- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,209
- Reaction score
- 2,824
Lol.
Gym Idiots Thread IV
- Thread starter PLftw
- Start date
- Status
Lol.
Pseudo Sane
Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,327
- Reaction score
- 1,017
What.
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying; getting strong too quickly is bad because then it becomes harder to get even stronger? That is almost full retard.
If getting stronger is not your goal, then why are you doing any strength program, even as a supplement to an athletic activity?
Please explain what you are trying to say. I hope what you are trying to say is that if you are, say, a swimmer or a competitive cyclist, developing extra muscle might actual harm your performance more than the extra strength gains help, or that maximal exertion is not particularly beneficial in your particular sport. The extent to which this is true is another question entirely, of course.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,340
- Reaction score
- 61
technically, I would say that the first part of this is somewhat true. (aside from the fact that the diminishing returns do not occur very quickly at all, and especially not to the point where it wouldn't be worthwhile to continue)
It does eventually lead to diminishing returns... but how this is a "problem" is beyond me :icon_conf
What in the world is your athletic background that you have such a bias against strength training and don't understand that being strong is almost universally useful. The "nice idea Mark" bit makes me inclined to think this whole account is a troll. He posted (non-ironically) in one of the other threads to not strength train because you will be big and bulky.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,717
- Reaction score
- 0
Of course getting stronger faster leads to diminishing returns later on. If you improve quickly at anything--maximal strength, speed, flexibility, mobility, sporting technique, etc.--you're reaching your "ceiling" faster, which means you'll improve less in the future. There are ALWAYS going to be diminishing gains: neophytes will always improve the most in their first year, and in each subsequent year, the gains will be less and less.
Think about how ridiculous this sounds: you'd never tell someone to hold themselves back in learning technique for a martial art because of "diminishing gains," would you? Of course not. You want to improve everywhere as quickly as is reasonable, without detracting from your training as a whole. If you're a fighter who can get much stronger over the course of a year without detracting from his or her overall training, then it makes no sense to hold yourself back and remain a novice. Sure, you're leaving yourself more room to improve for the future, just like I'm leaving myself more room to improve my cardio for the future by, you no, never doing cardio.
Think about how ridiculous this sounds: you'd never tell someone to hold themselves back in learning technique for a martial art because of "diminishing gains," would you? Of course not. You want to improve everywhere as quickly as is reasonable, without detracting from your training as a whole. If you're a fighter who can get much stronger over the course of a year without detracting from his or her overall training, then it makes no sense to hold yourself back and remain a novice. Sure, you're leaving yourself more room to improve for the future, just like I'm leaving myself more room to improve my cardio for the future by, you no, never doing cardio.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,117
- Reaction score
- 409
You made a funny.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,597
- Reaction score
- 376
And would you start shoving a cactus up your ass sideways to prepare for conversations with Cratos?
R
ripskater
Guest
What about strength training means you have to ignore all the bolded? Thats such a straw man argument.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,717
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,582
- Reaction score
- 0
Sweeping generalizations are general.....and sweeping.
R
ripskater
Guest
I hate to see some kids get bad advice that may hurt them or hinder them in athletics. That's one reason I post. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But you should say why you disagree with my post.
I posted why I disagreed with your post - you created a straw-man argument that somehow powerlifting causes you to ignore "proper movement, mobility, balance, and posture". For many people its the opposite; doing heavy compound lifts forces you to be conscious of the things you listed.
Nothing about powerlifting causes you to ignore those things. Any sort of training is bad if you ignore those things.
R
ripskater
Guest
For example in tennis, it is helpful to use light weights to train elastic strength, mobility in wrists, shoulders, torso and hips. It's extremely helpful to train core strength and mobility on a swiss ball. The poster was making fun of some methods that are probably more important for tennis than having high numbers on the big three lifts. That was my point.
You're right that you can do both.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
ripskater
Guest
I agree.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,582
- Reaction score
- 0
Please provide scientific evidence to back up this statement. And why this being done on a swiss ball is better than other forms of core strengthening.
R
ripskater
Guest
I don't have it. Do you have scientific evidence that bigger squats, bench and deadlifts help improve tennis performance? You'd have to try it out to see if it worked for you. And then just give an opinion of it.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,582
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't make this statement. You did, however, make the one I asked about.
I think its pretty plain to see that every sport has different requirements, and powerlifting itself is only sports-specific to powerlifting.
Ripskater, the tone of your post suggested that powerlifting was an active detriment to performance, as opposed to insufficient when not supplemented by sports-specific training. Thats where I disagreed - obviously we can can all agree that mobility etc. is very important to being an athlete.
Being stronger doesn't mean being worse in other aspects of athletic performance; and because of recovery constraints lifting takes more/less of an athletes training depending on their particular sport. Squatting is less important to a marathoner's training than a rower, even though both are endurance sports. But I think that the generalization should be to lift heavy, and the exception being made for sports that have an extraordinarily low focus on strength (instead of the reverse).
Ripskater, the tone of your post suggested that powerlifting was an active detriment to performance, as opposed to insufficient when not supplemented by sports-specific training. Thats where I disagreed - obviously we can can all agree that mobility etc. is very important to being an athlete.
Being stronger doesn't mean being worse in other aspects of athletic performance; and because of recovery constraints lifting takes more/less of an athletes training depending on their particular sport. Squatting is less important to a marathoner's training than a rower, even though both are endurance sports. But I think that the generalization should be to lift heavy, and the exception being made for sports that have an extraordinarily low focus on strength (instead of the reverse).
- Status
