Adarq.org
Performance Area => Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion => Topic started by: D4 on July 21, 2011, 09:13:35 am
-
Just something I was curious about...
If there were 2 athletes, somehow they are exactly the same. Same height, weight, lower body/core/upper body strength is all equal, body structure, age, EVERYTHING. But, athlete A had 8% BF, while athlete B had 14%BF. Just assume athlete A has more muscle mass, while athlete B has less muscle mass and carries more fat, but they are still both equally strong and same weight.
Would they jump the same height? I'm assuming most would say the leaner athlete A will jump higher. If so, WHY? If jumping is a power to weight ratio and both athletes are built the same, why would athlete A jump higher if both athletes power and weight is equal?
-
Just something I was curious about...
If there were 2 athletes, somehow they are exactly the same. Same height, weight, lower body/core/upper body strength is all equal, body structure, age, EVERYTHING. But, athlete A had 8% BF, while athlete B had 14%BF. Just assume athlete A has more muscle mass, while athlete B has less muscle mass and carries more fat, but they are still both equally strong and same weight.
Would they jump the same height? I'm assuming most would say the leaner athlete A will jump higher. If so, WHY? If jumping is a power to weight ratio and both athletes are built the same, why would athlete A jump higher if both athletes power and weight is equal?
There is a fundamental problem in this scenario. If A and B are equally strong but carry different muscle mass at the same bodyweight it's not ceteris paribus. Because something obviously IS different in those two athletes that one guy can squat the same as the other with less muscle mass.
-
Just something I was curious about...
If there were 2 athletes, somehow they are exactly the same. Same height, weight, lower body/core/upper body strength is all equal, body structure, age, EVERYTHING. But, athlete A had 8% BF, while athlete B had 14%BF. Just assume athlete A has more muscle mass, while athlete B has less muscle mass and carries more fat, but they are still both equally strong and same weight.
Would they jump the same height? I'm assuming most would say the leaner athlete A will jump higher. If so, WHY? If jumping is a power to weight ratio and both athletes are built the same, why would athlete A jump higher if both athletes power and weight is equal?
There is a fundamental problem in this scenario. If A and B are equally strong but carry different muscle mass at the same bodyweight it's not ceteris paribus. Because something obviously IS different in those two athletes that one guy can squat the same as the other with less muscle mass.
Okay I guess, but you know what I'm trying to ask...
Basically, is there some kind of way body fat can reduce vertical jump height BESIDES the fact that it is extra weight?
When they say you gotta have low body fat to jump high, is the fact that the body fat is useless weight weighing us down the only reason why?
-
BTW , the example is set a bit wrong , if they are identical ( same CNS etc ) at the same bodyweight with different bodyfats they can't be equally strong.
The correct example is 2 ( or more ) identical individuals ( same CNS , bones , heights , tendons , RFD , everything ) with the same relative strength and various bw/bf combinations.
Or just one individual at a given bw and bf, what will happen if he leans down , reduces bf% , also loses some strength and mass so overall relative strength is the same?
IMO the answer is the same for all cases:
The subject with less bodyfat for a given relative strength will jump higher because of better coordination.
edit : oops , while i was typing the above , steven-miller already posted the first part ( why the example was wrong ) :highfive:
-
Okay I guess, but you know what I'm trying to ask...
I guess you are trying to ask whether as a jumper you should be as low in bf as possible. Or maybe even if you should be as light as possible as a jumper.
Jump performance and bodyweight as well as jump performance and body fat percentage probably behave to each other in an inverted U-relationship. That means that there will be an optimal value somewhere in the middle. This is very intuitive if you think in extremes. Someone weighing only 100 lbs at 5'10 will not jump very high because you need a functioning body to perform this physical act on a high level. 100 lbs at this height is not functional. On the other hand, someone with a bodyweight of 350 lbs will have a hard time jumping very high as well. There will be abnormalities on both ends of the spectrum though. Shane Hamman had a 36" SVJ at a bodyweight of over 300 lbs at one point in his career. I am sure you could find examples of really light people jumping high as well. But those examples are meaningless for everybody else. I am sure no one would decide to feed himself up to 300 lbs to increase his VJ to 36". By the same token you should not decide to stay as close as possible to 140 lbs because there was one guy weighing that much that jumped 40". The same will be true for body fat percentages.
-
Also , http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/relativestrengthmyth.html
-
I think that mass, of any kind, is DETRIMENTAL to athleticism to an extent, but muscle gain for some people, even as additional mass, gives more than it takes away in terms of benefits vs. detriments.
What I mean by that is the fact that the CNS, body, whatever you want to call it, has to receive proprioceptive signals from the body to determine body position etc. It will always have that. But (and this is just my belief, no scientific background whatsoever) with a heavier mass it "believes" (and maybe that's true) it needs a much higher effort to decelerate/amortizate/control/coordinate both intra and inter-muscularily.
Now we have to define what effort means. In my opinion it's a matter of core strength, body awareness, stabilizer muscle recruitment/necessity of recruitment, and just overall the need of stronger/faster signals because more mass is present. Which takes more effort to make all this happen from the CNS.
If a guy is weak though he will need more muscle in order to actually GAIN from the additional force that muscle will provide vs the whatever negatives, if my case really exist, that will provide as well.
With bodyfat that's even worse - it's just a weight that your CNS and muscles will need to worry about and move around and exert additional effort to do so. It can change the body's center of mass a bit and that might move you out of the optimal firing position to a specific movement. That instead will make you use some muscles more and some muscles less and all sorts of shitty things will happen.
At least this is how I view things.
-
Raptor, I am sorry, but that was the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read from you.
I think that mass, of any kind, is DETRIMENTAL to athleticism to an extent, but muscle gain for some people, even as additional mass, gives more than it takes away in terms of benefits vs. detriments.
That in and off itself is a contradiction. Everything that follows makes even less sense. Please put some thought into these posts because some people might actually take this seriously.
-
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l72tje1qh51qahhxwo1_250.gif)
-
Raptor, I am sorry, but that was the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read from you.
I think that mass, of any kind, is DETRIMENTAL to athleticism to an extent, but muscle gain for some people, even as additional mass, gives more than it takes away in terms of benefits vs. detriments.
That in and off itself is a contradiction. Everything that follows makes even less sense. Please put some thought into these posts because some people might actually take this seriously.
How it's a contradiction? I think mass is detrimental but additional leg muscle at a sub ~2.5 squat helps more than it kills. Meaning - you get a higher force output as a + but you need more effort from the CNS/core/other untrained small muscles to move as a - . I see the CNS power in absolute terms (like everyone of us having a battery in their bodies) that is drained more by the additional mass it has to move around, regardless of it's nature.
-
I wanted to avoid maths but it must happen:
To know if mass is detrimental or not , we need to know how extra mass is connected with extra strength.
Let's suppose that the ratio is the same. Then for a 10% increase of muscle mass we will have 10% increase in strength.
Now we need to know another ratio. What increase in bodyfat comes together with the LBM increase. Those numbers are not steady , as a 5% bodyfat guy will have a much harder time adding pure LBM than a 15% one.
So let's get to an average example:
200lbs , 15%bodyfat , 170lbs LBM , 30lbs fat. Lets say max squat is 350lbs , so relative strength is 1.75
He increases his LBM by 10% , 187lbs. Lets say that with those 17lbs of LBM he also added 5lbs of fat, total 35.
His new body composition is : 222lbs , 15,7% bodyfat.
Now , since strength increase is also 10% , his new max squat is 385 and new relative strength 1.73
If for 10% LBM increase the strength increase is 20% , new squat is 420 , new relative strength 1.89
If he piled just 1lb of fat instead of 5 , he would be 218lbs / 14.2%bf.
Relative strength would be 1.76 for 10% strength increase and 1.92 for 20%.
Now let's say he cuts down 20lbs , 10 of them fat and 10 of them LBM.
He is now 180lbs, 160LBM , 20fat , 11% bodyfat.
His LBM loss is 6.25%
If strength loss is also 6.25% , new max squat = 330 , new relative strength = 1.83. Expected improvement as his cut was VERY sucessful.
If his strength loss is double though ( like the previous example ) , new max squat = 306 , new relative strength = 1.7
All those supposing RFD is the same at all times.
So we need to know that strength/mass increase relationship AND the nutrient partitioning profile of the subject.
I used 1:1 absolute lbs loss for cutdown and ~3:1 absolute lbs for bulk. Just seemed 'normal'. Any studies with info on those ratios ( and also the strength/mass increase ratios ) would help this discussion a lot.
Nerd rant off!
-
How it's a contradiction? I think mass is detrimental but additional leg muscle at a sub ~2.5 squat helps more than it kills. Meaning - you get a higher force output as a + but you need more effort from the CNS/core/other untrained small muscles to move as a - . I see the CNS power in absolute terms (like everyone of us having a battery in their bodies) that is drained more by the additional mass it has to move around, regardless of it's nature.
Adding muscle cannot be detrimental and useful at the same time because there is only one net effect in the end. This net effect might be the result of independent mechanisms, but what matters is the outcome of a higher, equal or lower VJ.
I wanted to avoid maths but it must happen...
If you are clever about it your relative strength constantly improves even with an increase in bodyweight. So you end up with a higher squat, higher bodyweight and superior relative strength without even cutting anything.
-
He increases his LBM by 10% , 187lbs. Lets say that with those 17lbs of LBM he also added 5lbs of fat, total 35.
You lost me here. Choose it: either 17 lbs or 35?
-
How it's a contradiction? I think mass is detrimental but additional leg muscle at a sub ~2.5 squat helps more than it kills. Meaning - you get a higher force output as a + but you need more effort from the CNS/core/other untrained small muscles to move as a - . I see the CNS power in absolute terms (like everyone of us having a battery in their bodies) that is drained more by the additional mass it has to move around, regardless of it's nature.
Adding muscle cannot be detrimental and useful at the same time because there is only one net effect in the end. This net effect might be the result of independent mechanisms, but what matters is the outcome of a higher, equal or lower VJ.
If you put a bigger and heavier engine in a car, it will have a bigger power production (positive effect) but it will burn more fuel and maybe, due to the higher forces, wear some other components out (negative effect).
-
If you put a bigger and heavier engine in a car, it will have a bigger power production (positive effect) but it will burn more fuel and maybe, due to the higher forces, wear some other components out (negative effect).
So? A car with a really weak motor will still not drive fast, even if other components are at a lower risk for "wearing out".
-
How it's a contradiction? I think mass is detrimental but additional leg muscle at a sub ~2.5 squat helps more than it kills. Meaning - you get a higher force output as a + but you need more effort from the CNS/core/other untrained small muscles to move as a - . I see the CNS power in absolute terms (like everyone of us having a battery in their bodies) that is drained more by the additional mass it has to move around, regardless of it's nature.
Adding muscle cannot be detrimental and useful at the same time because there is only one net effect in the end. This net effect might be the result of independent mechanisms, but what matters is the outcome of a higher, equal or lower VJ.
If you put a bigger and heavier engine in a car, it will have a bigger power production (positive effect) but it will burn more fuel and maybe, due to the higher forces, wear some other components out (negative effect).
the problem with statement is the human body is not a car, not even close. our "parts" adapt just like anything else to increased strength/stress and get bigger, stronger, faster.
also, dont say mass hurts ATHLETICISM, thats insane, tell that to some of the football guys who went from 150 - 190 and got much faster, more explosive, and became 10x the players the were. If you said it hurts, "vertical jump", you would still be wrong in several different ways, but youd have some ground to stand on at least.
-
He increases his LBM by 10% , 187lbs. Lets say that with those 17lbs of LBM he also added 5lbs of fat, total 35.
You lost me here. Choose it: either 17 lbs or 35?
Initial weight = 200 , initial LBM= 170 , initial fat = 30
10% LBM increase : 170 + 10% = 187 ( +17 )
5lbs fat increase : 30 + 5 = 35
Total weight increase : 17 + 5 = 22
Final weight = 222 ( + 22 ) , final LBM = 187 ( +17 ) , final fat = 35 ( +5 )
I think my example demostrates perfectly what Lance said , you can't be sure what will happen , it depends on the individual.
-
If you put a bigger and heavier engine in a car, it will have a bigger power production (positive effect) but it will burn more fuel and maybe, due to the higher forces, wear some other components out (negative effect).
So? A car with a really weak motor will still not drive fast, even if other components are at a lower risk for "wearing out".
Of course. That's why I said the positive outweigh the negatives up until a certain point (which people are usually far from).
-
How it's a contradiction? I think mass is detrimental but additional leg muscle at a sub ~2.5 squat helps more than it kills. Meaning - you get a higher force output as a + but you need more effort from the CNS/core/other untrained small muscles to move as a - . I see the CNS power in absolute terms (like everyone of us having a battery in their bodies) that is drained more by the additional mass it has to move around, regardless of it's nature.
Adding muscle cannot be detrimental and useful at the same time because there is only one net effect in the end. This net effect might be the result of independent mechanisms, but what matters is the outcome of a higher, equal or lower VJ.
If you put a bigger and heavier engine in a car, it will have a bigger power production (positive effect) but it will burn more fuel and maybe, due to the higher forces, wear some other components out (negative effect).
the problem with statement is the human body is not a car, not even close. our "parts" adapt just like anything else to increased strength/stress and get bigger, stronger, faster.
also, dont say mass hurts ATHLETICISM, thats insane, tell that to some of the football guys who went from 150 - 190 and got much faster, more explosive, and became 10x the players the were. If you said it hurts, "vertical jump", you would still be wrong in several different ways, but youd have some ground to stand on at least.
Yeah that's true, sprinters or football players would punch me if they heard that but high jumpers would kiss you if they heard what you said. Haha.
-
Didn't I already have this discussion months ago? I didn't read any of the replies, but the situation is impossible. It's impossible to have that much more muscle mass but not be stronger.
Stronger with more muscle mass is always better, until you get too big and you can't really use the strength for jumping. Nobody on this site is anywhere near that level. High jumpers are different. There's advantages to being skinny for them.
Come at me adarq
-
If both cars have the same engine power.
Car A is made from iron.
Car B is made from carbon fibre.
Car B wins the race. Its resistance to acceleration or its inertia (mass) is far easily overcome.
Mass (to a small extent) will have played role in this result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYX2EWK4QWo
It's horses for courses. There is more to athleticism than sprinting & jumping.
What about endurance athletes, Tour De France cyclists etc... Mass is massively detrimental.
Think outside the box.
-
Guys on a serious note, everybody needs to watch this vid. I have only put it here because this thread is getting traffic.
Rick Simpson - Cure for Cancer.
DON'T EVER FORGET THIS VID. WATCH IT!!!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uomQey0HVGw
Orgignal Link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rick+Simpson+&aq=f
Official website: http://phoenixtears.ca/
-
Vitamin C shrinks tumors and Alkaline foods kill cancer
and brb mass is bad
(http://www.buzzvee.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1272659422-26.jpg)
-
Vitamin C shrinks tumors and Alkaline foods kill cancer.
+1.
Also checkout this link: http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/
-
Guys on a serious note, everybody needs to watch this vid. I have only put it here because this thread is getting traffic.
Rick Simpson - Cure for Cancer.
DON'T EVER FORGET THIS VID. WATCH IT!!!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uomQey0HVGw
Orgignal Link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rick+Simpson+&aq=f
Official website: http://phoenixtears.ca/
WTF?
-
Oh also Vitamin D is important for preventing cancer. 15 minutes in the sun every other day on a nice day or 3000-5000 IU in gelcap form or liquid form will do the trick. Most of you guys are nerds and never go out nor take vitamin d supplements so you are for sure deficient. Stuff would be like steroids for a lot of you.
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/d_is_for_doping
Good article on it. I also don't think Biotest sells vitamin d.
-
If both cars have the same engine power.
Car A is made from iron.
Car B is made from carbon fibre.
Car B wins the race. Its resistance to acceleration or its inertia (mass) is far easily overcome.
Mass (to a small extent) will have played role in this result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYX2EWK4QWo
It's horses for courses. There is more to athleticism than sprinting & jumping.
What about endurance athletes, Tour De France cyclists etc... Mass is massively detrimental.
Think outside the box.
You fail to address the points already made in this thread. How can mass be detrimental when the execution of any athletic act requires the presence of a physical body in the first place?
Sure, there are types of athletes whose bodies don't require large amounts of mass, because their muscles only have to perform minimal efforts very often - a marathon runner comes to mind or your Tour De France cyclist example. But even for them there is a sweet spot in the middle where losing even more weight or bodyfat will not yield any performance increase. That spot will be remarkably lower than a sprinters, but it will nevertheless be there.
But of course this is besides the point anyways since the OP asked about jumping. And if you think your bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ, you are fooling yourself big time.
-
And if you think your bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ, you are fooling yourself big time.
So if I'm 6'0 and 300 lbs with a 50% bodyfat I shouldn't think my bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ?
-
I can agree with Steven Miller and most other people saying that adding some mass will be beneficial to jumping, but what I failed to mention was, what about for a single leg jumper?
Idk, I've always read that, single leg jumping has a lot more to do with leverage, lower body weight, etc... While double leg jumping has a lot more to do with strength meaning added muscle mass (+strength) can only help.
I mean besides Lebron James, cause he's a freak of nature, most great single leg jumpers I've seen were very light/lean/skinny. My friend on my intramural bball team who dunks on opponents on the regular is 6'0" 159lbs, and he has a 42"+ vertical. Kadour Ziani, prolly the best single leg dunker ever, is very skinny.
ALSO, are you guys saying that carrying excess body fat (10%+) has a structural disadvantage as well? Like the fat effects your movement efficiency, COM, leverage and such?
-
I think there are other people that jump very well off one leg that are heavy: Cannon Brown for example. James White put quite a bit of muscle, especially upperbody, on him and he is jumping the same if not more right now. So I don't know. Vince, back in the day when he weighed ~225 lbs at one point was still jumping great off one leg.
I think bodyfat % is even more important in one-leg jumpers for some reason, that reason probably being putting you out of the optimal position for jumping.
-
I think there are other people that jump very well off one leg that are heavy: Cannon Brown for example. James White put quite a bit of muscle, especially upperbody, on him and he is jumping the same if not more right now. So I don't know. Vince, back in the day when he weighed ~225 lbs at one point was still jumping great off one leg.
I think bodyfat % is even more important in one-leg jumpers for some reason, that reason probably being putting you out of the optimal position for jumping.
Raptor, who else on this site is a single leg jumper, besides u and me?
Also, what's your 1 legged PR and ur BF%?
-
Well Nightfly is. He naturally jumps off one leg although he got great off two feet in time with his maturization, strength training and lowering bodyfat levels. At ~15 years old he had a what, 24 inch two footed vert and now at 22 he has a 42 inch vert off two feet and probably a ~43 off one leg at his maximum, best day.
For me, I have no idea what my 1-leg jump PR is. It kind of varies. It should be around ~36-38 though. I had a moment in the past where I was sick and stayed in bed 3 days, one after another, then as my sickness gone away I went in the park and could barely walk, I was getting tired very very quickly and felt so weak, and then I tried to jump at the rim (just to goof around) and was jumping I think close to 40 inches, I mean WTF? :ninja:, and hitting my head in the middle of the net at the 2.96 rim. Right now I can just scrape that net with my head but I don't really have the best jumping technique WITHOUT the ball in my hand at this point in time.
So as you can see, weird stuff usually happens with my one leg jump. It depends a lot on fatigue levels (and as silly that was, I think staying 3 days in bed fully rested my leg muscles although you'd expect to suck hard after such an event) more in the 1-leg jump since there's more overload occuring (there's more speed in the plant than in a two-footed jump) and the overload happens for the muscles of 1 leg so that's another point of excessive overload as well.
And frankly, I think the whole key, besides voluntary strength as expressed in the weight room - is to make your body accept VERY HIGH levels of overload without allowing the leg to collapse under such a high stress. Great eccentric strength levels are needed for a great one leg jump and also, the body position in the plant is very important.
My bodyfat levels have decreased lately, but I think I'm around 13%.
-
And if you think your bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ, you are fooling yourself big time.
So if I'm 6'0 and 300 lbs with a 50% bodyfat I shouldn't think my bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ?
No, you should not minimize it, but you should definitely decrease it. Notice the difference.
Can't comment on the single leg stuff, but I don't think that body fat - in reasonable amounts, like up to 15% - plays a measurable negative role in coordination. At least I cannot see why that would be the case.
-
And if you think your bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ, you are fooling yourself big time.
So if I'm 6'0 and 300 lbs with a 50% bodyfat I shouldn't think my bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ?
No, you should not minimize it, but you should definitely decrease it. Notice the difference.
Can't comment on the single leg stuff, but I don't think that body fat - in reasonable amounts, like up to 15% - plays a measurable negative role in coordination. At least I cannot see why that would be the case.
Well it could mess up with your proprioceptive ability.
-
Well it could mess up with your proprioceptive ability.
You have said that already but you did not mention by which mechanisms that would happen.
-
Well it could mess up with your proprioceptive ability.
You have said that already but you did not mention by which mechanisms that would happen.
I don't know. It just makes sense for me. By the same token, why does closing your eyes demand a more proprioceptive signal from you when moving around?
-
I don't know. It just makes sense for me. By the same token, why does closing your eyes demand a more proprioceptive signal from you when moving around?
Well, for me it does not. When you make a point like that it would be good if you had arguments in favor of it, don't you agree?
Also, I don't understand your question. What is a "more proprioceptive signal"? And what does that have to do with our discussion?
-
I think there are other people that jump very well off one leg that are heavy: Cannon Brown for example. James White put quite a bit of muscle, especially upperbody, on him and he is jumping the same if not more right now. So I don't know. Vince, back in the day when he weighed ~225 lbs at one point was still jumping great off one leg.
I think bodyfat % is even more important in one-leg jumpers for some reason, that reason probably being putting you out of the optimal position for jumping.
Raptor, who else on this site is a single leg jumper, besides u and me?
Also, what's your 1 legged PR and ur BF%?
I am, and I've jumped higher since adding mass.
-
I don't know. It just makes sense for me. By the same token, why does closing your eyes demand a more proprioceptive signal from you when moving around?
Well, for me it does not. When you make a point like that it would be good if you had arguments in favor of it, don't you agree?
Also, I don't understand your question. What is a "more proprioceptive signal"? And what does that have to do with our discussion?
I meant "stronger" proprioceptive signal. When you take away one orientation sense (eyesight) the body needs to boost it's proprioceptive ability to determine the position on your limbs/to maintain equillibrium etc.
Try this: stand on one leg and like in a one-leg deadlift touch the floor. Do the same thing with your eyes closed. Which was harder? Or try to balance on a medball or basketball with your eyes open vs. your eyes closed.
-
I don't know. It just makes sense for me. By the same token, why does closing your eyes demand a more proprioceptive signal from you when moving around?
Well, for me it does not. When you make a point like that it would be good if you had arguments in favor of it, don't you agree?
Also, I don't understand your question. What is a "more proprioceptive signal"? And what does that have to do with our discussion?
I meant "stronger" proprioceptive signal. When you take away one orientation sense (eyesight) the body needs to boost it's proprioceptive ability to determine the position on your limbs/to maintain equillibrium etc.
Try this: stand on one leg and like in a one-leg deadlift touch the floor. Do the same thing with your eyes closed. Which was harder? Or try to balance on a medball or basketball with your eyes open vs. your eyes closed.
I don't understand how this relates to negative coordination when having excess body fat. Could you explain?
-
Well, in my bro opinion, having "dead excess weight" messes the proprioceptive signal around. The CNS is like "I ain't gonna allow this limb to move this fast while being this heavy" as it receives signals from the receptors that sit in that particular limb. At least, this is my view on things, but you can take it as the holy word if you want to. You know I'm just never wrong.
-
Well, in my bro opinion, having "dead excess weight" messes the proprioceptive signal around. The CNS is like "I ain't gonna allow this limb to move this fast while being this heavy" as it receives signals from the receptors that sit in that particular limb. At least, this is my view on things, but you can take it as the holy word if you want to. You know I'm just never wrong.
You are retarded!
-
Well, in my bro opinion, having "dead excess weight" messes the proprioceptive signal around. The CNS is like "I ain't gonna allow this limb to move this fast while being this heavy" as it receives signals from the receptors that sit in that particular limb. At least, this is my view on things, but you can take it as the holy word if you want to. You know I'm just never wrong.
You are retarded!
Maybe, but you're both retarded AND gay. When it comes to both, you have really cornered the market.
-
Raptor, dude, what can I say? Of course you can have this opinion, but you cannot possibly wonder about the reactions...
-
Well I think outside the box and am not afraid to display what I think. Call that retarded, I call it outside the box. Whatever. It doesn't really matter to me what random person A or B over the internet thinks. If I'm wrong, I think a high level of bodyfat is actually an indicator that that person doesn't train/run/jump too much and it's not necessarily the bodyfat itself that's detrimental, instead - it's an indicator about that person's activity level. I think you can't really disagree on that one. It also takes more effort to move more useless weight (fat) so that person probably gets tired after doing a few jumps whereas a lower bodyfat person can train more and get better results as such.
-
How can mass be detrimental when the execution of any athletic act requires the presence of a physical body in the first place?.
Andy Bolton has a twin brother.
Andy Bolton 1 weighs 350lbs.
Andy Bolton 2 weighs 180lbs.
Both can lift the same numbers & all others factors remain constant.
They perform some athletic testing.
Which Andy Bolton can jump the highest, run the fastest & furthest?. And why?.
-
How can mass be detrimental when the execution of any athletic act requires the presence of a physical body in the first place?.
Andy Bolton has a twin brother.
Andy Bolton 1 weighs 350lbs.
Andy Bolton 2 weighs 180lbs.
Both can lift the same numbers & all others factors remain constant.
They perform some athletic testing.
Which Andy Bolton can jump the highest, run the fastest & furthest?. And why?.
neither, the tooth fairy wins this one hands down.
-
How can mass be detrimental when the execution of any athletic act requires the presence of a physical body in the first place?.
Andy Bolton has a twin brother.
Andy Bolton 1 weighs 350lbs.
Andy Bolton 2 weighs 180lbs.
Both can lift the same numbers & all others factors remain constant.
They perform some athletic testing.
Which Andy Bolton can jump the highest, run the fastest & furthest?. And why?.
andy bolton #2, what do i win ??
-
That's it, I'm getting fat. See, Rippetoe was right when he transformed that kid into a fat slob. That's how athletes look.
-
How can mass be detrimental when the execution of any athletic act requires the presence of a physical body in the first place?.
Andy Bolton has a twin brother.
Andy Bolton 1 weighs 350lbs.
Andy Bolton 2 weighs 180lbs.
Both can lift the same numbers & all others factors remain constant.
They perform some athletic testing.
Which Andy Bolton can jump the highest, run the fastest & furthest?. And why?.
Why don't you write a mail to Andy Bolton to ask him if he could still deadlift over 1000 lbs if he was 180 lbs?
-
Michael Bolton can deadlift 1000? :o
I always thought there's something fishy with that guy.
-
I understand what raptor is getting at. But if your relative strength is increasing, despite significant amounts of muscle mass, why would the CNS think you are heavy? You should perceive yourself as being lighter and more nimble.
I've been PRing like crazy this summer but I have not gained much muscle mass in my legs, or strength in my lifts. I think most of my gains are coming form bone/tendons/ligaments not muscle.
-
No they are not, it's the CNS that has adapted to fire the electrical impulses better.
-
I don't understand why you would have to feel heavier, i think you would feel lighter, especially if CNS firing improves
-
I don't understand why you would have to feel heavier, i think you would feel lighter, especially if CNS firing improves
If you suddenly lose mass, then yeah.
-
Why don't you write a mail to Andy Bolton to ask him if he could still deadlift over 1000 lbs if he was 180 lbs?.
Original Link: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l3a.cfm
Newtons laws of motion cannot be challenged here in this thread.
-
Why don't you write a mail to Andy Bolton to ask him if he could still deadlift over 1000 lbs if he was 180 lbs?.
Original Link: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l3a.cfm
Your reasoning skills are impressive.
-
Why don't you write a mail to Andy Bolton to ask him if he could still deadlift over 1000 lbs if he was 180 lbs?.
Original Link: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l3a.cfm
Newtons laws of motion cannot be challenged here in this thread.
you sir are an amazing species of moron, can i bring you to show and tell in my science class? do not argue with avishek if he said something it is right you dont know shit bottom line.
avishek> $ick3nin.v3d3tta bottom line ya
-
you sir are an amazing species of moron, can i bring you to show and tell in my science class? do not argue with avishek if he said something it is right you dont know shit bottom line.
avishek> $ick3nin.v3d3tta bottom line ya
lol.
Newtons law has just single handily been debunked.
-
I don't understand why you would have to feel heavier, i think you would feel lighter, especially if CNS firing improves
If you suddenly lose mass, then yeah.
So what do you think about the Squat Dr. guy, 200 lbs squatting 600+, while still developing forces at a high rate (he sprinted as well and reported fast times, believing it or not is another thing). His body seriously thinks he is "heavy" when he is developing such forces? Of course there are countless other examples of people like this, such as many football players, sprinters (maurice greene, chambers (who has a huge vert, huge squat, and a lot of muscle mass).
If I move to Jupiter for 3 months, then come back here, I should feel lighter, not heavier despite gains in muscle mass. If I go on a spaceship flight to the moon, and lose bone/muscle mass, i will be lighter, but feel heavier.
If I jump around on a trampoline for a while, I feel heavier even though I perceived myself to be lighter while on the trampoline. After a set of 3 of squat jumps, I feel lighter, despite feeling heavier with a lot of weight on my back.
Which systems coordinate these 'feelings' is my real question.
I see the analogy of higher muscle mass compared to an engine, but it seems like you're comparing the CNS to that engine with is not analogous, it should be the heart you're talking about, and the CNS the driver of the car. If your strength, especially explosive strength keeps increasing, how can the muscle mass be considered a burden? Furthermore if we are performing explosive strength training the tendons are hypertrophying as well and this results in further strength gains so the discussino should not just include muscle.
-
SquatDr was just used as an example. Obvious troll is obvious.
-
SquatDr was just used as an example. Obvious troll is obvious.
You have a tiny mental capacity. I could have said athlete X weights 200 lbs and squats 600+. If things are obvious to you you are an i.d.i.o.t.