Agree with most of what you stated, but the bold is somewhat ambiguous and false in many cases. This outcome depends on what the 'genetic' platform for any given fighter is. Proof of this is athletes performing the same repetitious activities for their whole career and they could be champs with a high KO percentage. A more accurate statement in place of the bold would be "If all you did was boxing training for your whole life you wouldn't reach your full physical potential. Example: Lawrence Taylor was likely the greatest NFL defensive player to ever play the game, yet he never lifted weights as a pro. Completely unheard of in the NFL and yet he was able to dominate on his repetitious football drills he did from a kid. The genetic platform was very high for this elite athlete.
Hence, the reason I used the word "massive". It was meant to imply an extreme weight, but with the understanding that most athletes do some form of heavy lifts. It's the ratio of that heavy maximal force lifting to all of the other physical activity that makes up any given athletes workout. Obviously I should have clarified that. atsch
Vitaly should do a "Do you even lift" boxing version. Just go in to boxing gyms where pro boxers train in and start asking them if they lift. For any one who doesn't know what i'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Diy0RNe_c
Their leg size threshold is genetically predetermined, excuding the use of a hyperplasia PED. Not saying sprinters don't do maximal force lifts, just saying that their massive leg size is not due to mostly doing those lifts. Sprinters spend far more time on attaining a greater rate of force development than they do doing maximal force lifts. This, by nature, is attained from working out with less than the athlete can maximally lift. I can personally attest to this as I played collegiate American football and we had the track coach work with us in off season 'camps'. Just my 2 cents.
The less you repeat something the more you retain? atsch It's common sense that, when it comes to sports, you have to repeat things over and over again until it gets imprinted on your muscle memory. Tyson famously said that the hardest part of his training was repeating things over and over again everyday. And he didn't lift weights in his prime except for shoulder shrugs.
In other words, their genetic makeup. An athlete can still be great without doing all that is necessary to reach their full genetic thresholds. You think the old time boxers trained as efficiently and effectively as the modern day athlete does now (major sports minus boxing)? No way, but there were still great ones that were developed into ATGs. ATGs that developed from often times doing preparation activity that is scientifically counter productive to reaching the athlete's maximal genetic potential. So, my suggestion of "If all you did was boxing training for your whole life you wouldn't reach your full physical potential" would have been a more accurate statement in the respective post you made.
I'm not going to have a pissing match over physiological principles and what qualifies either to make such assumptions. Let's just say that I am more than basic knowledgeable on the matter. -The hypothesis that eccentric activity causes hyperplasia at a greater rate than is hypothesized to occur naturally through activity has been debated for well over 15 years. -You seem to think there is a perfectly linear correlation between hypertrophy and neurological strength increase; there isn't. -You don't have a clue if you think sprinters don't use submaximal weights in their activity. Besides, I never said they did high rep lifts. I stated that they attain a majority of their "genetically limited" leg size by doing mostly other activity other than maximal lifts. -Your use of the word "power" in this context i incorrect. Power requires distance and different levels of "power" are used in a partial lift and a full lift. Doing a maximal force (power) lift will induce hypertrophy since an adequate time of contraction will occur. "power" exercises are not just quick exercises. -You've never seen scientific literature support the premise that we are genetically limited in the physical makeup of our bodies? Do you think as long as I workout my muscles, I will just keep getting bigger and bigger with the proper routine? Maybe something has changed that I am not aware about? Do tell if so.
That's not the point. It's my opinion, minus the use of PEDs, that the difference that is attained through modern science and nutrition, isn't as significant as the genetic platform of the fighter and the functional activity he uses to prepare with. The brown bomber might be a little lighter on his feet and aesthetically be more in the realm of the "modern day athlete", but not so significant that he measurably increases his KO's or gains significantly more punching force.
so benching 260 is impressive now? Low weight/high repetition builds STAMINA, but in order to build muscles u need heavy weights and progressive overload And no, there is no such thing as 'lean muscle' or 'bulky muscle'. That is just an illusion, muscles are muscles, and the only reason u look lean is because u are at a low bodyfat percentage and the only reason u look bulky is because u are at a high bodyfat percentage. I cant believe u are arguing this right now...
No. Do some digging into Attila and Sandow and you will see you are wrong. There also countless pages/testimonials on the site when you bother to check attesting to low weight/high rep sandow/attila program. 260lb is 130kg I thought. I think 130 is good for a person who uses 5lb dumbells.
Sandow? Really dude? With todays advances in technology, nutrition, anatomy, ect. u want me to take advice from some guy from the 1800s? Do u know how silly u sound? And lets be honest, by todays standards Sandow isn't even that big