Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: Aesthetics inspired. Looking for a good bodyweight workout that's better... page 5

  1. #41
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,571
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickson View Post
    I don't know, Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had over 10,000 mates in his lifetime and he fits the specs I mentioned (but bigger)...
    Maybe he had some other qualities in addition then?

  2. #42
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickson View Post
    I don't know, Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had over 10,000 mates in his lifetime and he fits the specs I mentioned (but bigger)...
    He does???

    Google has him at 7-1 275.
    quite a lot different than 6-7 280

    Wilt's build is more like I had in mind. Shrunk to normal height.
    Though none of the pictures I googled show him as very muscular/ripped

    Why are we talking about height?

  3. #43
    OldSchhool's Avatar
    OldSchhool is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Well, I think the concept of HIT is a better idea than the Nautilus machines ever were.
    I think there are a few reasons why it isn't more popular, one being that it's bloody hard work (okay every now and again but you have to have slight masochistic tendencies to do it all the time), boredom can set in(Most people love variety) and one that I hear a lot is that some people just love spending hours working out....they don't want to do a few high intensity sets and go home, they enjoy doing set after set of multiple exercises per body part.

  4. #44
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Obviously hunter gatherer builds would favor light, short and slim with exceptional strength. The less muscle you have, the faster you can be and less you need to eat. Now move forward in time to an agricultural era environment with lots of warring, thats when bigger builds would be favored. Of course you want some giants on your side in a fight, and if things like climbing, running and jumping are not much of a concern as well as access to ample calories, strength and size is imperative.

    Either way, strength relative to body weight is king. Maybe not in super heavyweight lifting, but in every other aspect of life.

    EDIT: actually even in super heavyweights since the lighter lifter will win when totals are tied and at a certain point, excess fat does not give any more advantage. Its why elite lifters now have visible abs.
    Last edited by Zach; 09-20-2013 at 02:35 PM.

  5. #45
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSchhool View Post
    I think there are a few reasons why it isn't more popular, one being that it's bloody hard work (okay every now and again but you have to have slight masochistic tendencies to do it all the time), boredom can set in(Most people love variety) and one that I hear a lot is that some people just love spending hours working out....they don't want to do a few high intensity sets and go home, they enjoy doing set after set of multiple exercises per body part.
    My thoughts on that is yes, its not fun to destroy a muscle group and have in murdered for a few days, and yes it is boring if you are a person who enjoys lifting. I think though that there is a limit to how effect that type of training can be. I always go to the strongest humans on earth when talking about this and time and again, frequency is key. You cant train frequently if you blow your load on day one. HIT also favors size over strength. Its just not practical to do full body movements in a HIT fashion. Especially the olympic and power lifts (besides bench). So that is why it is a very decent protocol for bodybuilding and good for relative strength gains but completely incompatible for strength sports.

  6. #46
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickson View Post
    This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build. Or look at Doug Young, and you can see what an early human would want to look like. You really can't be too strong, and without steroids you really can't get to the point where the extra strength or size becomes a disadvantage. It might not be worth it to be a 350lb powerlifter, but you can't tell me you'd want to have to have to fight him in nature. Especially in the era before weapons, yikes.
    If that were true then they'd show up in the skeletal record. It takes a lot of calories to support a 6'7 280lb muscular build one like Doug Young's. Modern humans were migratorial. Carrying and feeding that much bulk would've been a disadvantage.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  7. #47
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    If that were true then they'd show up in the skeletal record. It takes a lot of calories to support a 6'7 280lb muscular build one like Doug Young's. Modern humans were migratorial. Carrying and feeding that much bulk would've been a disadvantage.
    Yep, even vikings were an average of 5'7.

  8. #48
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,571
    Certain systems of HIT can work depending on individual goals/context and the same with high volume! Personally I try to incorporate some HIT principles when doing high volume training, but I use them sparingly though...

  9. #49
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Certain systems of HIT can work depending on individual goals/context and the same with high volume! Personally I try to incorporate some HIT principles when doing high volume training, but I use them sparingly though...
    Same. Kroc rows are a good example. 1-2 sets, heaviest dumbell you can mange 10 rows, do 20+.

  10. #50
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    My thoughts on that is yes, its not fun to destroy a muscle group and have in murdered for a few days, and yes it is boring if you are a person who enjoys lifting. I think though that there is a limit to how effect that type of training can be. I always go to the strongest humans on earth when talking about this and time and again, frequency is key. You cant train frequently if you blow your load on day one. HIT also favors size over strength. Its just not practical to do full body movements in a HIT fashion. Especially the olympic and power lifts (besides bench). So that is why it is a very decent protocol for bodybuilding and good for relative strength gains but completely incompatible for strength sports.
    You could make a similar argument about marathoners as you can about strongest humans. Are they in good health and with that training give them an advantage to "live long and drop dead?" The problem with looking to the strongest humans on earth is that 1 they are genetically gifted, and 2 they are on steroids which allows them to workout more frequently and recover faster.

    It comes down to "what's your goal?" I was always more agile at around 180-190lbs. Doing a HIT style workout a couple of times per week allows me to add a lot more verity to my weekly routine.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •