Author Topic: strength increase = muscle increase?  (Read 9576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Joy2012

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Country: 00
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 12, 2012, 02:05:29 pm »
I have been doing weight lifting for months now, 20-30 minutes at a time, about 2 hours a week. I utilize 11 weight-lifting machines at a local gym.
 I think my strength has increased because I am making steady gradual progress in lifting heavier weight with every weight-lifting machine.     So does that mean I have put on some muscle? I cannot tell just by looking at myself.  My scale weight remains the same. I do not do measurements because measurements are hard to do and are inconsistent.



Offline aLptHW4k4y

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2012, 05:52:02 pm »
Yes, and also you learn how to use your muscles more.

Offline papangue

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Country: re
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2012, 03:33:39 am »
The question is why so many people want to be muscular?
Look at shaolin monks they are not very muscular but they have more strength than any bodybuilder. I mean that they can do much more useful thing with their body


Offline freezerburn

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 02:40:11 am »
Almost all strength gains early on in training programs are neuromuscular, i.e. they have to do more with the training of firing motor units (groups of muscle fibers) than and increase in size of the muscle fibres.  BTW, a muscle fiber is the same as a muscle cell. 

After most neuromusclular adaptation takes place (within the first three months) then hypertrophy (cell size increase) takes place.  Various programs can focus on size, or strength.  A bodybuilding program will increase size faster but a strength program will increase strength faster. 

Truth: an individual focusing on strength will be stronger than one focusing on size after 6 months of training.  The strength trained athlete will still gain mass, but the mass will be associated with mostly contractile proteins (actin/myosin).  A bodybuilding focus causes cell size increases by increases in the contractile proteins as well as other proteins, increases in mytochondria, increases in other substances such as creatine and glycogen.

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,593
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2012, 03:52:40 am »
Almost all strength gains early on in training programs are neuromuscular, i.e. they have to do more with the training of firing motor units (groups of muscle fibers) than and increase in size of the muscle fibres.  BTW, a muscle fiber is the same as a muscle cell. 

After most neuromusclular adaptation takes place (within the first three months) then hypertrophy (cell size increase) takes place.  Various programs can focus on size, or strength.  A bodybuilding program will increase size faster but a strength program will increase strength faster. 

Truth: an individual focusing on strength will be stronger than one focusing on size after 6 months of training.  The strength trained athlete will still gain mass, but the mass will be associated with mostly contractile proteins (actin/myosin).  A bodybuilding focus causes cell size increases by increases in the contractile proteins as well as other proteins, increases in mytochondria, increases in other substances such as creatine and glycogen.


Would you please give us examples of strength building exercises vs muscle building exercises --- or programs. Thanks.

Offline blackrhino

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • May we all prosper in optimal health!
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2012, 07:12:13 am »
Im interested in knowing too!
YOU NEVER KNOW HOW STRONG YOU ARE UNTIL BEING STRONG IS THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE!!

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2012, 08:36:19 pm »
Would you please give us examples of strength building exercises vs muscle building exercises --- or programs. Thanks.
They are the same of course.
Althought it is true that strenght increases come first and appear to be without size increases this is not the case. First strenght increases as a result of increases in neuromuscular efficiency. Your body is quite literally making new neurological pathways to be able to use a larger percentage of muscle fibers. When the limit of that progress is reached, and one continues to exercise, size increases come. The size of a muscle increases very suddenly. This is not a steady progress its a stair like curve. After a size increase(growth) the body needs to learn again how to use the new mass. Thus making new pathways etc. So first comes some strenght increase, than very suddenly a size increase. Than strenght again. etc etc. In order to stimulate the body to get stronger one must ask it to do something its is uncomfortable to do with the current level of ability. This mean working inside the strenghts reserves(part of stregnth that is not used in every day activity). The body doesnt like it when you use those reserves (thats why exercise is hard you need to overcome mental barriers in place to prevent overexertion) and as a results gets stronger so you can do that without using reserves. Off course thats whenyou start lifting heavier and us them again thus triggering another round of strenght increases.
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2012, 08:47:03 pm »
It should be obvious that genetics determan 100% what one CAN be. What one actually becomes is determand by daily activities. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear so without an genetic ability to build say 50lbs of muscle it wont happen. Having the genetic ability obvious doesn't cut it either, you still need nutrition and exercise to do it.

Look around some people despite being lazy and eating crap are bigger and stronger than you will ever be with any kind of exercise.

One can quite accurately predict how big one can become by observing the body. Muscles with long muscle bellies (and thus short tendons) can get much bigger than those with short muscle bellies. Flex your biceps at an 90degree elbow angle and look at the gap between and of musle and forearm. Is the gap large than you have a short mucle belly and long tendons and thus a limited potential for size. This is due to aspect ratio. A muscle never gets thicker than it is long. so the longer the muscle the bigger in can potentially become. A small or no gap between muscle end and forearm mean good er great potential for size.

The lenght of muscles vs tendons varies per person and per musle and is 100% geneticly determand and not subject to change(ever).
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2012, 08:49:47 pm »
The question is why so many people want to be muscular?
Look at shaolin monks they are not very muscular but they have more strength than any bodybuilder. I mean that they can do much more useful thing with their body
Please define usefull.. I can do all the things I could before i build 25kg of muscle but i can also do a LOT more now.
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline freezerburn

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2012, 11:58:53 pm »
Would you please give us examples of strength building exercises vs muscle building exercises --- or programs. Thanks.

First we must be defining strength the same way.  Strength is defined as the maximum force that one can generate.  It differs from power as speed is not really a component of brute strength.  Endurance is the number of time one can perform a movement sequentially.  Typical strength programs are low in reps (like 2-4), from  85 - 95% of one rep maximums and have a flat pyramid of repetitive sets done with long breaks.  These focus on the (CP)creatine phosphate pathways of energy and ATP battery, and do not tax the other systems such as the lactic acid anaerobic pathways. 

Power training often is very short in duration and also predominantly CP pathway but uses much lighter weight where speed is focused on.  Similarly long rests between sets.  Neuromuscular co-ordination is improved here and strength gains will occur.

Bodybuilding routines focus often on time under contraction with high loads or tension.  Theses programs train many systems.  Some such as HIT have far more benefits than your typical 3 day split, three exercises per body part, 5 sets per exercise paradigm.  A HIT program is often only one work out a week and is full body, every set to the max, reps ranging from 8 -20 per set, pretty much no rest between sets. It is old-school and not for pussies.

I am presently working with kettlebells and am loving them but they have more of an athletic mobility and muscular endurance component than a bodybuilding program.  I choose HIT for my regular routines.  Some people believe HIT is to hard year round, probably because it is so demanding and requires 100% effort every time you train. 

If you want to do complex routines that hit all of the systems, do power training first, then strength, then endurance last.  Often athletes will periodize their programs throughout the year and focus on strength for a period of time, then switch to a power focus, then maybe to a power endurance focus, and then lastly to an endurance focus, then reduce the training and peak for a particular event.

Hope you are confused enough :)

Offline blackrhino

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • May we all prosper in optimal health!
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2012, 12:41:56 am »
lol i am! but will figure it out. lol thanks for the info
YOU NEVER KNOW HOW STRONG YOU ARE UNTIL BEING STRONG IS THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE!!

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,593
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2012, 02:55:03 am »
First we must be defining strength the same way.  Strength is defined as the maximum force that one can generate.  It differs from power as speed is not really a component of brute strength.  Endurance is the number of time one can perform a movement sequentially.  Typical strength programs are low in reps (like 2-4), from  85 - 95% of one rep maximums and have a flat pyramid of repetitive sets done with long breaks.  These focus on the (CP)creatine phosphate pathways of energy and ATP battery, and do not tax the other systems such as the lactic acid anaerobic pathways. 

Power training often is very short in duration and also predominantly CP pathway but uses much lighter weight where speed is focused on.  Similarly long rests between sets.  Neuromuscular co-ordination is improved here and strength gains will occur.

Bodybuilding routines focus often on time under contraction with high loads or tension.  Theses programs train many systems.  Some such as HIT have far more benefits than your typical 3 day split, three exercises per body part, 5 sets per exercise paradigm.  A HIT program is often only one work out a week and is full body, every set to the max, reps ranging from 8 -20 per set, pretty much no rest between sets. It is old-school and not for pussies.

I am presently working with kettlebells and am loving them but they have more of an athletic mobility and muscular endurance component than a bodybuilding program.  I choose HIT for my regular routines.  Some people believe HIT is to hard year round, probably because it is so demanding and requires 100% effort every time you train. 

If you want to do complex routines that hit all of the systems, do power training first, then strength, then endurance last.  Often athletes will periodize their programs throughout the year and focus on strength for a period of time, then switch to a power focus, then maybe to a power endurance focus, and then lastly to an endurance focus, then reduce the training and peak for a particular event.

Hope you are confused enough :)

Wow! Thanks.

I've only read this once and my brain isn't peak atm so I think I have to read it a couple more times later so bookmarked it. I have a strong feeling that there is lots of important information for me to fully understand in your generous response freezerburn. Questions will be coming. 

Offline alive

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2012, 03:46:35 am »
For best results eat your fruits and coloured vegetation as well as all that animal food -

==...high in protein--including calcium-packed cheeses--and low in fruit and vegetables. They claim that such a diet produces so much acid in our bodies it corrodes our very tissues. "It's like water running over a rock," says Anthony Sebastian of the University of California in San Francisco, who leads the effort examining all the evidence on bones, muscle and dietary acid. "It's not going to look like it's even touching the rock, but over time it will erode it away."==

http://www.freeworldfilmworks.com/ahw-ph2.htm

http://www.eateco.org/Medical/ProtOsteoporosis.htm

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS61_02%2FS0029665102000630a.pdf&code=e04f6f6ebd839810e051a6bcc1b17fc3

http://experiencelife.com/article/the-ph-factor/

http://www.isaoz.com/Docs/E-pH-NutritionGuideToAcidAlkalineBalance.pdf

http://www.online-ganoderma.com/page/14235/default.asp

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2012, 04:12:29 am »
A well designed and properly executed hit program will produce great increases in strength, power, mass, flexibility and cardiovascular condition and metabolic condition. It is neither necessary not desirable to train those separate. In fact doing so will greatly reduce total overall results.

When training optimum for strength it is impossible to not greatly improve on all fronts. however very few people are willing to work as hard as is required. intensity is sacrificed and wrongly replaced by increased volumes of training. I've exercised with a lot of people and all of them without exception could do at least another for reps when they were absolutely convinced they reached momentary muscular failure. The body is desperately trying to prevent you working that hard. When and if you learn to overcome those barriers true exercise is possible and the results better than anything you ever thought possible.
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline freezerburn

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2012, 04:32:28 am »
A well designed and properly executed hit program will produce great increases in strength, power, mass, flexibility and cardiovascular condition and metabolic condition. It is neither necessary not desirable to train those separate. In fact doing so will greatly reduce total overall results.

When training optimum for strength it is impossible to not greatly improve on all fronts. however very few people are willing to work as hard as is required. intensity is sacrificed and wrongly replaced by increased volumes of training. I've exercised with a lot of people and all of them without exception could do at least another for reps when they were absolutely convinced they reached momentary muscular failure. The body is desperately trying to prevent you working that hard. When and if you learn to overcome those barriers true exercise is possible and the results better than anything you ever thought possible.

I agree as long as the goal is size and strength.  For various types of sport, however this does not apply.  Sports where body weight is a concern, hypertrophy can be a detriment.  However for maximum strength, you are going to want as much size as possible.

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,593
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2012, 05:47:05 am »
Read that post again now my brain is firing a little more and it was helpful.

Had to look up kettlebells - found some interesting workouts.

If I'm a pussie right now (little girlie weakling that doesn't exercise) but want to work my way up to doing HIT - do you have any pointers for me HIT and Freezer?

I'm sorry if I'm detracting from the conversation - you can pm me with any pointers if it doesn't fit here -  I mean - if you have time and want to.

Thanks.

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2012, 04:24:33 pm »
The barbell was a huge leap forward from kettlebell training. it was quite literally a miracle tool and results becam possible that haddent been seen for a long time. This is because with a barbel the weight can be adjusted to fit the needs of a particular person/muscle. Kettlebels offer no such possibility, the weight being either to heavy or to low in 99% of the case. Even if the weight is perfect once after that one exercise (if done right) you will get stronger and the next workout the weight is to low etc.

Besides most barbel exercises are closer to being full range than kettlebells. The rise of the barbell made strenght training/bodybuilding possible on a serious level.

The next giant leap forward were exercise machines. A properly designed exercise machine ouperforms a barbel enormously. Sadly most exercise machines nowadays are designed to look good and be easy to operate thus destroying most benefits, in that case a barbel is much prefered.

A good exercise machines will offer full range of motion, variable resistance(to match strenght curve of muscle), direct resistance, streching and pre- stretching posibility(range of motion of the machine should be bigger than that of the trainee), small step weight increments and a heavier negative than positive load. A barbell offer none of these factors in most exercises and only 2 of these in a very few exercises.

Dorothy,
What are your goals? what equipment do you have available? what is your current level of fitness?
Do you have any problematic areas(weak joints, old injuries, back problems etc)?
These are all basic considerations before anyone can offer any sensible advice.
If those factors are not taking into serious consideration you will make little progress in the best case and injure yourself in the worsed case.

Freezer,
I agree with that observation. However i's like to add to that that there are very few sports were weight is as much an issue as is often believed. Genectic freaks being far stronger than most people even at much less mucle mass dominate all sports. Seeing those leightweight genetically superior people win gold medals motivates people to not use weight training. This however is a imo a big mistake because the genetically gifted have even more to gain than the avarage joe. Imagine those already superior atletes taking there sport to a whole new level by means of proper exercise. I dont think we have seen the true limits of human ability in any sport and i think that all current doped records can be broken by genetically gifted, superior athletes using weight training properly without any chemicall aids.
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline freezerburn

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2012, 11:31:35 pm »


Freezer,
I agree with that observation. However i's like to add to that that there are very few sports were weight is as much an issue as is often believed. Genectic freaks being far stronger than most people even at much less mucle mass dominate all sports. Seeing those leightweight genetically superior people win gold medals motivates people to not use weight training. This however is a imo a big mistake because the genetically gifted have even more to gain than the avarage joe. Imagine those already superior atletes taking there sport to a whole new level by means of proper exercise. I dont think we have seen the true limits of human ability in any sport and i think that all current doped records can be broken by genetically gifted, superior athletes using weight training properly without any chemicall aids.

Events where weight class is important is one thing to consider but also sports where agility prevails is another.  I am speaking from experience here.  I used to compete as a pro/elite cyclist in downhill mountain bike racing.  I was a top 10 ranked Canadian cyclist in the sport.  I was the biggest and strongest relatively in  my event.  I would start the season at near 200lbs (90kilos) and at my strongest (with a strong endurance base).  I was deadlifting around 500 lbs, benching over 300 and running a 10km race at 38minutes.  I was about mid pack in my results among my fellow competitors.  By the end of race season I was down around 180 lbs, a bit weaker, but had much more relative strength and power.  I wasn't lifting heavy but I would do sets of 60 repetitions of  225lb full squats.  The periodization of my training was very important as I would peak for the end of the year.

I find that you think that barbells made the kettlebells obsolete funny as they are a relatively new tool - not much more than 100 years old.  The first sanctioned kettlebell event was in 1986.  I have been training for about 30 years and have found benefits that barbells or machines simply can not provide.  I do not assert that they are the best way to train, but they are the best at some things, as are free weights for some movements, and well designed machines :)

I think you should give them a try.  Most trainees report a significant boost in their deadlift and an improved grip strength.  Youtube Valerey Fedorenko and see the rather humbling feats of athleticism.  (Although you won't find his build to your tastes ;)

PS don't over specialize on HIT ;)

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,593
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2012, 12:23:59 am »
Completely not as an athlete - never have been - never will be but HIIT has come up as a superior way to generate human growth hormone in order to retard/reverse aging.

Thanks HIT for your questions and being willing to lend a hand. As you might have read in the reversing aging thread my bones have just recently started to not be as strong as the rest of me. I am hoping that giving up dairy which is the only real change to my diet in recent years, supplementing the magnesium that I think has gotten off balance and taking comfrey will bring me back to where I have been consistently my whole life and then I will start working out. I'm planning and getting ready for my bones to strengthen up first. I find with myself when I plan and build up an idea in my mind and will longer - then I am able to stick with the change and take it all the way better. It's like building up the wood supplies before starting the fire.

I have always been able to just pick up and do. Not go to the gym and then go and be able to work with heavier weights than I would expect right away and build fairly quickly and get right into aerobic activities without preparation. Basically, because I was fit from my diet and naturally strong I never really got into working out consistently for very long.

Once my bones are back up and running I am thinking that I would like to start to do something more consistently and what people say here about HIT is intriguing because it may contribute to longer, better life, not only strength and power.

I have your regular old weight bench with dumbells up to the weight that I would usually get to and get bored - but I have more in storage and can buy more. I also can buy a machine that you think is the best general machine for training if there is one you think stands out from all the others. I very much want to get a treadmill eventually as I have always enjoyed them.

I think at first I need to make sure all my bones are up to the task and psyche myself up mentally before starting HIT. I don't have any injuries per se. I had just one with my low back when taking care of my mother picking her up all by myself when at least 2 people were needed, but that has healed up completely. I would like to find something that I can take from the just beginning stage all the way and have it progress without getting too boring and if there is machinery that would be good to get have it be what will take me all the way and not outgrow it.

I'm going to start to do my old regular simple weight lifting routine that I learned 20 years ago starting in a couple of weeks and probably only going a few weeks with it - as I get too bored with it after a few weeks to months - but it's a good basic foundation.

If I were to get myself toned and muscular with strength and stamina to the max and have fun doing it that wouldn't be a bad thing and a good goal I think. I've never really worked at it as I've always kinda had enough of these things naturally up to now - but finding out what my body is capable of being could be lots of fun.

One of the things I've noticed about myself is that my body has always reacted so quickly to weight lifting and physical conditioning that if I go too fast I get freaked out by the changes in my body. I feel like a different person just working out for a few weeks straight - so I will have to get past that emotional barrier and make sure I go slow enough - that is - if things are like they used to be in that regard. I usually give up any workout routine because of boredom or because it works so fast and I change too quickly.

Building big muscles isn't important but fine if it happens. Strength, power are my main desires. Stamina I  have enough of.

I really appreciate the help with this and I hope it's ok to ask for it here on this thread.



Offline freezerburn

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2012, 12:44:41 am »

One of the things I've noticed about myself is that my body has always reacted so quickly to weight lifting and physical conditioning that if I go too fast I get freaked out by the changes in my body. I feel like a different person just working out for a few weeks straight - so I will have to get past that emotional barrier and make sure I go slow enough - that is - if things are like they used to be in that regard. I usually give up any workout routine because of boredom or because it works so fast and I change too quickly.

Building big muscles isn't important but fine if it happens. Strength, power are my main desires. Stamina I  have enough of.


Ha, it is funny how we often get scared by our own success!

One great thing about HIT is that you don't spend hours upon hours of useless time in the gym.  I strongly suggest you take up a circuit type or routine initially that focuses on form, range of motion and no rest between sets or exercises that trains the whole body.  This gives you lots of time for other fun activities or other types of training.

Really, you only need about one HIT workout a week.  It is not a breeze.  Most people buckle after their 4th exercise :O

Look up the Colorado experiment conducted by Arthur Jones  with Casey Viator - transformation in one month!  View with a modicum of skepticism...

When looking into various HIT routines, find one that you like and go for it.  It would be valuable to hove someone their to motivate you the first few times so you actually push yourself to your real limits. 

With regards to bone demineralization, a sound training regimen will stimulate hormonal mechanisms that will stimulate an increase in bone density. 

Good luck :)

Offline achillezzz

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 654
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2012, 01:29:55 am »
Casey viator viator was a fuckig genetic freak and a steroid user.. Arthur jones was a genious but he wasnt that big as he described him self... HIT philosophy works in theory and practice for the men amongs us... But for some geneticsly hurten individuals the efforts are not even worth it.. But the logical systematic work to failure adds some meaning to life. Also freeze you are very right HIt all year around is very demanding on the mind Arthur jones forced some of his trainees almost with a gun to their head so they go to and beyond failure lol I wish I could live in his time and be trained by him!

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,593
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2012, 01:40:17 am »
Quote
HIT philosophy works in theory and practice for the men amongs us

Uh - oh. So it won't work for me as a woman?  ;)  ???  >D




Offline freezerburn

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2012, 01:59:44 am »
Uh - oh. So it won't work for me as a woman?  ;)  ???  >D




After HIT you will be able to pee standing up and write your name ;)

Offline blackrhino

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • May we all prosper in optimal health!
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2012, 03:02:03 am »
 ;D
YOU NEVER KNOW HOW STRONG YOU ARE UNTIL BEING STRONG IS THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE!!

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,593
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2012, 03:14:54 am »
Double  ;D