Strength to Bodyweight ratio

[Teufel]

////

[Zeff]

Heavy weights, low reps.

[Chase]

cut n bulk

Im just gonna assume you mean bodyfat instead of bodyweight

[Teufel]

cut n bulk

Im just gonna assume you mean bodyfat instead of bodyweight

No, exactly what i said, gaining the most strength and the least weight.

[chicanerous]

Focusing on strength and power, while controlling diet.

[compleks]

The End.

[Steve]

man that was difficult

[Teufel]

My point is, how are many world class male gymnasts stronger than the heavy bodybuilders when they are much lighter? I was looking for a more specific and in depth answer

[chicanerous]

My point is, how are many world class male gymnasts stronger than the heavy bodybuilders when they are much lighter? I was looking for a more specific and in depth answer
That comparison makes no sense. Heavy elite bodybuilders use anabolics and other drugs in order to increase muscle mass beyond the natural "limit" for their frame. They are also much taller than the average elite gymnast. Most importantly, the two have different goals. The heavy bodybuilder desires to be heavy and does not care if he is strong, while the gymnast desires to be light and strong.

If you compare elite "natural" bodybuilders to elite gymnasts (who are supposedly "natural" as well, tee he he) of comparable heights, their bodyweight would be close to the same and their level of strength on non-skill-based exercises (i.e. not planches, crosses, etc.) would be similar. The gymnast would have an advantage on upper body exercises, especially overhead pressing and pulling, but this would be mitigated by poorer performance on leg-orientated exercises such as squats and deadlifts. However, the gymnast would excel at gymnastic exercises because, obviously, he has trained all his life to excel at them, while the bodybuilder would have trouble even with the basics because, obviously, he has never trained for them in his life. Likewise, on the bodybuilding stage, the bodybuilder would excel, while the gymnast would do poorly.

So, we have four facts: 1) not everyone trains to be strong and, consequently, they do not achieve high levels of absolute strength; 2) not everyone trains to remain light and, consequently, they do not achieve high levels of relative strength; 3) having muscle mass indicates the presence of strength, but does not indicate the degree; 4) strength is specific to its application. In other words, to sum up the first three, if you train to get big, you will get strong, but, if you train to get strong, you will be stronger.

[Zeff]

My point is, how are many world class male gymnasts stronger than the heavy bodybuilders when they are much lighter? I was looking for a more specific and in depth answer

Then maybe you should use Google instead of expecting us to cater to your every need.

[Trickstar]

2 Reps of 3 set @ 90% lift.

[Steve]

All you really have to do is think for 2 seconds and you realize why smaller muscles can still have the same strength as larger ones. (Assuming you're not a pant-soiling retard)

Harder flexion of a muscle means more force, and more force means more strength. I have a feeling you're trying to think of it in terms of F = MA, which is an utter mistake of course because muscles are cords, not bodies, and joints are levers.

[Teufel]

All you really have to do is think for 2 seconds and you realize why smaller muscles can still have the same strength as larger ones. (Assuming you're not a pant-soiling retard)

Yeah because I was asking why, not how to go about training with my specified goal.

Thanks to everyone else though.

[Steve]

Everyone gave you wrong (or incomplete) answers though

[Steve]

Thanks guys, that was really helpful

[Steve]

*proceeds to do nothing*

[Steve]

To increase your strength, practice flexing harder using high intensity muscular exercises, and to drop weight, run a caloric deficiency with more emphasis on calories from fat and protein and less on carbohydrates. Hint: you will need to incorporate more than just "heavy weights, low reps" to meet your body composition goals.

Die.

[Felipe]

See my posts on THIS LINK (http://www.trickstutorials.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33607)

Ceck Ceck this for lots of info on your question (http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/publications/technique/1996/8/strength-training.html)

[Kitosho]

Just eat nothing but meat, smoke a lot, and do nothing but heavy deadlift doubles.
:good:

[Steve]

oh yes and "heavy deadlifts"

[Kitosho]

eeee

[Teufel]

See my posts on THIS LINK (http://www.trickstutorials.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33607)

Ceck Ceck this for lots of info on your question (http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/publications/technique/1996/8/strength-training.html)

Thank you so much for the second link! It was the exact info i was looking for.

And your thread actually sparked my question. Thanks again

[chicanerous]

Thank you so much for the second link! It was the exact info i was looking for.
Here is a summary of that second link:

Focusing on strength and power, while controlling diet.

:smile:

Also, this statement from that article is blatantly false:

In one particular case, ignorance about hypertrophy training can be potentially catastrophic. When the coach is asking the gymnast to loose weight, while having the gymnast do a muscle hypertrophy training, the gymnast is in an impossible situation. Due to the hypertrophy training, the athlete is gaining weight no matter how little she or he eats. In such a situation, disordered eating behaviors might seem to the athlete like the only solution. Muscle hypertrophy training is therefore potentially connected with eating disorders.

[Diz2007]

That comparison makes no sense. Heavy elite bodybuilders use anabolics and other drugs in order to increase muscle mass beyond the natural "limit" for their frame. They are also much taller than the average elite gymnast. Most importantly, the two have different goals. The heavy bodybuilder desires to be heavy and does not care if he is strong, while the gymnast desires to be light and strong.

If you compare elite "natural" bodybuilders to elite gymnasts (who are supposedly "natural" as well, tee he he) of comparable heights, their bodyweight would be close to the same and their level of strength on non-skill-based exercises (i.e. not planches, crosses, etc.) would be similar. The gymnast would have an advantage on upper body exercises, especially overhead pressing and pulling, but this would be mitigated by poorer performance on leg-orientated exercises such as squats and deadlifts. However, the gymnast would excel at gymnastic exercises because, obviously, he has trained all his life to excel at them, while the bodybuilder would have trouble even with the basics because, obviously, he has never trained for them in his life. Likewise, on the bodybuilding stage, the bodybuilder would excel, while the gymnast would do poorly.

So, we have four facts: 1) not everyone trains to be strong and, consequently, they do not achieve high levels of absolute strength; 2) not everyone trains to remain light and, consequently, they do not achieve high levels of relative strength; 3) having muscle mass indicates the presence of strength, but does not indicate the degree; 4) strength is specific to its application. In other words, to sum up the first three, if you train to get big, you will get strong, but, if you train to get strong, you will be stronger.
Genius Post...Bravo.

[compleks]

Due to the hypertrophy training, the athlete is gaining weight no matter how little she or he eats.
I don't think I'll bother reading the rest of the article after that statement.

[Diz2007]

While we're here,would anyone who strength trains gain any muscle/weight at all?Plus could someone briefly explain to me what happens to the muscles when you strength train?

Edit:Nobody bother putting "they get stronger"...LOLZ

Edit:the second question is not now a priority...i just read one of steve's posts that helped.:smile:

[Teufel]

Here is a summary of that second link:

Although you answered my question, you didn't help very much because I didn't know how to apply it, after reading that link, my question is answered perfectly. A 1 line summary isn't very helpful.

[Teufel]

Also, this statement from that article is blatantly false:

How? If the gymnast is fat and barely eats plus trains for hypertrophy, obviously they might lose weight but aren't we talking about elite gymnasts here? They dont have much fat to shred.. It's true based on what we're talking about...

[compleks]

While we're here,would anyone who strength trains gain any muscle/weight at all?Plus could someone briefly explain to me what happens to the muscles when you strength train?

Edit:Nobody bother putting "they get stronger"...LOLZ

Edit:the second question is not now a priority...i just read one of steve's posts that helped.:smile:
Not alot happens to the muscles. The brain and the CNS (central nervous system) become better at recruiting muscle fibers.
Your muscles are made up of many muscle fibers, just like a rope is made up of lots of smaller threads. If you are a beginner to strength training, then your brain (and CNS) hasn't yet 'learned' how to recruit all the fibers. So when you contract your muscles against a heavy force, you may only be using a small percentage of your available muscle fibers.
As you continue to strength training, your brain becomes better at recruiting more and more muscle fibers, which means that more of your muscle is contracting, therefore increasing your strength.

Although you answered my question, you didn't help very much because I didn't know how to apply it, after reading that link, my question is answered perfectly. A 1 line summary isn't very helpful.
He did help very much. Chicanerous supplied the information, you were unable to apply it.
Kind of like how IKEA provides the assembly instructions, but they don't come to your house and assemble the bed for you. Nor do the toilet paper companies wipe your ass for you.

How? If the gymnast is fat and barely eats plus trains for hypertrophy, obviously they might lose weight but aren't we talking about elite gymnasts here? They dont have much fat to shred.. It's true based on what we're talking about...
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about anymore. BUT...

Due to the hypertrophy training, the athlete is gaining weight no matter how little she or he eats.
This statement is completely false. You can only gain weight (muscle or fat) if you are eating enough calories to facilitate weight gain.

[Teufel]

This statement is completely false. You can only gain weight (muscle or fat) if you are eating enough calories to facilitate weight gain.

You're right, but nonetheless the article was extremely helpful.

He did help very much. Chicanerous supplied the information, you were unable to apply it.
Kind of like how IKEA provides the assembly instructions, but they don't come to your house and assemble the bed for you. Nor do the toilet paper companies wipe your ass for you.

That makes absolutely no sense... if you walk into your calc class and the teacher starts teaching you about somehting you dont have the backgorund to understand... they did not help you

Either way, his post was helpful to a point, but that article what exactly what I needed in order to understand the answer to my question.

[chicanerous]

How? If the gymnast is fat and barely eats plus trains for hypertrophy, obviously they might lose weight but aren't we talking about elite gymnasts here? They dont have much fat to shred.. It's true based on what we're talking about...
Training for hypertrophy does not cause an increase in bodyweight without taking in more calories than you expend. For an increase in bodyweight to happen, there must be excess "raw material" (e.g. nutrients) in order to build the tissue to account for that increase. If you are eating less calories than you expend, by definition, there is a shortage and, therefore, there is no surplus/excess, so there is no material to build that tissue to cause a net change in bodyweight.

[Teufel]

Training for hypertrophy does not cause an increase in bodyweight without taking in more calories than you expend. For an increase in bodyweight to happen, there must be excess "raw material" (e.g. nutrients) in order to build the tissue to account for that increase. If you are eating less calories than you expend, there is no excess and, thus, no material to build that tissue and, therefore, you are unable to gain bodyweight.

Yeah I wasn't thinking, I already conceded that arguement on the last page. Either way that article was a very good read. Who cares if one sentence doesn't make sense?

[chicanerous]

Yeah I wasn't thinking, I already conceded that arguement. Either way that article was a very good read. Who cares if one sentence doesn't make sense?
So, what did you learn?

[Teufel]

So, what did you learn?

Everything I wanted out of this thread due to everyones responses. Does anyone have anything else to add about the topic? (gaining the most strength with the least bodyweight increase)

[compleks]

I don't think there's anything left to add. It's fairly straight forward.

[chicanerous]

Everything I wanted out of this thread due to everyones responses. Does anyone have anything else to add about the topic? (gaining the most strength with the least bodyweight increase)
But, what did you learn!? Sum it up for any future thread reader who wants to know the answer to your question.

[Diz2007]

But, what did you learn!? Sum it up for any future thread reader who wants to know the answer to your question.
It's gone through one ear and out the other!Anyway Guys i learned a lot through this thread so your intelligence hasn't gone to waste,& if he doesn't summarize soon i will have to do it for him:smile:.

[Teufel]

Question: How do you train for maximum muscle and minimum size?

Answer:

The size of your muscle determines your potential for strength, or your absolute strength. The strength you actually can apply is called maximal strength. The (absolute strength) - (maximal strength) = strength deficit. This means the bigger muscle doesn't always mean the stronger muscle. (because a smaller muscle could have a extremely low strength deficit while a bigger muscle might have a large strength deficit

When you follow hypertrophy programs (for example: 3 sets of 8-15 bicep curls til failure) you will increase your muscle size and strength but you will also increase the strength deficit. When you follow a low reps high weight program, you decrease the strength deficit and gain minimal muscle size.

For example:



MAX GROUP: Repeated maximal strength efforts

3 sets of 3 repetitions @ 90% of 1RM
2 sets of 2 repetitions @ 95% of 1RM
2 sets of 2 repetitions @ 97% of 1RM
1 set of 1 repetition @ 100% of 1RM

Total: 18 repetitions in 8 sets with an average intensity of 94.3% of 1RM. Pauses between sets: 3 minutes
Performance of the movements: explosive contraction

This kind of program is appropriate for reducing the strength deficit.

REF GROUP: Repeated strength efforts until failure

3 sets of 12 repetitions @ 70% of 1RM

Total: 36 repetitions in 3 sets with an average intensity of 70% of 1 RM.
Pauses between sets: 2 minutes
Performance of the movements: repetitions to failure.

This kind of program is appropriate for muscle hypertrophy, increasing absolute strength, or body building.

[Rahf]

Question: How do you train for maximum muscle and minimum size?

Answer:

The size of your muscle determines your potential for strength, or your absolute strength. The strength you actually can apply is called maximal strength. The (absolute strength) - (maximal strength) = strength deficit. This means the bigger muscle doesn't always mean the stronger muscle. (because a smaller muscle could have a extremely low strength deficit while a bigger muscle might have a large strength deficit

When you follow hypertrophy programs (for example: 3 sets of 8-15 bicep curls til failure) you will increase your muscle size and strength but you will also increase the strength deficit. When you follow a low reps high weight program, you decrease the strength deficit and gain minimal muscle size.

For example:

IF you are taking in more calories than you expend. Should you eat to match your needs or maybe even below them, your body won't grow and possibly even shrink.

Muscles will not grow without energy, that energy comes from taking in more energy than it would need to stay at the same level of mass. It is probably one of the most basic things people learn.

Your reference is aimed at gymnastics btw. it will be aimed towards maximizing gymnast potential.

[Ashtar]

Strength is often really specific to whatever feat you're using to measure it.

If that's true that gymnasts are shorter on average (I think there are short bodybuilders too though) then that's an advantage since smaller creatures (even humans) naturally have an advantage in strength:weight ratios. This is why elephants suck and ants rule.

[Teufel]

IF you are taking in more calories than you expend. Should you eat to match your needs or maybe even below them, your body won't grow and possibly even shrink.

Muscles will not grow without energy, that energy comes from taking in more energy than it would need to stay at the same level of mass. It is probably one of the most basic things people learn.

I have no idea what you're point is? You're saying this is basic knowledge, thus I don't need to include it in my explanation...

Your reference is aimed at gymnastics btw. it will be aimed towards maximizing gymnast potential.

No shit. This article is obviously aimed towards that, meaning it's also aimed towards tricking (because tricking is obviously another relative strength sport just like gymnastics). And it's also aimed towards other sports because it means you can be stronger and lighter. Meaning you'll help your knees and other joints. You'll be able to be faster too, because you'll add lots of strength without trading lots of weight.

So i'm confused at what the point of your post was. Just choose what your priorities are. If you want your muscles to be bigger, than follow a hypertrophy program. If you wanna maintain a lower weight but sitll increase strength, follow a program such as the MAX program, thus decreasing your strength deficit

And if you're a gymnast/trickster who wants bigger muscles, follow a hypertrophy progrma until you reahc near your goals, and then switch to a MAX type program.

Having an extremely low strength deficit in all your muscles is an advantage in any athletic sport you can participate in..

[Teufel]

Strength is often really specific to whatever feat you're using to measure it.

If that's true that gymnasts are shorter on average (I think there are short bodybuilders too though) then that's an advantage since smaller creatures (even humans) naturally have an advantage in strength:weight ratios. This is why elephants suck and ants rule.

Yes, which is why if you want to become an extremely high level player in a sport such as tennis you need to be extremely fast (using your advantage in strength:weight ratio to offset all the disadvantages you get)

Edit: I just realized I didn't explain what I meant: this as an example that shorter athletes have the advantage of relative to their bodyweight strength, which is evident in tennis because short people need this speed advantage (every short world class tennis player is fast as lightning) to compete at the world class level due to the advantages taller athletes get in this particular sport

[griever619]

you probably won't get huge until it's too late

[Steve]

One time I accidentally dropped my pen in class and by the time I got it back up to my desk I was 300 pounds of muscle

[Crazy Max]

I have no idea what you're point is? You're saying this is basic knowledge, thus I don't need to include it in my explanation...



No shit. This article is obviously aimed towards that, meaning it's also aimed towards tricking (because tricking is obviously another relative strength sport just like gymnastics). And it's also aimed towards other sports because it means you can be stronger and lighter. Meaning you'll help your knees and other joints. You'll be able to be faster too, because you'll add lots of strength without trading lots of weight.


Just fucking stop already. Maybe if you'd stop hugging the nuts of every gymnastics coach for a second, you'd realize how fallicious your argument is.

[Teufel]

Just fucking stop already. Maybe if you'd stop hugging the nuts of every gymnastics coach for a second, you'd realize how fallicious your argument is.

I have no idea what you're talking about... all I said in that quote is that strength:bodyweight ratio is important in all sports..

[Rahf]

The point of my post was to highlight the fact that your previous post could be interpreted in the wrong way. Hypertrophy training won't do anything more than build strength unless you are on a calorie plus. It is basic knowledge for people who train, not for those who are new to training. You should always provide it in your explanation. One should always try to minimize the risk of misinterpretation. You also didn't seem to be aware of it.

Does it make sense now? The sentence about gymnasts was just a remark but it seems like that was what spurred the longest response.

[chicanerous]

Question: How do you train for maximum muscle and minimum size?

Answer:

The size of your muscle determines your potential for strength, or your absolute strength. The strength you actually can apply is called maximal strength. The (absolute strength) - (maximal strength) = strength deficit. This means the bigger muscle doesn't always mean the stronger muscle. (because a smaller muscle could have a extremely low strength deficit while a bigger muscle might have a large strength deficit
Yes.

When you follow hypertrophy programs (for example: 3 sets of 8-15 bicep curls til failure) you will increase your muscle size and strength but you will also increase the strength deficit. When you follow a low reps high weight program, you decrease the strength deficit and gain minimal muscle size.
No.

Both ME and RE work will increase your maximal strength. RE work will not necessarily increase the strength deficit. In the presence of a caloric surplus, both will also lead to an increase in muscular size; however, RE will elicit a larger response than ME.

The particular definition of ME and RE work used by the study quoted in that article is an oversimplification meant to streamline the study. You should recognize that there are more ways to approach each than performing 3-3-3-2-2-2-2-1 and 3x12 as your loading schemes. As well, DE work is also important. If you look at the results of the study, while the overall percent difference in isometric maximal strength is the lowest of all three, the percent change in muscle cross-section area is less than one percent, meaning that it can offer a very similar result to ME work (as qualified by the study), but at a fraction of the intensity.

Also, take note of this paragraph from the article (http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/publications/technique/1996/8/strength-training.html):

However, coaches and athletes should recognize the fact that improvement by this method is limited by the morphologically available muscular mass, in other words by the absolute strength level. Therefore, a gymnast's conditioning should alternate between muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength training, between the training processes shown in Figures 3 and 4 (Schmidtbleicher, 1992).

What's being recommended here is periodization. You shouldn't just follow one method continuously but switch between methods or alternate focuses throughout your training cycle.

[Steve]

"Hypertrophy training won't do anything more than build strength unless you are on a calorie plus." - Rahf

That's the end of that chapter

[Teufel]

The point of my post was to highlight the fact that your previous post could be interpreted in the wrong way. Hypertrophy training won't do anything more than build strength unless you are on a calorie plus. It is basic knowledge for people who train, not for those who are new to training. You should always provide it in your explanation. One should always try to minimize the risk of misinterpretation. You also didn't seem to be aware of it.

Does it make sense now? The sentence about gymnasts was just a remark but it seems like that was what spurred the longest response.

Yes, thanks

[Teufel]

No.

Both ME and RE work will increase your maximal strength. RE work will not necessarily increase the strength deficit. In the presence of a caloric surplus, both will also lead to an increase in muscular size; however, RE will elicit a larger response than ME.

The particular definition of ME and RE work used by the study quoted in that article is an oversimplification meant to streamline the study. You should recognize that there are more ways to approach each than performing 3-3-3-2-2-2-2-1 and 3x12 as your loading schemes. As well, DE work is also important. If you look at the results of the study, while the overall percent difference in isometric maximal strength is the lowest of all three, the percent change in muscle cross-section area is less than one percent, meaning that it can offer a very similar result to ME work (as qualified by the study), but at a fraction of the intensity.

How would I apply the DE work into my training for instance, bicep curls or bench press? Would seem awkward to try to bench as fast as possible.

Also, obviously those set x reps are an oversimplification, so what other examples do you have and for what purpose? Or should you just by experience learn what works best for you? Even if thats the answer you give, could you still give a few examples?

[chicanerous]

How would I apply the DE work into my training for instance, bicep curls or bench press? Would seem awkward to try to bench as fast as possible.

Also, obviously those set x reps are an oversimplification, so what other examples do you have and for what purpose? Or should you just by experience learn what works best for you? Even if thats the answer you give, could you still give a few examples?
You wouldn't use ME or DE work on bicep curls, as it's isolation and there's no need to specifically improve maximal strength in it. For bench press, as long as the load is sufficiently heavy, you can do DE with just straight bar weight. But, if you want to use lighter loads, you need to remove the need to decelerate the weight, otherwise you'll spend most of the rep trying to slow the weight down instead of achieving maximal force. To do this, you can either add accommodating resistance (such as bands or chains) or you can choose exercises that do not need to be decelerated, such as jump squats, jump lunges, box jumps, ballistic bench presses, clap push-ups, etc. These should not be performed plyometrically, however, as force generation, not absorption or reaction, is your goal here.

As for examples, the following are taken straight out of A Guide to Weight-training For Tricking:

Common Set x Rep Patterns for Strength [ME]: 5x3, 3x3, 4x2, 5x1, 5-4-3-2-1 as well as series of triples or doubles or singles

Common Set x Rep Patterns for Hypertrophy [RE]: 5x5, 4x6, 3x8, 3x10, 2x12, 10x3

I leave out DE work because most trainees simply haven't made enough progress on their maximal strength in order to benefit from it, but, once you've reached a point where it is beneficial, the idea is to move submaximal weights as fast as possible, regardless of the specific intensity. You also want to terminate the set before rep speed slows down. The important point here is "submaximal" because, likewise, you also want to move maximal weights as fast as possible to generate the most force, but, by necessity, they will move slowly because, by definition, you cannot generate much more force than is needed to lift them.

[Teufel]

You wouldn't use ME or DE work on bicep curls, as it's isolation and there's no need to specifically improve maximal strength in it.

Why's it matter?

[Steve]

Yes actually he just made that up haha

[chicanerous]

Why's it matter?
Opinion: it's a waste of time and effort. Concentrate on your back exercises and throw in bicep work when they're limiting you. If your goal is to get a body that is strong overall, biceps are relatively insignificant in the scheme of things. Curling a lot doesn't guarantee you can row or clean a lot.

[Ashtar]

Yes, which is why if you want to become an extremely high level player in a sport such as tennis you need to be extremely fast (using your advantage in strength:weight ratio to offset all the disadvantages you get)
You mean a tall person would do this? People in general work on speed for sports.

[Teufel]

You mean a tall person would do this? People in general work on speed for sports.

Edit: I just noticed I didn't make it very obvious what I meant in that quote. I meant that for short people. Because they have many disadvantages in tennis due to being short, they need to take the advantage they have, relative strength, so they can use speed as an advantage (every short world class tennis player is fast as lightning)

You were saying that gymnasts are shorter because they need relative strength, and I was just adding an example that short world class tennis players have taken that advantage of relative strength they have