# Bodybuild Myths and Fact



## rabbit (Dec 14, 2007)

I am just wanted to know if a pound of muscle is denser and takes up less space than fat how come bodybuilders like Ronnie Coleman and Arnold are so freakin' huge for their bodyweight. That means if I gain muscle I shouldn't look that much bigger, right? and I have something to worry about if I gain a lot of weight and look a lot bigger because it's fat, right?


----------



## rabbit (Dec 14, 2007)

I would like to change the title of the thread from Bodybuilding Myth and Facts to Body Composition Myth and Facts becuase the goal is to have the Ideal body composition for a Martial Artist not enter a Bodybuilding competition.


----------



## exile (Dec 14, 2007)

Rabbit, the guys you're referring to are loaded to the gunwhales with a variety of anabolic steroids in complex cycles, testosterone, and probably human growth hormone, along with a variety of serious diuretics during competition season. You cannot draw any conclusions at all about proper body composition from these science projects. Muscle _is_  a good deal denser than bone, fat or other body tissue, and a 180lb guy who is 12% body fat will definitely take up less volume than a 180lb guy who is 35% body fat. No question. But when you're taking a pharmacy-worth of heavy-duty muscle-growth promoters, all bets are off... except one: you are going to wind up getting very, very sick, and maybe dead, as a result, sometime down the line.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 14, 2007)

Most professional or top athletes in a sport have a certain type of bodycomposition for their sport.  A short person with short legs is going to have a lot harder time kicking a tall person with long legs in the head. I know we can't change our height or the legth of are legs, but it makes sense to me that body composition is important. You can gain lean body mass or change how much fat you are carrying.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 14, 2007)

It is our body we use to kick and punch. Altering body composition is like having a different and better body to play your sport of choice.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 15, 2007)

Look at the height/weight of the current Mr. Olympia, those guys are really tall, most are under 6'0.  Here are the stats of the current Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler
*Height:* 5'9
*Off Season Weight:* 300 lbs
*Competition Weight:* 260 lbs
*Arms:* 22 1/2"
*Thighs:* 30"
*Calves:* 20"
*Waist:* 34"
*Neck:* 19 1/2"

Yes, you can somewhat alter your body composition and have a different body type, but that is only possible to this degree in the VAST majority of the population if you have some chemical assistance.

As far as "bodytypes" for martial arts, you are going to find as many different successful people as you are body types.  What kind of martial art do you study?  Tailor your program for how your body moves within that martial art.  

The top bodybuilders are walking around with probably a little over 100 lbs of extra muscle on them compared to an "average" person of the same height and bone structure.


----------



## exile (Dec 15, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> Look at the height/weight of the current Mr. Olympia, those guys are really tall, most are under 6'0.  Here are the stats of the current Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler
> *Height:* 5'9
> *Off Season Weight:* 300 lbs
> *Competition Weight:* 260 lbs
> ...



Dead right, punisher.

To see how far you get without multiple cycles of anabolic substances and other damaging chemicals, consider John Grimek, of whom the following descripion is given here:

_John Grimek is the only man ever to win the AAU Mr. America title more than once. His wins in 1940 and 1941 were so overwhelming that contest organizers from then on implemented the single-victory rule. Grimek exhibited a Herculean visage and was as strong as he looked - evidenced when he represented the United States as a weightlifter at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. In 1948, at 38 years of age, Grimek beat the young sensation Steve Reeves at the NABBA Mr. Universe in London.

A year later, in his last contest, the AAU Mr. USA, he beat Reeves again - as well as Clarence Ross, George Eiferman and Armand Tanny - and retired from bodybuilding competition undefeated. Expert at controlling his muscles and agile in acrobatic posing moves, he possessed extreme power; he was still able to squat with over 400 pounds for reps well after retirement age.

With his combination of proportionate bodylines and raw power, John Grimek served as the perfect hybrid between the pre-war "bodybuilder as strongman" genre and the modern "one sport only" bodybuilder. John passed away on November 20, 1998, and will forever be remembered for his philosophy of life - always keep your focus on good health as the primary motivation for your toil, and build muscle the old fashioned way - earn it by hard work and dedication._​
This was before anabolic steroids were introduced by the loathsome John Ziegler into U.S. athletics. Take a look at Grimek's physiquehard to imagine anything more impressiveclearly a guy with terrific genes for bodybuilding/powerliftingbut he's literally _half_ the size of guys like Yates, Coleman, and Cutler. So where did that vast inflation come from between Grimek's era and theirs?

Three guesses...


----------



## Drac (Dec 15, 2007)

exile said:


> except one: you are going to wind up getting very, very sick, and maybe dead, as a result, sometime down the line.


 
Exile speaks the truth..There is a science to taking roids and the COST is out of this world...I knew a dishwasher that went on the roids when they were the HOT thing to be on..He looked great until his health began to suffer, loss of hair, enlarged breasts etc..etc.. He laid off and shrunk back to his former size..At that point he was unable to lift a 20lb dumbell wothout pain...*Robert Kennedy's Muscle Mag International magazine* had a column that was dedicated to roids, you might want to check them out..There are alot of over-the-counter supplements available, look into them...


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 15, 2007)

exile said:


> Take a look at Grimek's physiquehard to imagine anything more impressiveclearly a guy with terrific genes for bodybuilding/powerliftingbut he's literally _half_ the size of guys like Yates, Coleman, and Cutler.



*Old School!*


----------



## exile (Dec 15, 2007)

Drac said:


> I knew a dishwasher that went on the roids when they were the HOT thing to be on..He looked great until his health began to suffer, loss of hair, enlarged breasts etc..etc.. He laid off and shrunk back to his former size..At that point he was unable to lift a 20lb dumbell wothout pain...



Absolutely, Drac&#8212;that's a common side effect. The problem is that normal testosterone production often diminishes as the body adjusts to external test intake  and the absorbtion of other synthetic test mimics. This can result in permanent infertility and other sexual dysfunctions, and muscle atrophy when the 'roids are withdrawn. I've seen photos of guys who went off 'roids and within a year or so, they look like they've aged a decade... but the alternative, staying on them, is way _worse_. Bad, bad road to go down: you get either the bad news or the _very_ bad news...




newGuy12 said:


> *Old School!*



Great shot, nG&#8212;that's the real thing! Remember, folks: steroid use was unknown at the time of that photo... it _can_ be done naturally (whether or not you're genetically gifted). Just sustained hard, devoted, smart work... i.e., like everything else worth doing.


----------



## tellner (Dec 15, 2007)

Exile and Punisher, I tried to rep you guys, but they want me to Share the *Luv* first. Damn Bob, all that promiscuity is just hell on Traditional Values 

Another thing about bodybuilding is that it's really about fashion and aesthetics, not strength. If you look at a guy who uses those muscles for a living - a longshoreman, a farmer, a wrestler - he doesn't look like a bodybuilder. Depending on his genetics he's going to look wiry or slab-sided or like a barrel. And he'll use his whole body as much as possible. 

The bodybuilding look works _against_ functional strength in a lot of ways. You get those highly sculpted anatomy drawing muscles by working them individually and Frankensteining them together. The training rewards muscles working in isolation.


----------



## exile (Dec 15, 2007)

tellner said:


> Exile and Punisher, I tried to rep you guys, but they want me to Share the *Luv* first. Damn Bob, all that promiscuity is just hell on Traditional Values
> 
> Another thing about bodybuilding is that it's really about fashion and aesthetics, not strength. If you look at a guy who uses those muscles for a living - a longshoreman, a farmer, a wrestler - he doesn't look like a bodybuilder. Depending on his genetics he's going to look wiry or slab-sided or like a barrel. And he'll use his whole body as much as possible.
> 
> The bodybuilding look works _against_ functional strength in a lot of ways. *You get those highly sculpted anatomy drawing muscles by working them individually and Frankensteining them together. The training rewards muscles working in isolation.*



And it also rewards bizarre dietary regimes, use of seriously dangerous diuretics (early megabodybuilder Paul Dillett, who was in the 300 lb + contest-ready class before most of the others who wound up there, came within an ace of some kind of major cardiovascular trauma during one contest, probably as a result of the latter), dangerous metabolism accelerants... all used in combinations which were never foreseen by the manufacturers of those substances (some of which, apparently, were originally intended for _veterinary_ use!! One thing about Grimek: he was a working powerlifter, and powerlifters emphasize big compound exercises and tend not to worry too much about looking ultra-shredded&#8212;they just want to get pounds off the floor. Early, pre 'roidal gymnasts are another good role-model: they have functional strength in abundance, excellent symmetrical musculature (because their routines typically entail equal strength demands on both sides) and lean, efficient body composition... but not the monstrous overgrowth that makes contemporary body-builders look like a different species that went down the wrong evolutionary road...

The thing that's so striking about that passage I quoted above about Grimek is what's implied in the line `Expert at controlling his muscles and agile in acrobatic posing moves,...' The fact is, contemporary bodybuilders have a hard time controlling their muscles because their steroid regimes result in muscle volume that is _too large for their connective tissue_&#8212;their tendons, ligaments and cartilage, the strings that get the puppet to actually move. Connective tissue, unlike muscle tissue, does not increase in volume in response to anabolic substances, so you get guys who look as though the should be able to outwrestle 800lb mountain gorillas who have a hard time crossing the street, let alone being able to do something like MA sparring (or   tennis or anything else requiring speed and control). The clichéd notion of the `muscle-bound' bodybuilder has an element of truth to it, but not because muscles slow you up&#8212;if you develop them the way Grimek did, the connective infractructure that lets you use your muscles in agile and fast-paced fashion will be there; but the steroidal monsters of the Mr. Olympia circuit don't do it like that. As Tellner emphasizes, the premium is on cosmetic appearances, æsthetic fetishes (e.g. you get more points for very prominent blood vessels at the surface of your muscles, hence the lavish use of dangerous dehydrant agents) and other distinctly _non_functional goals.

In the end, the working athlete, training naturally and devotedly and focusing on strength, balance and accuracy, will be the most successful MAist, benefitting from the speed that powerful muscles provide and the ability to not only generate but direct the power created by those muscles to the target. And this is true whether you're tall, short, narrow- or broad-shouldered.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2007)

One question to ask. 

How many Olympic weightlifters, how many power lifters look like any body builders competing today? Possibly none

Ok maybe it was 2 questions


----------



## exile (Dec 15, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> ...
> How many Olympic weightlifters, how many power lifters look like any body builders competing today?...



Not bloody many!

Bodybuilding training has become so specialized, artificial and... well, fetishist, for want of a better word... that it's essentially ceased to be a strength discipline, at least in terms of applicable strength. Yes, these guys can lift fearsome weights (though they can lift heavier than their tendons are built to handle, hence are always experiencing horrific muscle tears of the sort that drove Dorian Yates into retirement), but they can't do anything with that strength which depends even a little bit on coordinated use of it. That's why there is essentially zero overlap, at the more advanced levels of the respective activities, between competitive bodybuilders and competitive powerlifters (or shotputters, or hammer throwers, or anything else like that).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2007)

exile said:


> Not bloody many!
> 
> Bodybuilding training has become so specialized, artificial and... well, fetishist, for want of a better word... that it's essentially ceased to be a strength discipline, at least in terms of applicable strength. Yes, these guys can lift fearsome weights (though they can lift heavier than their tendons are built to handle, hence are always experiencing horrific muscle tears of the sort that drove Dorian Yates into retirement), but they can't do anything with that strength which depends even a little bit on coordinated use of it. That's why there is essentially zero overlap, at the more advanced levels of the respective activities, between competitive bodybuilders and competitive powerlifters (or shotputters, or hammer throwers, or anything else like that).


 
agreed

Everytime I read anything about body builders and strength (and don't get me wrong they are pretty strong) I always think the same thing

Vasili Alexiev certainly would never have won a body building competition... but the man could have lifted a truck full of them.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 15, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> One question to ask.
> 
> How many Olympic weightlifters, how many power lifters look like any body builders competing today? Possibly none
> 
> Ok maybe it was 2 questions


 
This is an intresting article 

http://www.muscle-building.com/muscle_size_vs_strength.html


----------



## rabbit (Dec 15, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> Look at the height/weight of the current Mr. Olympia, those guys are really tall, most are under 6'0. Here are the stats of the current Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler
> *Height:* 5'9
> *Off Season Weight:* 300 lbs
> *Competition Weight:* 260 lbs
> ...


 


How come they weigh more in the off season than when in contest shape. I have heard that muscle burns fat. They have alot of muscle how come they gain weight. With 100 pounds of extra muscle it would seem to me that they would be lean all year long. Something about the modern bodybuilding methods don't seem to add up. I am starting to wonder if the have a hidden agenda.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

rabbit said:


> How come they weigh more in the off season than when in contest shape. I have heard that muscle burns fat. They have alot of muscle how come they gain weight. With 100 pounds of extra muscle it would seem to me that they would be lean all year long. Something about the modern bodybuilding methods don't seem to add up. I am starting to wonder if the have a hidden agenda.


Muscle is denser, and burns more calories than fat - but muscles that are not constantly in use quickly convert to fat.  The food necessary to maintain such muscles during the training season is more than is required to maintain body weight - to maintain that type of muscle, the same level of muscle-building activity must be performed regularly; any drop in activity leads to a corresponding drop in muscle mass, and the changes are additive - the more muscle turns to fat, the fewer calories are burned, the more muscle turns to fat, etc.  Only by resuming the previous level of activity (and the ingestion of any supplements, legal or not) can the person rebuild the lost musculature.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 15, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Muscle is denser, and burns more calories than fat - but muscles that are not constantly in use quickly convert to fat. The food necessary to maintain such muscles during the training season is more than is required to maintain body weight - to maintain that type of muscle, the same level of muscle-building activity must be performed regularly; any drop in activity leads to a corresponding drop in muscle mass, and the changes are additive - the more muscle turns to fat, the fewer calories are burned, the more muscle turns to fat, etc. Only by resuming the previous level of activity (and the ingestion of any supplements, legal or not) can the person rebuild the lost musculature.


 


I was readin something right now and I've come to this conclusion.........

It all depends if you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain bodyweight. If you eat enough but not so much you gain fat you will maintain your weight. Maybe it is because in the off season they are trying to get more mass or bring up lagging body parts and eating above maintainace. This seems very extreme to me. they already have to eat a huge amount to maintain the muscle.  In the off-season they have to eat even more. This is insane for an average person.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 15, 2007)

rabbit said:


> I was readin something right now and I've come to this conclusion.........
> 
> It all depends if you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain bodyweight. If you eat enough but not so much you gain fat you will maintain your weight. Maybe it is because in the off season they are trying to get more mass or bring up lagging body parts and eating above maintainace. This seems very extreme to me. they already have to eat a huge amount to maintain the muscle. In the off-season they have to eat even more. This is insane for an average person.


 


Are there other sports that build big muscles? Like sprinting? Is it really neccesary to lift weights? Or are all the bodybuilding magazines, the pros with the hidden agendas (buy this, buy that protein powder), and people who believe them trying to get us to go with the current trends?


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Muscle is denser, and burns more calories than fat - but muscles that are not constantly in use quickly convert to fat.  The food necessary to maintain such muscles during the training season is more than is required to maintain body weight - to maintain that type of muscle, the same level of muscle-building activity must be performed regularly; any drop in activity leads to a corresponding drop in muscle mass, and the changes are additive - the more muscle turns to fat, the fewer calories are burned, the more muscle turns to fat, etc.  Only by resuming the previous level of activity (and the ingestion of any supplements, legal or not) can the person rebuild the lost musculature.


Muscle doesn't turn into fat, anymore than arms become legs.  Muscle can lose it's tone and sag, and it can be covered in fat... but the muscle is still there, unless it atrophies and is broken down by the body.  That's why it doesn't take nearly as long to restore strength as it did to develop it in the first place.

Bodybuilders weight is so dramatically different during their off season versus competition weights because they focus on reducing the fat in their bodies down as low as possible -- often to unhealthy levels.  Add techniques to drive water out to highlight their muscle development, and you get some serious weight differences.  Fighters and wrestlers also often show a significant difference in weight as they prepare for competition; many fighters carry something like 10 to 30 pounds when they aren't preparing for a fight.  Ideally, they cut just enough weight to slip under the weight limit at weigh ins, and then go up 5 to 10 pounds for the fight.  They want to really be a 180 pounder fighting in the 170 pound class, for example, to get the maximum advantage of weight and strength.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Muscle doesn't turn into fat, anymore than arms become legs.  Muscle can lose it's tone and sag, and it can be covered in fat... but the muscle is still there, unless it atrophies and is broken down by the body.  That's why it doesn't take nearly as long to restore strength as it did to develop it in the first place.


Pardon, I misspoke - I meant what you said, but didn't put it quite as clearly.  What I meant was, unless exercised regularly, muscle tone is lost, causing muscles to sag - which looks like fat externally - and unless the caloric intake is adjusted for the lower energy use, fat will build up as well.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

rabbit said:


> I was readin something right now and I've come to this conclusion.........
> 
> It all depends if you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain bodyweight. If you eat enough but not so much you gain fat you will maintain your weight. Maybe it is because in the off season they are trying to get more mass or bring up lagging body parts and eating above maintainace. This seems very extreme to me. they already have to eat a huge amount to maintain the muscle. In the off-season they have to eat even more. This is insane for an average person.


 
It doesn't matter who you are, or what you do.  If you eat more than you're burning in your activities, you'll gain weight as fat.  If you eat less, you'll burn your bodies fat reserves; that's what they're there for.  Our bodies are basically built to prepare for famine; give them more than they need, and they tuck it away in storage as fat.  (And they want to hold onto that as long as they can; "fresh" fuel is always burned first before fat.)

When training hard, or trying to build muscle, you also have to be sure that the food you eat provides the building blocks for that purpose.  The hardest workouts won't build muscle if your diet doesn't have the proteins you need.  There are plenty of good nutrition books and guides around.



rabbit said:


> Are there other sports that build big muscles? Like sprinting? Is it really neccesary to lift weights? Or are all the bodybuilding magazines, the pros with the hidden agendas (buy this, buy that protein powder), and people who believe them trying to get us to go with the current trends?


 
AS a general rule, our bodies work on a principle of specificity.  It develops to match the demands placed upon it.  If you're trying to have a big, muscular body, you want to train in certain ways, and you'll build all those muscles.  While many are "chemically enhanced", bodybuilders today have found and developed the routines that maximize the growth potential in muscles.  As a loose rule, lower reps, with more weight, and more focus on the specific muscles equates to bigger muscles, while lower weight and more reps shape and tone the muscle.  So, curls build bigger biceps, and there are about 10 or 12 common variants of curls.  Compound exercises build more useful muscle, as you work through ranges and recruit sequences of muscles.  Right now, my weight routine is circuit training, with each of the three cycles done to exhaustion.  Weights are just one tool in anyone's physical conditioning.  But, remember specificity... What you'll find is pretty common is that most sports include some form of resistance training as a regular part of their training.  In the martial arts, we do this in many ways aside from "traditional" weight training.  You might do push/pull exercises with a partner using a rope, belt, or staff.  Bodyweight exercises like pushups and squats are common, too.  Many styles also have traditional exercises, like Sanchin (dynamic resistance) or carrying the jars in some forms of karate.  Sprinters build big legs.  Swimmers tend to develop powerful lats.  Gymnasts develop a lot of total body strength.  Look at a group of gymnasts; they all have a similar build.  Lance Armstrong has scary big quads... and so on.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 15, 2007)

tellner said:


> Another thing about bodybuilding is that it's really about fashion and aesthetics, not strength. If you look at a guy who uses those muscles for a living - a longshoreman, a farmer, a wrestler - he doesn't look like a bodybuilder. Depending on his genetics he's going to look wiry or slab-sided or like a barrel. And he'll use his whole body as much as possible.
> 
> The bodybuilding look works _against_ functional strength in a lot of ways. You get those highly sculpted anatomy drawing muscles by working them individually and Frankensteining them together. The training rewards muscles working in isolation.



Wait!  There is a way to enhance the strength without loosing functionality by using the resistance exercises with weights.  GM Cho, He Il has done it.  In his book Man of Contrasts, he talks about how he put globs of concrete on each end of a stick to lift as a young person.  He did not have access to gym equipment.  Now, of course he has access to real weights.  He has had doctor's say about him that he has what is called a "swimmer's physique", which is the best kind to have! And he attributes much of that to the resistance exercise.  So, it CAN be done, because he demonstrated that it can be done.  

I myself only lift weights one day a week.  But I do that mostly for therapeutic reasons (I have knee problems, and I do exercises to help them).  But, I am a middle aged man, and do not wish to attract women like a younger man does.  I am not wishing for a huge physique to attract women, only to become more healthy.  Also, I only type on a keyboard at work, I need very little physical strength to do my job.


----------



## searcher (Dec 15, 2007)

Just an added note on why they weigh more in the off-season than in-season.   They "cut" to get some added definition and they use water pills to get that extremely shredded look.   When they compete, they are so dehydrated that they are on the verge of collapse.   Not a way to be or way to live a long healthy life.


----------



## tellner (Dec 16, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Wait!  There is a way to enhance the strength without loosing functionality by using the resistance exercises with weights.



I meant something a little different. Training for functional strength is one thing. Training for a bodybuilder's look is another. 

If you are going for strength you tend to put several groups of muscles if not your whole body into a task. Bodybuilding requires that you isolate muscle groups and sometimes individual muscles so that they all stick out in the correct fashion when you flex.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 16, 2007)

> How come they weigh more in the off season than when in contest shape. I have heard that muscle burns fat. They have alot of muscle how come they gain weight. With 100 pounds of extra muscle it would seem to me that they would be lean all year long. Something about the modern bodybuilding methods don't seem to add up. I am starting to wonder if the have a hidden agenda.


 
To put it in simplest terms.  You need let's say you need X amount of calories each day just to function.  This is your daily caloric need, you will neither gain nor lose weight.  Your body is at it's homeostasis.

Now, you want to lift weights and cause muscle damage so as the body repairs it, the muscle gets bigger and stronger to avoid damage in the future (thus why you keep increasing the weights or times lifted).  Your body has to repair this so if you are still only taking in X calories it has to pull from another area to repair.  One of two things happen.  It takes along time to heal the damage because of limited resources or your body starts to "overtrain" because their is more damage than resources so it pulls from vital resources to repair itself.  So, a bodybuilder is going to now take in X+1000 more calories to make sure that his body has everything it needs to make it's repairs the fastest and recover the fastest.

Here's another factor, you don't really need X+1000 but it's nice to have the overshoot to make sure you have your bases covered. BUT, as an added bonus the bigger you are the more weight you can lift so if I gain an extra 30-50 lbs of fat I can lift more weight which means I can get bigger muscles faster.  It's not pleasing to the eye though, so during "precontest" they ingest large amounts of diruetics, cut out almost all carbs and try to drop all of that weight in about 3-4 months to get "ripped".

Look at the pros the past couple of years, they all have distended guts from GH and Steroid misuse.  I won't even get into the synthetic oil some inject into their muscles to make them look fuller.

Yeah, the hardcore bodybuilding scene is anything but healthy.


----------



## Carol (Dec 16, 2007)

tellner said:


> I meant something a little different. Training for functional strength is one thing. Training for a bodybuilder's look is another.





			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> ...the hardcore bodybuilding scene is anything but healthy



Bingo.

A body-builder's body is typically at its weakest in competition...when they "look" their strongest.

Weight lifting and bodybuilding are NOT one and the same.


----------



## Adept (Dec 16, 2007)

It all depends on *how* you train as well. If all you do is work the muscles via isolation exercises, so that you can look good naked, then your functional strength will suffer. Or more accurately, it will not increase at a proportionate rate.

However, if you spend time doing more compound exercises (in addition to your isolation exercises) and keep up your MA practice, it is possible to be huge, ripped, flexible and actually *strong* all at the same time. No, you'll never have a body like a Mr Olympia, and no, you'll never be as strong as an Olympic weightlifter. But you *will* be a happy medium between the two.

Just look at the bodies of some of the professional fighters we have today!


----------



## tellner (Dec 16, 2007)

True. And to paraphrase Monty Python (on bodybuilding) your Little German Soldier won't look like the bit of pork in a can of baked beans from all the steroids. 

Some years back the bookkeeper at a place I worked had gotten into competitive bodybuilding. It was the usual story. She had taken up the hobby for fun, looks and self confidence. Her trainer got controlling and nasty, pressuring her to train more, enter more competitions and so on. She confided that he was threatening that she would do what he told her to or he'd see to it she never got anywhere in the field. What he wanted her to do was human growth hormone. He had her scheduled to see the "doctor" a few days later.

I was disgusted but figured (rightly) that she wouldn't really listen to me. So I called up Steven Barnes who had written in bodybuilding and weightlifting magazines for years and asked for something authoritative to tell her. He'd seen it happen many times and kindly provided some excellent material. The most effective bit went something like this...

"You have to realize there are going to be side effects."
"Oh yes. He's told me all about them."
"Like excessive hair growth."
"That's ri-"
"On your balls."

That sure 'nough did the the trick.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Dec 17, 2007)

I have no respect for and make no excuses for the explosion of drug use that has occurred in bodybuilding over the last 15(+) years. The decision of the IFBB to drop it's drug testing program in the early '90's was why I got out of the sport and it got a LOT worst than I feared when I left. There was a drug problem prior to this, but it was comparable to other sports, though bodybuilders always looked like they "had" to be on something. 

OTOH, I strongly disagree with many of the opinions posted here about the value of bodybuilding as a training method. Most high level bodybuilders are elite strength athletes and many are world class powerlifters in the off-season. A good bodybuilding program is based mostly on compound lifts including many of the ones used in olympic lifting and all the ones used in powerlifting. I would also argue that bodybuilding (when done correctly) is superior to either for overall athletic performance. 

In bodybuilding, you develop each muscle group to it's maximum potential which includes all three components of a muscle cell which is effected by adaptive stress. This includes both muscular strength and endurance. In olympic lifting, the emphasis is to hoist as much weight above your head as possible (in overly simplistic terms). Using the cliche of a "chain only being as strong as it's weakest link", the full development of the larger, stronger muscles is limited by the weaker smaller ones. In powerlifting, there is much less emphasis on the "assistance muscles" than on the prime movers in the competition lifts. In bodybuilding, you try to max out the potential of each "link of the chain". In powerlifting, you leave a lot of links weak because they aren't as important for your purposes and in olympic lifting, you limit the strongest links by the capacity of the weaker ones.

When bodybuilding is done correctly (BTW, martial arts is ineffective if done wrong as well. If your strategy is to block with your groin and face, your success rate will be roughly as good as the BB routines as defined by Tellner), it should be done to develop each muscle to it's potential along the natural strength curve (proportion and "symetry"-yes, I know the term as commonly used in BB is incorrect). A bodybuilder should also have greater flexibility (watch Ron Coleman, Tom Platz, or even myself doing a full split) and cardio because the correct usage of these is part of their training. While I would never argue for the extreme levels of low bodyfat and dehydration that competitors strive for at competition, the rest of the year, it's a LOT healthier to walk around at 8% bodyfat than the 20-30% that many other strength athletes have been known to.

Both the exercise and nutrition industries have trends, mostly based on marketing, that rear their heads in cycles. The public wants faster, easier results with less effort and less discipline. This is why we saw low carb diets come back after those in the know were very familar with both their limitations and their definite drawbacks (ketosis anyone?). Still, people got some quick fix results and the people who cashed in on the fad made some money. Olympic lifting is less time consuming and can be hyped as a "re-discovered miracle tool", but it's inherent weaknesses will come to light once again and I predict it will not be too long before it goes back into the backseat of the strength community. There will always be a few who will shout it's praises, just as there are still those who praise Dr. Atkins.

Finally, the argument for "functional strength" is mostly bull. Look at the athletic prowess of guys like Tom Platz or Dr. Franco Columbo. Franco was arguably the strongest man pound for pound of his era. He was the amatuer boxing champion of Italy, who gave up the sport after he nearly killed an opponent after he began weight training. Look on youtube.com under KJN David Hughes and see for yourself what effects drug free bodybuilding has done for me with correct training. BTW, I have performed 805 lbs. squats for reps (500 ofr 20), bench near 600, and I backed off from deadfifts since this (my naturally strongest move) was throwing off my strength curve. I have stiff leggeg 500 for 6 and had a national powerlifting champion (Chuck Siler 220 class) tell me he was sure I could set a world record in the deadlift (at least by late '80's standards) if I would just work on it.


----------



## tellner (Dec 18, 2007)

You've just contradicted yourself.

You say, specifically, that you strengthen each muscle individually. By your own admission, you never work on them as groups. It would interfere with the look, which is the entire point of the "sport".


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 18, 2007)

tellner said:


> You've just contradicted yourself.
> 
> You say, specifically, that you strengthen each muscle individually. By your own admission, you never work on them as groups. It would interfere with the look, which is the entire point of the "sport".


 
I have to agree, I can not honestly see a reason (beyond rehab) why I would want to do isolations for martial arts training. The muscles need to work together not separately. This is also why I only do exercises that work groups of muscle.


----------



## tahuti (Dec 18, 2007)

4 sports that have moving heavy objects as primary training method are:
weightlifting
powerlifting
bodybuilding
strongman
for other sports it is supplementary
Of those 4 only bodybuilding competes in aesthetics (show looks), while others are in "what I can do with muscles".

I finally see movement away from bodybuilding as main way of strength training, just that word "functional training" is over used. Lots of martial arts competition are in weight divisions so doesn't make sense to focus on "growing muscles" as in bodybuilding.

Olympic lifts are type of compound exercises. Compound exercises improve both intramuscular and intermuscular coordination. As you have noted save times also, which makes sense to be used in sports where strength training is supplementary such as martial arts.

Competitive athletes need various body qualities such as conditioning, flexibilty, speed, explosive strength not only absolute strength. Unfortunately all that requires time to train, and if you focus on strength only you will not have functional strength for your sport, but make a note that absolute strength is prerequisite. Example for Fedor's (MMA) pre-fight training schedule Monday to Friday 1hr-2hr-2hr (later it is 1-3-3) Saturday soccer and Sunday rest. 1hr is general physical preparedness  and rest is MMA specific training.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Dec 18, 2007)

Tellner,
There is no contradiction in any of my statements, just a contradiction to your preconcieved bias and predudice. Alright, we get it already. You are not a fan of bodybuilding. Fair enough, but when you try to re-define what both the activity and the sport is to meet the perimeters of what you can attack, then don't be surprised if I call you on it. 

Most of the things stated by posters on this thread are aimed at the myths about bodybuilding that have been proven to be false by science a LONG time ago. It's funny how people will continue in their ignorance to bash it just to appease their own insecurities.

I have a degree in exer. phys. and was a national level competitor in bodybuilding back when they were serious about the drug testing. (BTW, I also had a master's rating in powerlifting, as well.) So I will be happy to debate any intellegent arguments based on facts and actual research.

As far as the comment of isolation exercises having no place in a martial artist's training, my 35(+) years of experience in the arts including master's rankings in three systems, plus years of international-level competition and being a former pro fighter beg to differ. I will be the first to say that overall compound movements are superior in most cases, but isolation exercises do have their place as well.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 18, 2007)

> While I would never argue for the extreme levels of low bodyfat and dehydration that competitors strive for at competition, the rest of the year, it's a LOT healthier to walk around at 8% bodyfat than the 20-30% that many other strength athletes have been known to.


 
I don't think that was one of the myths mentioned.  I don't think anyone would argue that fact, but how many of the pros walk around at 8% all year?  Most all talk about their "bulk phase" where they put on a lot of pounds and it ain't all muscle.



> Most of the things stated by posters on this thread are aimed at the myths about bodybuilding that have been proven to be false by science a LONG time ago. It's funny how people will continue in their ignorance to bash it just to appease their own insecurities.


 
Examples?  I tried to go through the other posts and didn't see anything like that.

Guys like Franco Columbo were first powerlifters and strongmen, and then entered into bodybuilding later.  As far as how "strong" bodybuilders are they are strong, I don't think anyone has argued they are not.  But, even among bodybuilders you have at least two schools of thought.  One is that it doesn't matter how much weight is lifted as long as you do it slow and controlled to feel the muscle, and the other that says you have to lift heavy to make the muscle grow.  So there is a fair percentage of bodybuilders (I'm friends with about a dozen or so) that only want to make their muscles look a certain way and they are not concerned with what the muscle can do.



> A bodybuilder should also have greater flexibility (watch Ron Coleman, Tom Platz, or even myself doing a full split) and cardio because the correct usage of these is part of their training


 
Should is the key word, but those guys are the exception rather than the norm.  Some do have good cardio and train it as such.  Others only do enough to burn off the excess fat to make themselves look good.  They aren't using "endurance" as a trait that they are training for.  If it happens it's because they used those methods to look good.

You are arguing a very fine line.  Pick up a magazine like "REPS" that is based on using bodybuilding as a "healthy" lifestyle and you are going to get a little bit type of training and nutrition advice (that I don't think anyone would argue isn't healthy) as opposed to other bodybuilding rags that cater to the "hardcore bodybuilding crowd" that have articles/columns on how to cycle steriods, etc.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 18, 2007)

Kwan Jang,
Is it true pro bodybuilders eat a lot of food to maintain their muscle? Up and around 9,000 calories a day? When they diet do they eat around 3,000-4,000 a day? I eat about that. It seems like a decent amount of food to be cosuming but I certainly would call it a weight loss diet. I know Sumo wrestlers cosume a lot of calories. Are natural ex-bodybuilders more likely to be obese once they quit training? or do natural bodybuilders  get diabetic from spiking insulin with things that have a very high GI index (dextrose and cane sugar)?

There is a good article on bodybuilding.com that talks about how there just isn't enough money in the industry for the average bodybuilder for what they put their body through. That people are ending up very sick with not much financial reward for their efforts. It is a good artile here is the link:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson324.htm


----------



## Kwan Jang (Dec 18, 2007)

I think a lot of it comes from the fact that many competitors in BB, especially these days resort to chemical means rather than natural ones to achieve their conditioning. Also, the trends in judging that rewards this behavior by making the person with the "hardest" physique the winner. A look that is mostly acheived by drug use and abuse. For effective natural bodybuilding, you MUST stretch, do cardio, and keep your bodyfat down in the off-season. 

As far as the trend of making the muscles work harder (i.e. more intensity) under less weight; that has come from the problem of the wear and tear that consistant use of heavy weights has on your body, especially the joints. I don't blame guys for moving away from the heavy weights as much as possible if they can get the results by upping the intensity in another manner. Still, this method requires working the muscle as hard and as fully as possible which includes a fairlly decent amount of heavy lifting, it is just not used as often, at least when this method really has results.

My arguments are for BB as a training method when it is intellegently applied. I can show both empirical, real world examples of how it is effective for martial artists and numerous clinical studies of why it is good for improving athletic excellence. For other posters to argue why it is ineffective because of instances when it is NOT properly applied reminds me of style bashing based on stereotypes. I do NOT nor have I ever condoned the use of drugs in the sport or the practices built upon them, anymore than I do for baseball, football, ect.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 18, 2007)

> Should is the key word, but those guys are the exception rather than the norm. Some do have good cardio and train it as such. Others only do enough to burn off the excess fat to make themselves look good. They aren't using "endurance" as a trait that they are training for. If it happens it's because they used those methods to look good.


 
I think having less fat is important. I think it is a good to have better body composition. Besides looking intimidating or looking like a tough guy can prevent a fight before it starts. Who wants to mug a 300 pound Arnold look alike who knows how to defend himself and kick someone's butt. If I could add 20 pounds of muscle. I am going to get stronger. I am going to look tougher and my all around atheltic ability is going to be better. We are using our bodies to kick and punch and if we can build a better body, it is like being the same person but with a completely different body. All other factors being equal.


----------



## rabbit (Dec 18, 2007)

Would you want to mess with him?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 18, 2007)

rabbit said:


> Would you want to mess with him?


 
Can I bring a tank? :uhyeah:


----------

