• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Light days

C_T said:
no way you get hypertrophy from 1-3 reps. what you do get is hitting different muscle fibers.

and 1-3 is a specific fiber
Click to expand...
I'll let people who are much more knowledgeable than I in the field of muscular hypertrophy discuss such fine points as to whether there is or there isn't a level of muscle hypertrophy due to ultra low rep training. My point is this: Olympic weightlifters belong to a sport that does not feature muscle hypertrophy on any of its training radars. What it features and focuses its attention on is the improvement of the lifter's neuromuscular efficiency above and beyond any other factor. It's this NME that would allow the weightlifter to activate and recruit the maximum amount of muscle fibers as possible, in the shortest amount of time possible.

I've previously made mention of the strength and power that a chimpanzee monkey has, and the reason behind such strength from an animal that has never visited a gym once or lifted any barbell whilst living in some zoo. The "secret" to this animal's strength lies in his ability to activate and recruit all his muscles at once at any given moment in time. We humans are a finely tuned machine, where we can manage to perform a super delicate task as the threading of a needle, and we can also lift huge weights when we train for it. The chimp lacks this fine tuning, hence his all or nothing muscular recruitment is what separates his strength and power from ours.
 
Last edited:
Fadi said:
I'll let people who are much more knowledgeable than I in the field of muscular hypertrophy discuss such fine points as to whether there is or there isn't a level of muscle hypertrophy due to ultra low rep training. My point is this: Olympic weightlifters belong to a sport that does not feature muscle hypertrophy on any of its training radars. What it features and focuses its attention on is the improvement of the lifter's neuromuscular efficiency above and beyond any other factor. It's this NME that would allow the weightlifter to activate and recruit the maximum amount of muscle fibers as possible, in the shortest amount of time possible.

I've previously made mention of the strength and power that a chimpanzee monkey has, and the reason behind such strength from an animal that has never visited a gym once or lifted any barbell whilst living in some zoo. The "secret" to this animal's strength lies in his ability to activate and recruit all his muscles at once at any given moment in time. We humans are a finely tuned machine, where we can manage to perform a super delicate task as the threading of a needle, and we can also lift huge weights when we train for it. The chimp lacks this fine tuning, hence his all or nothing muscular recruitment is what separates his strength and power from ours.
Click to expand...

and how exactly do you separate powerlifting to olympic weighlifting???

you do reaslise they are one and the same, except the lifts are different, its exactly the same goal. right?! and i totally agree fadi.
 
Last edited:
C_T said:
and how exactly do you separate powerlifting to olympic weighlifting???

you do reaslise they are one and the same, except the lifts are different, its exactly the same goal. right?!
Click to expand...

When you sober up read that post again and you will see how retarded it is.
 
0ni said:
You're comparing a heavyweight bodybuilder with a middleweight weightlifer.
Compare people in the same class.
Click to expand...

Can't you see, they do not exist! An Olympic weightlifter standing at 164 cm tall does not weigh 100kg...., Lee the muscle machine weighs in excess of 100 kg in off season, and looks mighty sharp as a "light" 100kg with muscles bursting at the seams. Here's one of (if not) your own favourite Olympic weightlifter: Klokov...a lifter in the 105 kg class.

klokov[1].jpg

458959142[1].jpg

Chigishev&Tom[1].jpg
Evgeny Chigishev, Russian superheavyweight

Big Ramy 1[1].jpg

Mustafa_Mohammad20115-1[1].jpg

Take home message: bodybuilders have the bigger legs because their sport focuses on muscle development above and beyond the neuromuscular efficiency the Olympic weightlifters focus on. Please do not ask me to provide you with people with the same exact height now OK...., they do not exist, I'm one of the proofs that they do not exist.
 
You're just picking images of people that are fat lol
There are plenty of examples of weightlifters who's quad mass rivals lightweight bodybuilders

d6.jpg


13e2a-1410872951_ca638df82d_o.jpg
 
Darkoz said:
0ni, you had your shit together, don't blow it now
Click to expand...

No, fuck it. I'm going all out here
These are drug tested athletes with ridiculous leg development and are being compared against guys who vastly outweigh them with a free for all drug stack

Volume is what matters, not the number of reps you do per set. There is no "bodybuilder" style of training. There have been successful bodybuilders with every training style. The notion that you need to do more than 5 reps per set to grow is retarded in the true sense of the word (undeveloped)

I've been doing nothing but low rep, heavy high volume training for almost 5 years now. I don't do more because I don't like it, I don't enjoy it but it hasn't seemed to harm me. There is zero evidence that simply doing more reps per set gives more hypertrophy and that goes for both clinical and empirical. There are so many examples of people getting great results with every style of training. I've never done a single trap exercise for more than 5 reps, ever, in the history of my training. My legs are growing currently doing sets of 2. The volume is high, the food is decent, the growth is going to happen
 
0ni said:
Volume is what matters, not the number of reps you do per set.
Click to expand...
I perfectly understand what the word volume means. And rather than ask you what your understanding of it is, I'll let your words explain it here...

I've been doing nothing but low rep, heavy high volume training for almost 5 years now.
Click to expand...
And again here...

My legs are growing currently doing sets of 2. The volume is high
Click to expand...
I also understand what the word "high" means when it's relating to the parameters of reps, sets, volume, and intensity. So just to see if we're on the same page here, I put it to you that you're doing about 12x2 on legs, correct? That's heavy (90% of your 1RM), and "high" as in high volume, tells me that your total reps are in the vicinity of 25..., correct?

So are you telling us that you train using a high volume of repetitions equaling to about 25 reps at 90% of your 1RM...., and that's how you've been training for the past 5 years?
 
Repacked said:
Whattabout the cyclists...?
Click to expand...


XFTHjyW.jpg




0ni was one of Australia's top Amateur Cyclists before turning to Powerlifting.


But @0ni; is right, in that it is just about VOLUME. Except, you couldn't get the same Volume doing 3 x 10 as 30 x 1, coz eventually those singles would become pink dumbells or very very light weights which wouldn't have any effect on Hypertrophy. But, as long as you're doing 3 x 10 or 10 x 3 = same Hypertrophy. Just greater strength with the 10 x 3.
 
Last edited:
Repacked said:
Whattabout the cyclists...?
Click to expand...

A lot of short memories on this forum. [MENTION=8399]0ni[/MENTION]; has ridden against some of best Cyclists the World has seen. In 2009 Lance Armstrong rode in the Tour Down Under in Adelaide against 0ni. I suspect Armstrong only beat 0ni due to the gear he (Armstrong) was on. 0ni was also competitive in Australian Tours Road Racing against such great Cyclists such as Miguel Indurain and Cadel Evans. Remembering that these guys were probably on a lot of gear at the time.
 
Some people would get platz legs just by walking out to get the mail. For every monster quad lifter there is a chicken legged lifter who can lift the same weight.
 
0ni said:
No, fuck it. I'm going all out here
These are drug tested athletes with ridiculous leg development and are being compared against guys who vastly outweigh them with a free for all drug stack

Volume is what matters, not the number of reps you do per set. There is no "bodybuilder" style of training. There have been successful bodybuilders with every training style. The notion that you need to do more than 5 reps per set to grow is retarded in the true sense of the word (undeveloped)
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Big dudes (mostly) are BIG in spite of what protocol used.

Not because of it.

it boils down to the size of ones muscle belly versus tendon length and insertion point.
and most importantly, fibre type.

and and most importantly, how hard the bitch works out.

and and and the GH and the steroids and other chemicals i cannot spell or pronounce.
 
again, I hate conversations about genetics, bleeding obvious what will be will be, and adds nothing to debate about how to train. whatever one's genes, still of interest how best to train to get goals.
 
My hamstrings insert half way down my thighs
No surprises why I'm good at squatting, deadlifting and cycling

+ a good work ethic
 
Oni, just how good were you at cycling?. could you send me a link to your results? I have never found anything.

most interested in times for distances rather than places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top