Gaining Muscle is NOT that easy.

you did gain muscle. one cannot get stronger without gaining muscle.

This is not true at all.

Two words: Rate Coding.

Only in the short term. In the long run the body builds more muscle tissue to prevent ferther damage.

Then how do you explain how elite Olympic Weightlifters increase their lifts while remaining in the same weight class.

you did gain muscle. one cannot get stronger without gaining muscle.

This is not true at all.

Two words: Rate Coding.

^ Not actually familiar with this term but I'll go learn about it now, thanks. This has to be some form of neurological adaption I would imagine,

and you would be correct.

or a combination of that and technique improvement?

If we're picking nits, this does not really affect strength, per se. It does, of course, have a significant influence on the metric by which we commonly measure strength (ie weight on the bar).

But you are correct. One can increase the weight they lift through a combination of neural adaptations and improvements in technique.


The problem is that most people don't understand the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

"If I gain muscle, then I will be stronger" is (generally) a true statement. But this does not logically imply the converse statement "If I got stronger, then I gained muscle"

/labcoat off.

you did gain muscle. one cannot get stronger without gaining muscle.

This is not true at all.

Two words: Rate Coding.

^ Not actually familiar with this term but I'll go learn about it now, thanks. This has to be some form of neurological adaption I would imagine,

and you would be correct.

or a combination of that and technique improvement?

If we're picking nits, this does not really affect strength, per se. It does, of course, have a significant influence on the metric by which we commonly measure strength (ie weight on the bar).

But you are correct. One can increase the weight they lift through a combination of neural adaptations and improvements in technique.


The problem is that most people don't understand the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

"If I gain muscle, then I will be stronger" is (generally) a true statement. But this does not logically imply the converse statement "If I got stronger, then I gained muscle"

/labcoat off.

^ Good post, thanks.

They don't have much backing them up either.

The arrogance is ASTOUNDING.

I could be wrong, but I don't think every competitor do this.

ALL competitors bulk up in offseason and cut for competition. The whole point of competition is to gain as much muscle as possible and have symmetry, aesthetic, and shape.

You said that you have pretty much stayed the same weight, give 10lbs or so for the last 20 years, but your body fat percentage didn't. At 165 you said that your body fat percentage was 8% and now in 2011, you weight 185 pounds with a body fat percentage of 18% or closer, you aren't sure, because you aren't sure. For all you know, you can be in the 20'ish body fat percentage.

Lets compare your numbers.

Your results at 165 pounds and 8% body fat percentage.

Previous results:
165 (Your weight) x 8% (Your body fat percentage) = 13.2 Pounds of fat
165 - 13.2 = 151.8 Pounds of lean body mass

Present results:
185 x 18% = 33.3 Pounds of fat
185 - 33.3 = 151.7 Pounds of lean body mass

Total Results:

185(Your current weight) - 165 (Your previous weight) = 20 pounds
33.3(Your current pounds of fat) - 13.2 (Previous pounds of fat) = 20.1 Pounds of fat
151.8 (Previous lean body mass) - 151.7 (Current lean body mass) = 0.1 loss
18%(Current body fat percentage) - 8%(Previous body fat percentage)

What does this means? In 22 years with those numbers:

You've gained 20 pounds of scale weight
You've gained 20.1 pounds of fat
You've loss 0.1 lean body mass
You've gained 10% body fat percentage.

I'm sure I've lost muscle in the last 5 years since my strength is slowly diminishing. I can't squat, bench or deadlift the poundages that I used to. And I'm okay with that since I know that my testosterone levels are lower as a natural trainer. I still lift as heavy as I can, but I've also been working more on my endurance through cardio.

Do you know his starting body fat percentage and ending body fat percentage? Just because Lee lost 45 pounds of scale weight, it doesn't mean he lost 45 pounds of fat.

If I knew his body fat percentage at 250 pounds and his body fat percentage at 205 pounds. I can see how much pounds of fat he loss and how much lean body mass he gained.

No. He looks to me at about 35% in the pic. And I'm sure he lost muscle along with fat since it's practically impossible not to.

It's possible, yes.

Water retention, lack of sleep, sodium, hormones, exercise...........these all throw off numbers. A client I had recently lost 26lbs and she wanted to compare a body fat measurement I took from January of this year. She was obviously more lean and much harder. After the test, her body fat was read as HIGHER. Why? Because though she weighed less, she had previously exercised before I took the test and water gathered underneath the skin making the pinch for calipers much thicker than usual. So though I did the same procedure, the numbers revealed the results that SEEMED to be right when in truth she and I knew they weren't. To do comparisons, the conditions need to be consistent too.

I'm only thinking for myself. I have never said that people should think like me.

There's more than one way to get a person's body fat percentage than a caliper. I have a caliper, but don't use it. I own a 6 year old body fat scale and a 2 month old Omron Handheld body fat monitor. Both gives me the same body fat reading.

A lot of trainers use the Omron handheld body fat monitor.

Bio impedance is one of the most unreliable ways to measure. Try this. Take a reading. Then drink a good amount of water. Check it again in 20 minutes and the reading will be much different. It reads by the amount of time that electricity travels through your body. But water will change the readings.

I have never said that it was easy to gain muscle. I've made it clear more than once that it's not easy to gain muscle or even to lose pounds of fat. I've said it's easy to get muscular arms fast. You do realize that muscular arms doesn't necessary mean bodybuilder arms, right?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you say on the line of that muscular arms is the result of a low body fat percentage?

A person doesn't have to lift weights to get muscular arms. Some children have muscular arms.

To me, regular muscular arms = ripped and bodybuilder arms = bulky(Lee Priest's arms = bulky, they don't equal ripped in my eyes.). Bruce Lee to me = ripped.

Thank you for your time. We know where each other stand. Continue doing what you are doing.

Bruce Lee lifted weights. In fact he is one of the first people who brought "conditioning" into the public eye. We obviously have a subjective view of what muscular means. I don't consider Bruce Lee as muscular because his arms were only about 12 1/2 inches in circumference. That's about the average size of most males arms who don't exercise. So I we do have subjective views on this.

I didn't say 100% there are ones that are more accurate then others.

For an accurate measure I get mine tested in the bod pod.

The new gym where I applied for work has one. If I'm hired there, I'll get mine checked for sure.

There's also a genetic component. Look at athletes. Some are built for long distance running (not so muscular), others for shotput or swimming (more muscle, even among women). So for some women, it IS easy to put on muscle, so I think you have to know your body type and what works and what doesn't.

Only in the short term. In the long run the body builds more muscle tissue to prevent ferther damage.

If you're going to make statements you need to emphasize. To keep progressing in strength, you will more than likely need to build muscle. But if you just want to be stronger, you can "condition" the muscle to do it.

Resistance training forces an overload of muscle fibers. Running and swimming do not overload the muscles. Muscle fatigue is not the same thing as overload. Plus running and swimming use different muscle fibers. Muscles need to be overloaded in order to grow, they do not need to grow to get stronger.

I'll use my favorite rope example. You have 4 pieces of rope attached to one pulley. You attach one of the 4 ropes to a box, and the others hang free. That's an untrained muscle, it can't lift the box. Now you attach the other 3 ropes to the box and lift it. The ropes didn't get bigger, they are the same rope, but they got stronger, as they are all being used together. That's how muscle gets stronger without gaining mass.

Now overload would be after attaching all 4 ropes, you still can't lift the box, so you go out and buy a couple more ropes and attach those to the box as well. Now you've grown your rope and increased the strength more, in order to lift the box. That's muscle growth.

A great explanation and one I'm stealing from you!!!!

I plan on being a personal trainer in the near future. I'm a detailed person and I will not leave my clients in the dark.

I would listen to some of the people in this thread then.

Exactly what I was going to say. These people are in the industry that you don't want to be part of. It's like arguing the Law with a Judge come on.

Oh and full marks on the amazing use of english in this thread :noway: not that it's relevant but I find an argument always comes across stronger when versed correctly

First off if rowing, swimming, and running is not resistance training define resistance.

Second any time you stress your muscles beyond what there used to they break down, after that the body repairs them. Do it consistently the protects itself from farther damage by building more muscle fibers. This is how streangth is built. Any activity can become resistance training if the muscles are breaking down. This may not be the fastest way to build muscle but ot will build.

Resistance training forces an overload of muscle fibers. Running and swimming do not overload the muscles. Muscle fatigue is not the same thing as overload. Plus running and swimming use different muscle fibers. Muscles need to be overloaded in order to grow, they do not need to grow to get stronger.

I'll use my favorite rope example. You have 4 pieces of rope attached to one pulley. You attach one of the 4 ropes to a box, and the others hang free. That's an untrained muscle, it can't lift the box. Now you attach the other 3 ropes to the box and lift it. The ropes didn't get bigger, they are the same rope, but they got stronger, as they are all being used together. That's how muscle gets stronger without gaining mass.

Now overload would be after attaching all 4 ropes, you still can't lift the box, so you go out and buy a couple more ropes and attach those to the box as well. Now you've grown your rope and increased the strength more, in order to lift the box. That's muscle growth.

Thanks for the explaining it clearly. :flowerforyou:

Was there any 220lbs at 9% bodyfat pics?? haha

There was a 200lb pic that offhand looked in the teens, but he was laying down so it's pretty hard to estimate.

I'm certainly nothing impressive, but for reference, I'm 182 and about 12% right now. 220 and 9% is JACKED and would turn heads walking down the street, IMO.

Was there any 220lbs at 9% bodyfat pics?? haha

^^Holding his breath for the pic, passed out, just woke up^^

how very surprising that a competitive swimmer is not 220lbs and 9% BF I don't think those figures generally make for the most streamline of swimmers.