength.
>Just as there’s massive variability in muscle growth – some people gaining a ton of muscle in response to training, and other people gaining very little – there’s massive variability in strength gains as well. Normalized muscle force (how strong a muscle is relative to how large it is) can increase up to 39% for some people and decrease by as much as 5% for others, in response to the exact same training program.
>Early on in training, there’s a very weak relationship between gains in muscle and gains in strength. Gains in muscle mass may explain as little as 2% of the variation in strength gains for new lifters.
>For more experienced lifters, gains in muscle mass may explain up to 65%+ of the variability in strength gains, highlighting hypertrophy as a key factor for strength gains in trained lifters.
>Training style has a big impact on the ratio of strength you gain relative to size, with heavier training generally producing larger gains in strength.
http://strengtheory.com/size-vs-strength/

How much variability is there for getting jacked?
The short answer: A lot.
>Before training, about 80% of the total lean mass differences between people can be explained by genetic differences.
>Of course, lean mass scales with height and weight (both of which are also strongly genetically influenced), but even after controlling for height and weight, genetics still explain about half of the variation in lean mass relative to body size.
>Other factors related to performance are strongly influenced genetically as well. Height and skeletal structure are, obviously, and about 45% of muscle fiber type distribution seems to be explained by genetic factors (and the non-genetic influences primarily occur during early childhood, which you also don’t have much control over).
>In one study, 585 people trained their non-dominant arm for 12 weeks. The study involved 6 sets of curls and triceps extensions, building from 12rm loads to 6rm loads over the course of the study (linear periodization).
>It wasn’t explicitly stated, but I’m assuming the training sessions were only once per week.
>On average, the participants’ biceps got about 19% bigger and their 1rm biceps curl increased by about 54%.

>However, the range of responses was huge. >Several people’s biceps actually got slightly smaller (even though they were untrained at the start of the study), while one person’s got 59.3% larger.
>The variability in strength gains was even larger, from several people not gaining any strength at all, to one person increasing their 1rm biceps curl by 250%.
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/genetics-and-strength-training-just-different/

File: Extreme-Responder.png (52KB, 916x986px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 916x986px

>1. ton of factors influence strength beyond muscle size and skill with the movements used to test strength. The strength of individual muscle fibers, normalized muscle force, muscle moment arms, and body proportions can all have significant, independent effects on strength.
2. Just as there’s massive variability in muscle growth – some people gaining a ton of muscle in response to training, and other people gaining very little – there’s massive variability in strength gains as well. Normalized muscle force (how strong a muscle is relative to how large it is) can increase up to 39% for some people and decrease by as much as 5% for others, in response to the exact same training program.
3. Early on in training, there’s a very weak relationship between gains in muscle and gains in strength. Gains in muscle mass may explain as little as 2% of the variation in strength gains for new lifters.
4.For more experienced lifters, gains in muscle mass may explain up to 65%+ of the variability in strength gains, highlighting hypertrophy as a key factor for strength gains in trained lifters.
5. Training style has a big impact on the ratio of strength you gain relative to size, with heavier training generally producing larger gains in strength.

>>41612148
no one masturbates to niggers and you are a fucking cuckold with shitty threads

kill yourself

>>41613477
>>41613537
>>41613554
big if true

>>41613477
>>41613537
>>41613554
These studies are all useless because nutrition and lifestyle aren't controlled for, as well as previous exposure to physical exercise which can make gains easier.

>>41613466
literally kill yourself lad

>>41613582
Well, you already had very gifted and athletic children in your middle school teams. Same training, yet vast differences in athleticism.
A lot has to do with neuromuscular efficiency - how quickly and efficiently your nervous system can recruit muscle fibers. One way to measure this is through vertical jump, high vertical jump usually means a person has good natural athleticism in this sense. Then there are other genetic factors like hand-eye coordination, anthropometry. Why have all top tier powerlifter barrel chests? Why have olympic weightlifting champions short femurs relative to their torso length? Why are ALL rugby and NFL players robust, wide-framed, strong as fuck. Do you think its a coincidence that most swimmers have very long wingspans? Do you think Phelps would be record gold medal winner had his wing span and torso not been as freakishly long?
All children start playing sports, yet only a select few make it to the absolute top. At that point, training hard is a given. There are more factors. Determination is nice and all, but at some point you can just participate.
What makes it different from gaining and maintaining muscle mass?

>>41613670
So what you are saying is?

>HUGE sample size (585 people). On the same training program, average increase in muscle cross-sectional area was 19%, but there were people with increases of 50%+. Over 1/3 of the people gained muscle at less than half the average rate, while quite a few people gained muscle at over twice the normal rate. Ditto with strength. Average increase in 1RM was 54%, but quite a few people had increases of 100%+ and a lot had increases of less than 25%.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7794282_Variability_in_muscle_size_and_strength_gain_after_unilateral_resistance_training


Also a pretty big sample (66 people). In this study, they grouped people based on how well they responded, with low responders being roughly the bottom 1/4, high responders being roughly the top 1/4, and modest responders being the middle ~half of the group. The low responders didn't have a meaningful increase in muscle fiber size, and the high responders made double the gains of the typical modest responder.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/102/6/2232.long


What are you saying? That there are no differences between humans?

Look what differences a small vs big ribcage make for benching. There are biomechanical realities that are beyond our ability to control. Some people have unfavorable tendon origins and muscle insertions, no amount of milk chugging and training your ass off will change that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EapVkFWiq_g

Focus on what you can control, advise other people to focus on what they can control, and let the results take care of themselves. But dont be delusional