Unless you do heaps of sets. The volume is too low to trigger anything other than neurological adaptations. Do more low rep sets and you can get the volume.Quote
the kid is natural and as i said has a fairly non descript build in terms of size (athletic looking and lean), but nonetheless, my point being, bigger muscles does not always equal a stronger than the smaller guy type deal. bigger muscles do equal a stronger person relative to themselves, but not always compared to others. this is where you would chalk it up to genetics. are we on the same page now?
edit: i'm referring to the other kid i was speaking of earlier. no blake's isn't small, but based off your theory his chest should be bigger. and my chest was this way prior to me using.
for example, i warm up with 230 for 15 reps, i dont find that heavy, someone is would be like damn thats fucking heavy. or they might say its heavy when i do 320 for 10 reps. some jack ass motherfuckers might warm up with my working set or 1rm.
its "heavy" but if you can squat it numerous times its not considered heavy. im sure the person squating it wont think so.
weapon, i know what you're trying to say, but it's not correct. the way people like that became "jack ass motherfuckers" is from training heavy. why do you think that weight is light for them? because they're strong, why do you then think they're "jacked"? it's because they train heavy. the fact that that weight is light for them means their abilities are greater than the normal person, and thus, so is their muscular development.
and no, if someone can squat 500 for 12, 500 is still heavy. were all human, i don't care how much of a genetic freak you are. and the human frame does not readily handle a 500lb squat. but with training, their muscles grow, and they develop they're abilities and muscle growth insues.
that's nature and what muscle growth is to begin with, adaptation and growth.
ironslave and i cleared up what we meant and came to agreeance in the chat. he was speaking in terms relative to oneself whereas i was comparing lifter a to lifter b and saying the larger muscles equal greater performance doesn't always ring true.
sad that you always view things as one winning and one losing. a more intelligent way to look at it would be viewing it as we came to a agreeance through clarification of what we were saying. but yes blake, award yourself 1 point, and a cupcake while you're at it.
Your chest was naturally big, now your other body parts where not and how did you get them bigger? By lifting heavier and getting stronger (among other things). So the argument of your chest size is weak and you would figure you know that, and I know you do you just are again not giving into the fact you are wrong.
Josiah is big bro! He is 5'7" or 5'6", so his bw is up there for such a lean guy. But yes he is very strong, but for a kid who hardly eats he is big for his structure. So don't down play the fact of how much he lifts, big is a relative term. Just because he can lift almost as much as you (not me), but you can lift the weights he does for several more reps. We only see him do these outstanding lifts for low reps. Also, Josiah over trains waaaaayyyy too much and you know that as well.
Either way, I see what your saying... but Josiah is big for his structure and like me is stronger than he looks.
I never admit to being wrong to you because you have not proven me wrong. You just have very basic and simplistic retorts that a ten year old can come up with and continue to argue. Yeah... much more mature and intelligent .... sarcasm
*sigh*.....it's always i'm right you're wrong BS with you. it's sad. did you even read my previous post? what i said is not wrong, just as what IS said, is not wrong. we weren't on the same page earlier but i now agree with his sentiment as he does with mine.
he is 160 something pounds blake at around 5'8......that's not "big". don't get me wrong he has a exceptional physique, but he isn't big. roy is big. either way again my point with him was don't think he isn't strong just because he's not overly muscular, that was the vibe i was getting from tim and IS's earlier posts. size compared to other individuals means nothing in terms of how much they can lift, but size gains relative to oneself most certainly do.
you're acting like a child. "i'm right, you're wrong", keep this bullshit to yourself, i'm done playing little games and getting insulting over it. if you noticed (which i'm sure you didn't, that head is lodged in there pretty good) creator and myself, and IS and myself, TALKED IT OUT AND CAME TO A COMMON GROUND. PLEASE LEARN TO DO THE SAME AS I'M ALMOST CERTAIN YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS. if you need "proof", then go to the chat log and go back a page and go back a page in this thread to creator's post.
Maybe before you don't get "their vibe" you should ask questions before disagreeing. You couldn't come up with anything with what I said other than "I am right and your wrong BS", when you are wrong you are wrong. I don't know what to tell you.
The arguments: being big doesn't necessarily make you strong - I answered that
Lifting heavy doesn't build muscle - IS and I answered that...
Maybe it is your attitude of how you answer questions and throw around answers that ticks me off. Or how you argue when not right... this is my issue of why I "attack" you in threads. It is also why I have been distancing myself from training with you in the gym. There is not getting through to you, you think what you think is right and will not concede. We have to come to common ground for you to agree, you can never just admit "Oh you know what your right" I have done that with you when proved wrong, but you have done that in person. I am told by others in the gym it is because you are young... but I just cannot take it. It makes me.... like this! And I am normally not like this!