is a workout that doesn't make you sore supposed to be effective? I've started doing bodyweight training a week ago and I haven't gotten half as sore in the second and third workout as i did in the first. should I improve the number of reps and sets?
I'm a skinny ectomorph, 6'0 158lbs btw.
I lift heavy ass weights and I don't get sore.
You only really get sore the first few times or when you do something new.
>falling for the body type meme
>>36788704
why shouldn't I?
Soreness occurs when your muscles are not used to what they just endured. For example if you start lifting or if you start lifting heavy again after vacation for example or if you do unhabitual lifts.
Being sore the next day feels really good but goes away pretty fast if you are consisten without the workout being uneffective,
Imo it can be an indication of a "good" workout so It's sufficient but not necessary
>>36788713
>>36788701
okay, that's cool, thanks.
now that that's out of the way, what bodyweight exercises can you do with an iron gym when you're as skinny as me? i do reverse pull ups dips planks and push ups but I'm not sure if that's enough.
>>36788724
Pull ups, dips, etc.
>>36788748
yeah but I already do them friend I wanted to know if there are more exercises that I should do or if these are enough
I also do jumping squats and walking lunges for lower body training
>>36788710
Because it's utter bullshit.
>>36788818
what, faster metabolisms are bullshit? people having longer limbs and more fragile bone structure and longer muscle soreness recovery rate is bullshit? we're all the same in that regard? that's what you're trying to say?
>>36788836
Not original person you were talking to.
Of course people have different limbs, different BMR's, different recoveries. That's genetic variation. Not somatotypes.
Somatotypes are a concept invented by a psychologist, not someone with a background in sports science or biomechanics. It's built around innate temperament and potential general observations. It is in no way supported by medical science and physiology.
>>36788856
I don't see where you're trying to get. aren't somatotypes supposed to describe genetic variation? different limbs, different recovery rates etc? 'cause that's literally what they're supposed to refer to and literally what you just confirmed to recognize as being different from individual to individual.
>>36788902
The individual variations exist.
There's no evidence they group together in any fashion that somatotypes describe.
test
>>36788902
No. They're trying to suggest that classifications of human bodies, classifications that were performed with bias and without proper definitive guidelines, in an unethical manner, with only superficial relation, determine your psychological state and potential to psychological factors. However, there is no proven discernible link between your body 'type' and your specific metabolism, which is highly variable, due to both personal and environmental factors.
That's why its genetic variation instead. Somatotypes are stereotypes without a proven basis, and suggest that body types are not highly variable, when they are. You are not an 'ectomorph'. You're a skinny guy with a particular psychiatric profile. Those are not specifically related. You can have obese people or athletes with similar psychiatric profiles. Bodies are variable.
>doing bodyweight training
>not experiencing a full 4 day t-rex
You need to do more of every everything!
>>36788967
your mom experienced a full 4 day t-rex when you were at your school trip last summer
>>36788818
Now I'm convinced. thanks!.
I miss being sore...
any body got some good article/text about this meme thing "you need to have DOM's everytime or your are not working hard enough"?
