Go Back   Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Training

Exiting myth or fact

Training discussion on Exiting myth or fact, within the Bodybuilding Forum; I have heard that the body built by using your own weight results in aw body that lasts longer than ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-10-2006, 12:13 AM   #1
arthur
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 24

Default Exiting myth or fact

I have heard that the body built by using your own weight results in aw body that lasts longer than by other methods.

Is it true and if yes then why.


Please answer somebody.
arthur is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2006, 11:14 AM   #2
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

That's really the same as saying that the hypertrophy that results from lifting very heavy weights as opposed to light weight high reps tends to stick around longer...which is somewhat true.

Without getting into the superiority of certain bodyweight (or bw + more weight) exercises such as pullups instead of pulldowns, your bodyweight tends to be heavier than the weights people start with on a typical "bodybuilding" routine. Therfore it is more likely that any resulting muscle size will be the result of actual structural protein which does have a little more staying power than sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Last edited by EricT; 09-12-2006 at 11:20 AM..

EricT's Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2006, 11:59 PM   #3
arthur
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 24

Talking Exiting myth or fact2 and how to get good info.

Thank you for replying.

I want to know something about the answer you gave.

1. You Said - Without getting into the superiority of certain bodyweight (or bw + more weight) exercises. Do you mean body ewight exercises are superior and how.

2. actual structural protein, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy what do these terms mean.

You seem to be quite experienced and knowledgeable, can you tell me of some free detailed resources.

Thanking you,
Arthur
arthur is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2006, 10:34 AM   #4
BG5150
Rank: Bantamweight
 
BG5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 873
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via AIM to BG5150
Default

What's an "exiting myth"? Where is it leaving from?

(And thanks for not typing in blue any more; much easier to read now.)

Last edited by BG5150; 09-14-2006 at 09:34 AM..
BG5150 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2006, 12:37 PM   #5
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arthur
1. You Said - Without getting into the superiority of certain bodyweight (or bw + more weight) exercises. Do you mean body ewight exercises are superior and how.


Well notice I said "certain" bodyweight exercises are superior. I don't use adjectives like certain lightly! But it’s like saying squats are superior to leg press…which they are.

It's actually a very complicated question that gets into a lot of gray areas such as closed chain kinetic vs. open chain kinetic exercises. (squats and pullups = closed chain, pulldowns and leg press = open chain). When you start getting into what is superior you have to ask the question superior for what? THAT discussion is way too big and not even exercise scientists have it all figured out so it would be silly for me to try and prove. I will say that closed chain exercises TEND to be more functional but this is not true accross the board and certainly not true for all athletic endeavors.


I can say pretty confidently that pullups (and I mean pullups or chinups) as I mentioned will give better results than pulldowns. It has a better transfer to real world activities in which the movement is relevant. Pullups improve your pulldowns much more so than pulldowns improve your pullups. A rock climber, for instance, who trains with pulldowns instead of pullups is not a very smart rock climber! And they give you better lats, a bigger, stonger back. This based on my experience, the experience of others I know, and numerous training gurus. You can't cheat on pullups. You can't get your lower back into it and use momentum.

But only if you can do one, of course. If you can't then pulldowns to start or rack pulls (rack chins) are good to start with. There is also the "assisted pullups" thing.

If you're wondering about the closed vs. open thing here is a simple def from Paul Chek but remember we're getting into all sorts of gray areas here and most of the research people cite is inappropriate since it's all about rehabilitating ACL injuries.

Here is are definitions from Paul Chek: “To simplify the terms, OPEN KINETIC CHAIN exercises are those exercises in which the force applied by the body is great enough to overcome the resistance. An example of an open chain exercise would be a bench press, or any leg press which allows the force applied to move the load away from the body.

In contrast, CLOSED KINETIC CHAIN EXERCISES are those in which the force applied is not great enough to overcome the resistance. Examples would be the push-up and squat exercises.

To clarify for the novice list reader, even though the load applied during the squat is on the body, the force generated is applied to the ground, not the bar. To move the bar, the lifter must apply a force against the earth great enough to overcome the resistance created by the load on the bar.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by arthur
2. actual structural protein, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy what do these terms mean.


Increase in muscle size is called muscle hypertophy. It can be caused by either an increase in the cross sectional area of a muscle fiber (hypertrophy) or by and increase in the numver of motor fiber (hyperplasia) although it is widely debated whether this second actually occurs to any appreciable level in humans.

So I’ll stick with the basic definitions of the former, hypertrophy.

There are two types. Sarcoplasmic hypertophy is the increase in size of the
Sarcoplasm. It’s associtated with an increase in noncontractile tissues. Think of it as the “jelly” in the cell. Cross sectional area will increase but filament density will decrease with sarcoplasmic hypertophy, with no increase in strength.

Myopfibrillar hypertophy is an enlargement of the muscle fiber when more myofibrils are formed. So filiament density increases and therefore strength.

Here is some reading:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...rophy-1909.htm

http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/hypertrophy.txt

http://hypertrophy-research.com/index.html
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2006, 01:50 AM   #6
arthur
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 24

Talking exciting myth or fact

Thanks for good info. and links you gave and the explanation of all the terms I stated.

But reading all this again leaves me to think that bodyewight exercises do tend to have a magical advantage over weight training.[esp. the rock climber article seems to prove it.]

However I still can't figure out why if a person is using weights heavy enough {enough to manage just a rep or two} why should not those be exactly similiar to bodyweight exercies {of course if no chaeting is allowed}.

Secondly in pullups I think so the the closed chain will not apply since one is actually moving the body [overcoming the resistance of the body's weight].

Also somebody told me that the type I fibers decline faster than type 2 fibers because of what they call the body ability to do and maintain just what is required, and so maybe during detraining the body feels that type 1fibers [which are used first in regular activities] are not required in so great a volume and hence t cut down on them, but the type 2 fibers{so long as proper nutrition is supplied} are preserved as fight or flight adaptations. Is this true.

And this is for BG5150, I know I should have written exciting fact or myth, that would have sounded better,the rest of the sentenceyou typed was not understanable. .
arthur is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2006, 08:20 AM   #7
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Brad, please point out all the typos in this post .

Quote:
Originally Posted by arthur
But reading all this again leaves me to think that bodyewight exercises do tend to have a magical advantage over weight training.[esp. the rock climber article seems to prove it.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthur

However I still can't figure out why if a person is using weights heavy enough {enough to manage just a rep or two} why should not those be exactly similiar to bodyweight exercies {of course if no chaeting is allowed}.
1. There is nothing magical about it. It's just that although movements are similar small changes in joint angles and big changes like where the weight is can mean quite significant changes in the biomechanics. Call it specificity if you like. If you want to get better at pulling your body up, you have to pull you body up. Why does a leg press recruit more quads and a (proper) squat more hams? It seems superficially similar but it's actually QUITE different. But it's really oveanalysing. If you think a couple of pulldowns is the same as a couple of pullups then go ahead and do pulldowns . Hell, I do pulldowns sometimes but pullups are the staple (well, rows are the staple but you know what I mean).

Quote:
Originally Posted by arthur
Secondly in pullups I think so the the closed chain will not apply since one is actually moving the body [overcoming the resistance of the body's weight


This is why people give simple pat answers to these questions, such as pull-ups are better, end of discussion…

My goal was to indicate that there are no simple answers but that these are some of the explanations that people put forth.

This is why I called it a grey area. If your goal is to try and pick the right exercises for a particular sport or whatever then it matters. If your goal is to build muscle and strength then only what gives the best results matters. The original definition by Arthur Steindler in itself was not a precise black or white thing and Chek’s explanation I cited above is prob a little too vague. Steindler talked about whether the proximal joint was free to move against the resistance, whether the proximal was fixed and the peripheral was either eventually able to overcome the resistance or it was insurmountable. So an exercise could be partially closed or whatever and as you can see we’re just nitpicking here. I shouldn’t have mentioned it at all but my intention was to point out that there is no simple pat answer to why certain exericises like pull-ups are better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arthur
Also somebody told me that the type I fibers decline faster than type 2 fibers because of what they call the body ability to do and maintain just what is required, and so maybe during detraining the body feels that type 1fibers [which are used first in regular activities] are not required in so great a volume and hence t cut down on them, but the type 2 fibers{so long as proper nutrition is supplied} are preserved as fight or flight adaptations. Is this true.


You’re worried about things you can’t control. Your body adapts to the specific demand placed on it. That doesn’t mean that if you weight train enough you will not be able to stand up cuz your body cut down your type 1 fibers. If you lay in bed for a long long time it’s a different story. Which explains why you can’t come out of a 6 year coma and then go seek revenge on your enemies two hours later like Steven Seagal

Here are some threads that will get you pointed in the right direction:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training-forum/why-arent-you-growing-1451.html

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...rent-2972.html

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...gh-2867-2.html

Last edited by EricT; 09-14-2006 at 08:37 AM..
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Training


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.