Thread: Need To Blast My Arms

Originally posted by gopro
And as your lifting career goes on, lifting heavy becomes less important.

I agree, you become more prone to injuries. I am speaking from first hand experience!

Originally posted by gopro
As to your comments above...
- weight will eventually not be the major factor in gaining muscle as I have added 7 lbs a year my last 3 years without increasing a single lift...I have also done this with several of my over 40 clients
-momentum WILL decrease tension on the muscle...using these words in "layman's" terms. Your biceps will work harder to curl 100 lbs in perfect form than they will to "throw up" 150 lbs using momentum...remember, this is in everyday "gym" terms

Mr. 'Pro, I'm not arguing your education or experience. That's not my goal.

As for the above comments-- so what if momentum is used? The tension, and quite a bit of it, is till generated, is it not? It has to come from somewhere. In fact, you can easily create more tension than the load itself would be capable of if the load is accelerated-- Force = mass*acceleration.

Has anything I've said so far been incorrect, regarding muscle action and force (tension) generated?

Additionally, who says that momentum removes tension? I've got several studies (gasp) done in Oly lifters showing that tension is not lessened during ballistic-style lifting.

Now, if larger amounts of tension are being generated over similar time intervals via acceleration, why wouldn't your own TUT argument hold true?

I'm not advocating cheating, which I know is your point, but arguing that higher relative loads at higher speeds can and do cause growth, despite "momentum."

Originally posted by ActionMatt
I'm not advocating cheating, which I know is your point, but arguing that higher relative loads at higher speeds can and do cause growth, despite "momentum."

I agree that it will cause growth but I think your also more likely to cause injury as well. I also think that the exercise done with slower more controled form will cause better growth than your ballistic-style lifting.

Better? Based on what?

lol, just what I said "I think" hehehe

Through personal experience I've found that "Ballistic" type lifting has helped to build strength but I've always found that lifting with proper form has given me a better workout.

Just my personal opinion AM, I'm not disputing what you've said.

Originally posted by ActionMatt
Neil-- why are you making the assumption that the sources I quote are stereotypical 130 lb science geeks in lab coats?

Most strength researchers are avid lifters themselves, with many being quite accomplished. Exercise science is a different field, in that it tends to attract those that already have some interest in weight training. I think you'd be suprised at how many of these pencil-neck geeks as you put it would be able to pick you up and break you in half.

Trust me Matt, I know some of these "pencil neck geeks" who could break me in half. I am not trying to start a pissing match here but you are becoming one of those not so big guys trying to tell everyone (including big guys) how to get big because you've read a few books. The stuff you have learned and presented is very impressive and I'll be the first to admit you know way more than me about physiology. But I'd be willing to bet our knowledge on how to get big is not that far apart. There is no substitute for experience in any field and bodybuilding is no exeption. I know people with physiology degrees who advocate changing exercises every 12 weeks and also think that it is important to use different angles to fully develope a muscle. I'd be willing to bet the reason they think this is because of their experience with lifting, and not their education. I realize you will probably discount be with some research you've read or some study and that's fine, I just think you shouldn't be so quick to tell people they are wrong just because a book tells you so. Like I said on WBB I have experienced a part of a muscle getting bigger from a different exercise angle and there is not a study out there that will change that.

I do however agree with you that ballistic training generates more hypertophy. I have determined this through experience, of course.

ActionMatt, will you at least post some pics to back up you infinite knowledge of bodybuilding, that might lend some credibilty to your posts.

I would just like to see the type of physique that you have built using your superior knowledge in training.

The reason I ask for this is because I have a problem with all of these "internet gurus" like you and others such as Cackerot that are so educated in muscle physiology and every other subject that pertains to bodybuilding, yet you refuse to show us a picture.

Are you going to reply to this telling me that you have only been training for a short period of time and have not built a quality physique that is worthy of displaying? Yes, you proabably will, as have several others that have come here arguing with people such as gopro.

If I were a bodybuilder, I'd be more than happy to. Unfortunately, as a powerlifter and Olympic lifter, I doubt you'd be too impressed with my physique. Oh, I'm muscular, but my BF is probably too high for you to take me seriously with a physique pic. I've only been lifting about 3 1/2 years myself, and came from a small frame, but I've managed to do all right in that time period.

My bodybuilding advice is based on what I use during foundational periods of mass-training that precede strength and power phases.

Originally posted by ActionMatt

I'm not advocating cheating, which I know is your point, but arguing that higher relative loads at higher speeds can and do cause growth, despite "momentum."

And inevitably injuries!!!!!

Originally posted by ActionMatt
We haven't come to anything conclusive about *why* this happens, though my speculation was that it has to do with ATP depletion and the consequential fatigue in the highest-threshold MU's which are involved in heavy ballistic loading.

To build muscle, you don't want to deplete ATP, You want more to stay in the muscle so you can fatigue it! If you run out of ATP your muscle is out of energy and you can no longer stress the muscle you do it no good! Am I not right???

I lmao@this also TCD.........

WOW that was alot of reading to catch up with what one person asked about blasting his arms. I also am not as educated as some, but I know how my body type reacts to certain workout's. I do read what the pro's do to work certain muscle's
but I do not take supplement's. I am a Diabetc and watch every thing I eat. So I can not overload on carbs or protein not fun. I am doing one of Jay Cutlers shoulder workout's but not doing 20
rep's try 8 to 10. I do agree with the proper form comment it's not how much you can lift but how you lift. I have been working
out on and off for over 20 years and will be 45 this month. I have a friend who owns a gym and is a personal trainer, he also used to compete. He has helped me out over the years. Another friend
I haven't worked out with in about 4 to 5 years also competed at the local level, he also has been a great help. So some of what I do is from these two people and some is trial and error. And yes some from reading book's,magazine's and on line info. But we all
have a common interest in building muscle for whatever the reason might be. SO LET'S KEEP TO THE SUBJECT!!!

Originally posted by dg806
We haven't come to anything conclusive about *why* this happens, though my speculation was that it has to do with ATP depletion and the consequential fatigue in the highest-threshold MU's which are involved in heavy ballistic loading.

To build muscle, you don't want to deplete ATP, You want more to stay in the muscle so you can fatigue it! If you run out of ATP your muscle is out of energy and you can no longer stress the muscle you do it no good! Am I not right???

Well, since hypertrophy is most likely caused by lack of muscle cell's ability to sustain protein anabolism against not only the natural catabolism of the muscle, but that caused by lifting weights, I'd have to say that using up the ATP supply would be a good thing, and that no, you aren't right.

But that did just give me a bit of inspiration to fill in a gap, there. Thanks for that.

I see that you ignored my post ActionMatt!

Did I, Prince?

Originally posted by ActionMatt
If I were a bodybuilder, I'd be more than happy to. Unfortunately, as a powerlifter and Olympic lifter, I doubt you'd be too impressed with my physique. Oh, I'm muscular, but my BF is probably too high for you to take me seriously with a physique pic. I've only been lifting about 3 1/2 years myself, and came from a small frame, but I've managed to do all right in that time period.

My bodybuilding advice is based on what I use during foundational periods of mass-training that precede strength and power phases.

sorry, I missed that post.

but, as I figured you gave an excuse to why you won't post a pic.

I'll put one up if you'd like.

My point is that it probably won't prove anything to you.

Action...I only need to understand one of your points...are you trying to say that you think that by cheating during a movement...like say leaning back during barbell curls or swinging dumbells up during side laterals...that you will AS effectively overlaod the target muscle if you were to lift a lesser weight but in perfect form?

Originally posted by Neil
I'd listen to an experienced lifter before I listened to some 130 physio.

Perhaps you should find out how world re-known these sources that Matt has gained knowledge from.

Go pro, Matt is not talking about swinging your back back and forth doing curls. I think the bollistic movements that he is talking about are cleans, jerks, speed benches, and those type of fun things.

Yeah, he's big on Olympic lifts eh?

Originally posted by Mystic Eric


Perhaps you should find out how world re-known these sources that Matt has gained knowledge from.

Go pro, Matt is not talking about swinging your back back and forth doing curls. I think the bollistic movements that he is talking about are cleans, jerks, speed benches, and those type of fun things.

Well, if that IS what he's talking about then he'd be foolish to think that they will produce the type of hypertrophy that slow controlled BBing exercises will bring.

I'm not talking specifically about Olympic lifts. They certainly can't develop the entire body to the needs of a competitive BBer.

But look at their traps. Their glutes and hams. Lower back. They aren't exactly small.

My point about cheat form doesn't mean to go berserk. However, *in some cases* using somewhat less than perfect form can be beneficial simply to expose the muscle to greater overload. Not saying it should be a mainstay of training by any means, but an effective tool.

Now, more relevant to my point. Slow, controlled will build size. But so will explosive and controlled if the weight (or total tension generated) is high enough. You can't tell me that doing 8-10 sets of your 3RM in an exercise won't cause growth. Or that doing 5x5 @ 75% as fast as you can move the bar won't.

From what I can tell, the argument is what will cause better growth, Slow and Controlled or Explosive.

So what do you think Matt?

Honestly, I don't know. As a PLer and someone on the whole who isn't that concerned with muscle tissue, I can say that I've achieved growth from both methods.

The extensive bodybuilding approach is tried and true, yes. But so is the explosive approach, albeit not in an orthodox setting; it has certainly shown itself capable of causing growth. I think its more about the application of the methods than about whether or not an individual or category of individuals are "big." Oly lifters aren't "big" because they don't specifically work on every muscle group. Same for powerlifters, although there is much higher carryover-- a great many PLers have very nice physiques, as well.

It certainly bears further exploration before out and out dismissing it.

By "better" you mean quicker right?

Originally posted by ActionMatt

I think its more about the application of the methods than about whether or not an individual or category of individuals are "big."

It certainly bears further exploration before out and out dismissing it.

*** Well said.
You can't pick one method and claim that it's the most superior method out there. Like Matt explained it takes the know how of when and for how long each method should be applied.

Originally posted by maki@wbb
You can't pick one method and claim that it's the most superior method out there. Like Matt explained it takes the know how of when and for how long each method should be applied.

I agree.