Mehdilaughs.jpg
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
>He fell for the mo strenk iz mo mussul meme.
>>36983261
me too at first
now i train at 80% RM for 4-5 sets with 8-9 reps, anything wrong with that for maximum gainz?
>>36983732
Yeah, no way you're getting 9 reps at 80% of your max...
>>36983261
It's not a meme, and it's possible to get stranger without getting more muscle mass at first, because of your central nervous system getting more efficient, but eventually, you won't grow stronger without more muscle mass.
>>36984062
Explain pls. How/why you won't grow stronger?
I guess it's different for everybody, but breh I've been doing 3x3 on the compounds + my own accessory work and hasn't stopped increasing weight in over 2 months.
>>36984106
>>36984062
ex-anorexic as well
>>36984106
because you need more muscle to lift things.
>>36984186
Youre an idiot, mass and strength are unrelated you fucking faggot.
>>36984186
The number of muscle-cells has a set limit. You don't magically create more when you lift, they just expand after being broken down. So you don't get "more" muscle.
>>36983732
>9 reps at 80 %
I dont think you know what the 80 % stands for
>>36984210
>implying you could get as strong as a strongman without getting more muscle mass
AHAHAHAHA
Right. They are very related, just that there's a margin where you can get stronger by coordinating your CNS. It's mechanical: more strength = more muscle.
>>36984215
More muscle mass, dumb fuck. Not "more muscles". Pay attention.
>muscle = uncountable
>muscles = countable
Muscles refer to the numerable muscles there are; those don't appear of disappear.
Muscle refers to the substance of it, the muscle mass.
>>36984246
Jesus fuck, youre on the internet right now, just fucking google it, thats all it takes. Why argue without checking your facts? Your ignorance is absolutely baffling, I hope you get hit by a buss.
>>36983261
Your body is efficient, so it will first try to max out your current muscle fibers by firing more at the same time. After that stops working, your body will start building more muscle out of necessity.
>>36984223
What?
RM 100kg, 80% = 80kg
Faggot
>>36984283
yes google says you are a retard
>muscle mass and muscle strength are positively correlated, independent of the associations of age and gender with muscle mass and strength.
http://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2318-13-74
Just one of many sources that confirms what everyone already knows.
>>36984467
If you can do 5 sets of 9 reps at supposedly your "80%" max, you are way underestimating your true 1RM.
>>36984021
you stfu, nu male faggot
>>36984478
can't really test RM because of home gym, so i just guessed it
>>36984478
1RM vs RM
Hes refering to 80% of what he can do 8-9 reps with.
>>36984507
>>36984500
Nvrm hes just dumb.
I have home gym and I can test my maxes.. not that I do because Im too busy training
>>36984473
Yes, both are positively correlated, obviously. Increase the one, and the other will most of the time increase accordingly, like the linear model shows. But just wanted to point out that, like bulgarian style training shows, you can have increases of strength without necessarily an increase in muscle mass. I can also think of cases where there can be an increase of muscle mass without (or even a decrease) in strength.
>>36984517
but not too busy shitposting on /fit/
balding weak faggot
>>36984305
This.
>>36984283
You're a fucking idiot, man.
>>36984507
I see, makes sense. But I have never seen it referred like that before.
>>36984305
How about no. Pretty sure _most_ people WILL start building muscle long before they reach their maximum efficiency if their diet is in check. If you are saying that the body will not build muscle unless you have reached your maximum potential (as in motor unit recruitment effieciency) for that muscle mass, then that's clearly and provably wrong.
