-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum 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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
The appearance of strength
Repacked
Punxsutawney resident
chocchillimango
Well-known member
canned tuna
Member
Goosey
.
At first you'd think so, I thought this also especially when he stated two months later in a weider mag; "of course i fudged the tests "
If you put in a good isometric effort at force production at 8 different points of the ROM, for example, you will produce a particular shaped strength curve, plotted on a graph.
The next day if you put in that same quality of effort, you will see the exact same shape. Now, you may not reach all the same numbers (maybe you can produce 10 pounds more torque at one point the second day than you did the first day)... but the overall shape is pretty much the same.
If you were to fake it, you would have to know how much to fake it at every point on the graph in order to produce the same 'off' strength curve from one day to the next.
In Hatfield's case, he produced the SAME shaped strength curve, and the force production at each point in each curve were very much spot on.
Yes, the guy squatted over 500kg's, but he had a super wide stance, had a lot of lean over, and used a lot of glutes to get that load up.
I think that if he had of done specific higher rep work from time to time he could of squatted more? maybe not I'm not sure as his squatting style was more glute ham dominant anyway, I have really no idea.
what it does does mean though is fibre type ratios should be factored in and because it is difficult to near impossible to determine the % we must use a combination of rep numbers .
Repacked
Punxsutawney resident
Goosey
.
Jungnaut
YOLO Kunce
I think the reality of that statement means that we all have a genetic potential/ceiling but most if not all of us exist way below that if we are talking about hypertrophy and strength. That doesn't stop us from trying to get there though (with or without chemical assistance).
Jungnaut
YOLO Kunce
why hell yeah, it's not like we have any world record beating aspirations around here.
I do like pushing my body (and mind) to the limit though, doing the things I enjoy.
C_T
Kunce of the Year 2015
your muscsle fibres will be from environment (training) and adaptation of what you've been doing the last 10yrs, not what you were born with. its not written in stone, it changes with exposures to certain types of training. is that our genetics changing? epigenetics maybe.
Goosey
.
This is basic, so that it can be understood;
We are born with a set ratio (cannot be changed) or percentage of fast and slow twitch fibers in a particular muscle, out of the thousands of muscles supporting the skeleton and circulation the % of fast and slow twitch fibers will differ not only from one person to the next but from one muscle to the next of an individual.
The reality is, genetics play a huge role, and it is not just one thing, others factor include muscle belly size;
The calf muscles contribute little or nothing to either running or jumping, serve primarily as shock absorbers; you
cannot jump high enough to even get your feet off the floor while using only your calf muscles.
When running you first throw your lower leg out in front of you, using the quadriceps muscles (the front of the thighs) and the hip flexors, and
the calf muscles contribute absolutely nothing to that movement.
Then, when the involved foot is planted on the ground in front of you, the body is pulled forward towards the planted foot, that part of the movement being performed
primarily by the muscles of the buttocks, again with no meaningful contribution of the calf muscles.
Thus an increase in size, and the weight, of the calf muscles would make it harder for you to throw the lower leg as far
or as fast as you could with smaller calf muscles. So you would be slower rather than faster.
C_T
Kunce of the Year 2015
really? the foot does nothing?
Well maybe you need to listen to Nick Curson on joe rogans podcast, his str and conditioning is based on russian performance (yes scientific studies), and one important part was how much the foot plays in everything, for eg he said olympic weighlifters use more force through of the foot than any other muscle. (edit, their feet nearly leave the ground, on the ball of the foot not flat footed)
i think your talking shit about jumping has nothing to do with the foot, if your flat footed you won't jump, the idea is to spring from the front of your foot, then lift your knees, not the knee makes you jump...
and like manny pac, huge calves, VERY good footwork, very fast, always on the ball of the foot not the heels. foot strenght is HUGE in performance!
Last edited:
Repacked
Punxsutawney resident
But the Soleus is primarily utilised in plantar flexion which is an integral part of running and juping...
spartacus
Well-known member
having been involved in athletics for 35 years, I can say with some confidence that calves are important in running and jumping.
http://www.insane-athletics.com/blo...e-one-leg-jump-part-v-what-does-the-calf-say/
http://www.insane-athletics.com/blo...e-one-leg-jump-part-v-what-does-the-calf-say/
Grunta
Packing a Huge Member
For BBing, I always thought of genetic potential in a simpler way.
As an example take a look at the biceps of two separate kunce:
Kunce A was born with 200k muscle fibres in his biceps
Kunce B was born with 400k muscle fibres in his biceps
BBing can only increase the size of fibres we already have, cannot increase the qty of them.
So even in the unlikely event of kunce A and Kunce B grow the size of their fibres at the same rate, which kunce will end end up with the bigger gunz?
The kunce that increased 400k fibres by 50% or the kunce that increased 200k fibres by 50%?
Another Q, why do we have extremely hot and and extremely ugly chicks?
Beauty creams? Doubt it!
It's the genes Kunce.
As an example take a look at the biceps of two separate kunce:
Kunce A was born with 200k muscle fibres in his biceps
Kunce B was born with 400k muscle fibres in his biceps
BBing can only increase the size of fibres we already have, cannot increase the qty of them.
So even in the unlikely event of kunce A and Kunce B grow the size of their fibres at the same rate, which kunce will end end up with the bigger gunz?
The kunce that increased 400k fibres by 50% or the kunce that increased 200k fibres by 50%?
Another Q, why do we have extremely hot and and extremely ugly chicks?
Beauty creams? Doubt it!
It's the genes Kunce.