Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
mattdaly

bodybuilders v gymnasts

Recommended Posts

Nic Branson

Just a little something to think about with the 5 lbs dumbbell. Some of the strongmen seen using these a lot had already built their physique and strength and used the 5lbs to maintain and be healthy. Their performances took care of the heavy loads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
Also, don't you think you are being a bit silly saying that whatever (3) is is "common sense?" If it were common sense then you wouldn't have to keep it a secret because it would be common knowledge already among scientists and trainers.

Just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to be noticed.

I'm really into Assassin's Creed gameplay (in-depth stuff, glitching, stunts, that type of stuff) and there is still SO MUCH to be found within the first game, which came out years ago. It's amazing what you can find. And people have spent a lot of time on it. It's just that before some things to be common sense, you have to have the right tools. Like last year, a guy named Aurel discovered a way to break scene barriers and to get your character in the scene, which shouldn't be possible. It then was common sense for me to break OUT of the scene, rather than in, but hadn't Aurel's exploit been there, I would've never thought of it. It lead to a

too, unofficial world record. But I'm going on a tangent here.

Common sense/logical =/= known

Common sense is not the same thing as whatever is logical. I'll accept that it might be something which follows simply and obviously and hence almost everyone with knowledge of the set of facts will deduce once they become aware of the particular set of facts/circumstances, even if those original facts were hard to come by. That's seems what you are saying with your Assassins Creed example.

Since most people with detailed knowledge of sarcomere anatomy probably haven't deduced the mysterious (3), it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for common sense. It requires an UNCOMMON sense to realize the truth.

It's kind of like a super math genius who figures out some complicated proof with ease that hardly anyone else can. Because he can figure it out with ease he thinks it's merely common sense, because he is so far out of touch with the normal range of math ability he has a skewed perspective.

Basically, Josh is implying that he is a super anatomy genius that has uncommon insights into the muscle physiology. Since he's a super genius he's totally out of touch with what even other experts are capable of figuring out, he thinks it's all just a bunch of "common sense."

Let me say that I'm not trying to start a flame war over this, so it's probably best just to drop this particular discussion point. I won't comment on it any further.

It is commonly known, as a matter of fact. I would guess that at least 30% of our regulars have all the requisite knowledge.

Once heard, it actually is very literally something that we all should have noticed from the start.

If there is anything uncommon, it is perhaps my penchant to integrate knowledge and see the connections. I tend to have a fair amount of fun conversations with our professors that get us all fairly excited and intrigued, but there are still lots of unanswered questions.

Also, as it so happens, I'm fairly intelligent on a raw basis.

As for the experts, they have all figured out many different things that none of the others did. Without the access to the internet and thus enormous volumes of information I would be unable to put together the things that I have, just like so many of our researchers. That's the best part of this field: We literally build upon one another, and there are always refinements and integrations that make huge amounts of sense once we see them in print, but we never put them together ourselves. Many of us have those moments.

Nic, of course, makes an excellent point that is steadfastly ignored by the guys touting the superiority of just the light weights.

The strongmen routinely performed 6-7 days per week, and their daily (sometimes twice daily) performances involved great feats of strength. That's what we'd call high frequency, low volume training today.

That took care of the high end strength. The light dumbbells allow you to cover other aspects of fitness that can't be done with heavy weights. Together they make an interesting system that isn't all that different conceptually from our common theme here: Strength training and prehab together make a potent mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman

This is actually an interesting topic that delved into a lot of interesting physiology.

I just wrote a pretty out-of-the-box reply that I mostly deleted, simply because A) it goes against some commonly accepted ideas while not conflicting with the underlying physiological mechanisms, B) is probably pretty commercially viable and I am tired of these lurkers stealing my ideas and selling them... I'd rather take the time and develop them as GB stuff if possible.

And C) there is always the possibility that people will go do something stupid with what I post, because I just can't write a whole book here.

(hopes no one brings up my penchant for writing what could be called short books on a regular basis)

Seriously though, in a few words:

1) Orderly rate of recruitment due to fatigue

2) Response to ischemia

3) :) Can't tell you this one, but it's common sense if you have detailed knowledge of sarcomere anatomy and a few other things.

(1) and (2) are not sufficient to cause hypertrophy, otherwise running marathons to exhaustion would cause hypertrophy.

I'm sure you're familiar with the recent study that used 30% of 1RM to failure and found that it caused hypertrophy. But the problem was that there was no increase in strength. If a person can curl a 70 pound dumbbell for 1 rep, then 5lbs. would only be 7% of max.

Also, don't you think you are being a bit silly saying that whatever (3) is is "common sense?" If it were common sense then you wouldn't have to keep it a secret because it would be common knowledge already among scientists and trainers.

You are currently staring the answer in the face with a blind eye, but I think you can find it.

Refine your current statements and try to deconstruct your argument! Everything has parameters that make the statement both true and false, depending on the parameters.

The moment of discovery is much more fun than the moment someone else tells you.

As an aside, look up Kaatsu training.

Is this what you are referring to?

http://exercisescience.tumblr.com/post/21851286671/resistance-exercise-load-does-not-determine

If so, there was nearly identical hypertrophic response from the 30% to failure x 3 sets, the 80% to failure x 3 sets, and the 80% x 1 set group. The 3 set groups had a better average response, apparently.

Results: After 10 weeks of training, quadriceps muscle volume increased significantly in all groups and average type I and type II muscle fiber area increased with training (irrespective of training condition with no significant differences between groups). All three groups also increased their 1RM but it was increased greatest in the 80%-1 & 80%-3 groups. Total work that could be completed with 80% of the subect’s 1RM increased in all groups and the number of reps that could be performed with 80% of their current 1RM increased in all groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vagabond

If the antagonists are relaxed, then they have to be doing static contractions at the extremity of the range of the muscle contraction. Like, if I do that with my bicep, my arm will bend and I will only be able to contract it with my antagonist relatively off at the end of the range. I sometimes did that too. I thought of it in a dream in which it was called "the technique of pure pain", cause if I focused hard enough, a short duration contraction (less than 10 seconds, more like 5-6 seconds) could make me sore for several days. I tested it in real like, and it had that effect. After that, I'm not sure how to use it effectively, and I think an external resistance you cannot overcome should be used for maximal isometric contractions. Otherwise, you need something to prevent your limb from moving, either something mechanical (very heavy weight, chain, or muscles at the end of the range), or the antagonists.

And also, I think having both contracted is good for joint stability and is also useful to practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman

Sigh. :facepalm:

The study from my previous post, like many, is about results from novices. This will not generalize to the trained population 100%.

I have noticed better trap, external rotator, and calf growth as well as strength and muscle control than I've noticed in a long time... maybe ever.

Of course I'm just one guy but I am noticing better results, am able to target weak points, and am able to work on specific skills like handstand bodyline and pressing without large loads (which hurt and for whatever reason my body didn't like very much). Is it perfect replication of handstand pressing? No, but I have noticeably better partial presses and much more control during negatives.

I also just got an arthrogram and MRI, and while I have zero labral damage I DO have tendinosis of the right supraspinatus and infraspinatus. I also have some long-term inflammation of the sub-deltoid bursa. This all explains the extreme weakness of my right shoulder vs my left, and the difficulty I have with a number of exercises once I hit a certain loading point. The lighter work lets me perform quite a lot more volume with perfect form and proper muscle recruitment, which is a really big deal.

It should be immediately obvious that the SAID principle still applies, and that you will still want to do some heavy lifting so that your body incorporates the new mass into the movements you want to get better at. CNS still has to be trained, and lord knows that 30% loading or less is not going to teach any synchronicity of recruitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic Branson

Do some research on neural patterning and recruitment. Always think of training movements not muscles.

I hear ya on the tendonitis and bursitis issues. Was a time I couldn't even lift my right arm without spots of excruciating pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
Do some research on neural patterning and recruitment. Always think of training movements not muscles.

I hear ya on the tendonitis and bursitis issues. Was a time I couldn't even lift my right arm without spots of excruciating pain.

For people with enough background I think they need to think of both training movements and muscle, because the way you develop strength at the tissue level isn't the way you train your body to use the tissue you have built (which is what we generally think of as strength).

Both can definitely be done with the same movements, but occasionally it is useful to literally just train the muscle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic Branson

I agree. I just always keep the focus on the movement. Maintaining that quality, by manipulating load, reps etc...the stimulus on the tissue can be focused to the goal at the time. It's just more an issue of not wanting them to think that any sacrifice of quality movement is acceptable. Even in a warm up, cool down, higher rep setting use of poor form is detrimental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
I agree. I just always keep the focus on the movement. Maintaining that quality, by manipulating load, reps etc...the stimulus on the tissue can be focused to the goal at the time. It's just more an issue of not wanting them to think that any sacrifice of quality movement is acceptable. Even in a warm up, cool down, higher rep setting use of poor form is detrimental.

You'll never hear me argue against that! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Mallett
I agree. I just always keep the focus on the movement. Maintaining that quality, by manipulating load, reps etc...the stimulus on the tissue can be focused to the goal at the time. It's just more an issue of not wanting them to think that any sacrifice of quality movement is acceptable. Even in a warm up, cool down, higher rep setting use of poor form is detrimental.

I really like this approach, i.e. skill over conditioning, and the coach seems to stick to it pretty religiously too. In my opinion, conditioning bad skill (for example, a weightlifter who can press a large weight, but the neuromuscular involvement is very inefficient) can lead to pretty severe problems down the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vagabond

Cough crossfit cough! (Sorry, I'm trolling, but talking about conditioning poor movement quality...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Naterman
I agree. I just always keep the focus on the movement. Maintaining that quality, by manipulating load, reps etc...the stimulus on the tissue can be focused to the goal at the time. It's just more an issue of not wanting them to think that any sacrifice of quality movement is acceptable. Even in a warm up, cool down, higher rep setting use of poor form is detrimental.

I really like this approach, i.e. skill over conditioning, and the coach seems to stick to it pretty religiously too. In my opinion, conditioning bad skill (for example, a weightlifter who can press a large weight, but the neuromuscular involvement is very inefficient) can lead to pretty severe problems down the track.

Definitely! The last thing you want to do is to become stronger in a dysfunctional position. All that lets you do is apply more force to an already injury-prone area, which makes it progressively more likely to actually get hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailor Venus

I haven't read the other posts apart from the first post.

I used to do weight lifting/body building thing during my football years. My purpose of lifting weights was to be stronger and bigger so I can make big tackles, blocking other people, withstand being tackled/blocked without injury and blitzing. Even after lifting weights for years I still weigh 141 pounds (from the beginning to the end of my football career!) lol, probably cuz my high metabolism burns everything so no hypertrophy but I don't care anymore.

When I learned about gymnastic conditioning from reading stuff on this site and elsewhere on the internet and books, its a wholly different world to body building/weightlifting. After quitting football I threw away my weightlifting plan and replaced it with gymnastics training and make it my main sport.

Gymnastic conditioning enables us to:

support our bodyweight through many static positions like handstands and levers

jump higher

rebound higher

develop certain strength to allow us to do skills such as flairs

have flexible limbs

blocking/punching

use apparatus more effectively such as high bars

weightlifting/bodybuilding enables us to:

develop bigger muscles and get huge

show off at exhibitions

help to engage in aggressive/violent sports like football, wrestling, rugby, boxing, etc

scare people with your size (useful if you're a bodyguard or a doorman at a nightclub)

Many more can be added to both lists. Equipment wise, bodybuilders/weightlifters obviously use dumbells and barbells and machines like lat pull down machines. And gymnasts use apparatus like the high bar to do leg lifts or pull ups and use the parallels to do dips. Gymnasts also use resistance bands, exercise wheels and many more.

I favour gymnastic conditioning cuz it enables me to develop strength relevant for tumbling, do stuff like press handstands, and play on the apparatus so I can do kips, giants, pirouettes, etc. Plus it gives you a natural look unlike guys with the Incredible Hulk physique. I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blairbob

I haven't seen Jeff post in quite a bit of time so I'll try to pretend to say something he would.

It all gets down to...

Do you want to wear a bikini and spray tan and flex on a stage with other men for a crowd or...

Do you want to wear a leotard and do cool stuff.

Bikinis or leotards rides up your butt just the same. Both show your junk to some degree as do tight athletic pants. Girls wear both for dancing and modeling in.

At least the aerobic competitions do the flexing and dance around and do some floor stuff. Less foo-foo than Men's rhythmic dancing. Right there with Men's Ice Skating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailor Venus

Do you want to wear a leotard and do cool stuff.

Since this is a gymnastics forum everyone's gonna select this option. Tumbling down a tumble track/exercise floor and swinging around on bars/rings is more exciting and fun than standing on stage flexing those bloody muscles pretending to be Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Larry Roseman

One does need to keep one's ego in check with gymnastics work - or it is constantly being deflated - the net result

is the same: some humility. At the same time, it's silly to say that there isn't a vanity aspect to gymnastics enthusiasts

, whether to look good in the mirror, impress girls at the beach with one arm handstands, or even meet the

ideal of perfection for a gymnastic move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blairbob

Well I know for a fact that in the gym most of the girls want to check out the book mainly because it has a bare chested buff guy on the cover.

Seriously, stop waxing your chest and get a man patch. ZANGIEF!

OTOH, flags are good for impressing chicks. Standing backs not much in a gym but many gymnasts still won't be able to do flags so instant win. And by instant win, I mean it gets their attention and you just have to have some personality to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dzejkej
BBs are simply addicts of hypertrophy, it's a disease.

I'm not a fan of BB physique, but I think those are pretty strong words.

For you going for maximum muscle hypertrophy is a disease, for somebody else spending a long time each morning putting make-up may be disease too, or spending money on breast implants, botox, etc.

What about people who are strength or endurance addicts? :)

I don't like the word 'disease' in this context :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blairbob

I agree with everything but breast implants. There are the women post breast cancer and some women just get a bad draw in life and don't get blessed to any degree. As well, pregnancy can deflate them and that sucks too.

Of course, it's laughable on the bodybuilding chics who get them because they cut their bodyfat so much. Dumb.

Some plastic surgery is pretty useful. Especially nose jobs. Some gals just get the worse honkers ever. One of my friend did though a few months ago she was pondering breast implants. Of course, she would be super hot if they adjusted her hot so she wouldn't look like Big Bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vincent Stoyas

I've been going to a standard commercial gym and I always bring my rings and do my WODs there.

3-4 weeks of continuous going and I noticed that many people there that usually show up at the same time as me started incorporating pull ups into their routine. A couple of them could manage some and I saw a few others start up on the assisted pull up machine. I'd like to think that's because they saw my workouts. I think many people are just uninformed and unaware of proper workouts. The first 3-4 weeks I was the only one doing pull ups besides this super ripped guy that wasn't doing standard bodybuilding anyways.

You're right though, there's not even a dang straight pull up bar in this gym. The squat racks and such have little handles that stick out at all sorts of odd angles, I was frustrated that I couldn't even do a simple chin up on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blairbob

Most globogyms are just mixtures of people who only know what they read in the latest Muscle&Fitness. I did come across a few at Berkeley that knew and were doing StartingStrength. There was 1 aspiring PowerLifter who was using the Conjugate System.

But the majority of people don't know WTF to do. Sometimes there are some intro classes that go over the basics or machines. It's really free for all. Noobs watch other people do and it just perpetuates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Larry Roseman

The greek roots of the word hypertrophy mean "excessive" + "growth" or "nourishment"

Like hypertension, hyperactivity, hyperthyroidism, hypergonadism... not "normal".

Not sure why the word was chosen though since even in those early days visible muscles were considered attractive.

Perhaps they were referring to bodybuilding.com!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blairbob

Btw, let's face it. Bodybuilding is about ego and narcissism. It's what it is rooted in. It almost starts healthy by watching nutrition and working out and just goes off the deepend. I much prefer the old days where Bodybuilding and Strength Feats were hand in hand. We don't even have to go back into the days of Sandow for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dzejkej
Bodybuilding is about ego and narcissism.

That reminds me of the quote by Mark Rippetoe:

...bodybuilding is men on a stage in their underwear wearing brown paint showing other men their muscles. It is training for appearance only, and at the contest level requires a degree of vanity, narcissism, and self-absorption that I find distasteful and odd.

He is definitely not a very big fan of bodybuilding :lol: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blairbob

Yep, my opinion in that regard lands myself in Mark's camp. I don't read StartingStrength.com as much as I used to, especially as I tend to lean to Pendlay's camp, but I do vibe with quite a bit of musings and old articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Please review our Privacy Policy at Privacy Policy before using the forums.