Why even lift anymore????

>>42197472
>bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass
damn, who would've tought?

File: izlee.jpg (90KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 480x640px

>>42197472

> bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass

really makes you think

>could not lift 200lbs over my head before bodybuilding
>can now lift 200lbs over my head because of bodybuilding
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB

>>42197472
>Body builders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass
>scientists are only educated because they've had so much education
>bankers are only rich because they have so much money
>people are only overweight because they have so much weight

>>42197472
>bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass
This has to be satire. It surely must be.

>>42197472
we had this exact meme thread a week or so ago

t. jaden smith

File: 523e6894dd71fbc4f7d037bf8f30a450.jpg (43KB, 500x718px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x718px

>>42197472
What about sissies?

File: thonking.png (15KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x200px

>>42197472
>bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass

read the article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html

its actually pretty interesting

basically saying that pound for pound normies and power athletes are stronger than people who only train for size (e.g. bodybuilders)

>>42197743
>basically saying that pound for pound normies and power athletes are stronger than people who only train for size (e.g. bodybuilders)
THIS ISN'T ANY KIND OF BREAKING NEWS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>42197765

may seem counter-intuitive to the average person who doesn't lift or play sports

also pretty good evidence for the size =/= strength meme

>>42197743
shit makes no sense why are they only measuring a gram of thigh muscle? gay af ill rek any dyel pussy any time

File: 1499707718516.jpg (95KB, 493x929px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 493x929px

>>42197472
This is what they actually studied:
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26388513
>
>Single muscle fibre contractile properties differ between body-builders, power athletes and control subjects.
>
>Peak power normalized for muscle fibre volume in power athletes is higher than in control subjects.
>Compared with control subjects, maximal isometric tension (normalized for muscle fibre cross-sectional area) is lower in body-builders.
>Although this difference may be caused in part by an apparent negative effect of hypertrophy, these results indicate that the training history of power athletes may increase muscle fibre quality, whereas body-building may be detrimental.

somehow this got twisted into "wimps are stronger"

>>42197819
So basically they boiled "training for hypertrophy =/= training for strength" down to "lmao bodybuilders are weak"?

>>42197815
Because biopsies are hard to do. Would you rather they just chopped off your arm in order to get better results?

>>42197472
>UK paper
The UK is sadly packed to the brim with snivelling betas and retarded liberals.

>>42197472
Tall people are only tall because they have so much skeleton

File: 1226934938435.jpg (79KB, 350x218px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 350x218px

>>42197472
>bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass

File: nWOtoVz_d.jpg (77KB, 640x667px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x667px

>>42197472
>Body builders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass
>OP is only retarded because of how much lead paint he eats.

>>42198509
>not even understanding the most basic sarcasm

>>42197743
i bet my house that i'm pound for pound stronger than any normie ever, and i'm not even a bodybuilder but i lift for size (even though i'm still getting out of dyel)

>>42198433
No, it reveals that training for size specifically makes the muscle weaker. So, despite having more and being actually stronger, your muscles have DECREASED in strength.

It's kinda interesting.

>>42197743
>Bodybuilders have proper hydration and increased intracellular water mass to help muscles grow.
Who knew?

>>42198521
>despite having more and being actually stronger, your muscles have DECREASED in strength
So how am I wrong? You become stronger/stay at a simmilar strength level but your muscles increase in size.
So let's say per kilogram of your muscle you can exert less strength than someone who'd only train for strength instead of hypertrophy, right?

It's not that you decrease in strength, it's just that strength to muscle mass ratio changes, that's nothing new.

>>42198521
Or in other words, muscle growth is greater than the relative change in strength. How is this surprising? If it stayed equal, professional bodybuilders would have the strength of gorillas.

>>42197743
Use archive for clickb8 next time:

https://archive.is/kGeFN

WHERE DO YOU WORK OUT?

File: what_is_polynomial.png (286KB, 576x682px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 576x682px

>>42198433
basically, yeah

>Irrespective of fibre type, the peak power (PP) of power athlete (PA) fibres was 58% higher than that of bodybuilder (BB) fibres (P < 0.05), whereas BB fibres, despite considerable hypertrophy, had similar PP to the control fibres

somehow this equates to "wimps are stronger than bodybuilders"