Hello, i think this article will explain it far better than anything the HIT specialist has to say.
http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/beast_building_part_1
In fact reading all of it, is well worth your time.
Need anything else, just shout.
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
Unless you’re morbidly obese, this shouldn’t be true. Think about it you have the muscle under a layer of fat, when you flex that muscle is still pushing the skin and fat up the same distance it would push the skin and fat up of someone 10% bodyfat or less. The only difference is when a person with a higer bodyfat diets down there arms will get smaller because they’re literally getting smaller because of less fat.
read tip number 1
[/quote]
I didn’t even bother reading it, I just go by what I know and commone sense, maybe if my arms were sub 12 inches I’d be suffereing from the same syndrome
[quote]BARBUDA wrote:
In the bodybuilding world, you can compare the physiques of Flex Wheeler and Francis Benfatto, who were noted “pumpers,” to guys like Dorian Yates, Johnny Jackson, or Branch Warren who are known for lifting in the lower rep ranges. Granted, Flex and Francis have more aesthetic physiques, but I’m only talking about muscle density and that rock-solid look."
[/quote]
The first time I read this, it made sense to me.
But I just don’t see the difference. Flex Wheeler could Dumbbell Bench the 180s for Reps. Ronnie’s best was with the 200s.
It makes more sense to me that the ‘hardness’ and ‘density’ someone possesses come the time of the contest has more to do with
(1) The genetic question of “What does this guys muscle fibers look like when he’s totally ripped”
(2) And the question “How good is this guys conditioning? What’s his body composition?”
There are too many examples of contradictions to the whole “Heavy Lifting = Dense Muscle” argument. Dennis Wolf and Dexter Jackson train relativly light in comparison to everyone else, and they look rock solid. Kevin Levrone was undoubtedly one of the strongest bodybuilders ever but the look of his muscle was more fleshy and organic looking than it was rock solid (you know - like it grew on his body instead of being chiseled into place).
I agree with westclock and bushy.
That look comes from having extremely low bodyfat with very full muscle bellies.
All bodybuilders strive for this look come competition day, a lot of the times the person is carb depleted to try and get as lean as possible. Then prior to the show a ‘carb load’ occurs and you try and fill the muscle fack up with glycogen to make it appear full. The science to this comes to keeping water retention to the minimum keeping the skin tight around the muscle.
No bodyfat + muscles full of glycoge = dense, dry, hard look.
Granted genetics play a major role in this, silvio samuel, and dennis james always have full muscle bellies even when completely carb depleted.
But for your average person…building up a decent amount of muscle mass, leaning out to low bf% levels and carb loading will give you that look.
DG
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
I didn’t even bother reading it, I just go by what I know and commone sense, maybe if my arms were sub 12 inches I’d be suffereing from the same syndrome
[/quote]
Common sense says you can’t flex fat. If your arm does not change much when you flex it… you obviously carry alot of bodyfat.
I never denied that when you diet down… if you were carrying alot of bodyfat… that it will make your arm measurement smaller.
I was just offering a possible reason for hardgnr:
[quote]hardgnr wrote:
Me and my mate train together. We train the same. His arms look big and hard cold, which I guess they reasonably are at 17’ but when he flexes they get like a tiny bit bigger, hardly noticable. My arms get over a full inch bigger when i flex, I guess it is the muscle bellies which is genetics right?
[/quote]
The only reason I even posted the stupid link was to strengthen my arguement… god forbid I linked to a freaking article on THIS site.
[quote]Dirty Gerdy wrote:
I agree with westclock and bushy.
That look comes from having extremely low bodyfat with very full muscle bellies.
All bodybuilders strive for this look come competition day, a lot of the times the person is carb depleted to try and get as lean as possible. Then prior to the show a ‘carb load’ occurs and you try and fill the muscle fack up with glycogen to make it appear full. The science to this comes to keeping water retention to the minimum keeping the skin tight around the muscle.
No bodyfat + muscles full of glycoge = dense, dry, hard look.
Granted genetics play a major role in this, silvio samuel, and dennis james always have full muscle bellies even when completely carb depleted.
But for your average person…building up a decent amount of muscle mass, leaning out to low bf% levels and carb loading will give you that look.
DG[/quote]
Well put. I think for the most part maturity has a decent role as well. Now some guys mature quite a bit by 22-25 so it can be done at a younger age. But I think its pretty irrelevant here because, correct me if I’m wrong but, most people who are being discussed and are competing are way older than that.
So yeah, train hard enough for long enough and cut the bf and there ya go!
i think part of it might be little things like where someone keeps their mass, that we tend to associate with power…like if somebody has great shoulders and a thick neck, big ass, and huge forearms…theres just something about that physique that screams power and seems to be more dense looking, just like he built it doing farmwork and eating big steaks every day or something (hence why everyone says to do your deadlifts i suppose haha)
but i really think the butt, neck, and forearms are key thigns that we notice(no homo) even subconsciously, and think man…that dood looks SOLID
[quote]brian.m wrote:
i think part of it might be little things like where someone keeps their mass, that we tend to associate with power…like if somebody has great shoulders and a thick neck, big ass, and huge forearms…theres just something about that physique that screams power and seems to be more dense looking, just like he built it doing farmwork and eating big steaks every day or something (hence why everyone says to do your deadlifts i suppose haha)
but i really think the butt, neck, and forearms are key thigns that we notice(no homo) even subconsciously, and think man…that dood looks SOLID[/quote]
I agree with this…although I’d say arms, not just forearms. If somebody has small arms then they automatically lose the “power” look.
I don’t think this is what the OP was getting at tho. I think he was referring to how dense, etc a person can look regaurding their muscles instead of which muscles will give a more aggessive look.
Taking a look at the pros really shows…you can have people who step on stage and look flat or people who step on stage and look full. Both have tremendous physiques with an aggressive build to the average person. But compared to each other you can see the difference.
DG
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
BARBUDA wrote:
In the bodybuilding world, you can compare the physiques of Flex Wheeler and Francis Benfatto, who were noted “pumpers,” to guys like Dorian Yates, Johnny Jackson, or Branch Warren who are known for lifting in the lower rep ranges. Granted, Flex and Francis have more aesthetic physiques, but I’m only talking about muscle density and that rock-solid look."
The first time I read this, it made sense to me.
But I just don’t see the difference. Flex Wheeler could Dumbbell Bench the 180s for Reps. Ronnie’s best was with the 200s.
It makes more sense to me that the ‘hardness’ and ‘density’ someone possesses come the time of the contest has more to do with
(1) The genetic question of “What does this guys muscle fibers look like when he’s totally ripped”
(2) And the question “How good is this guys conditioning? What’s his body composition?”
There are too many examples of contradictions to the whole “Heavy Lifting = Dense Muscle” argument. Dennis Wolf and Dexter Jackson train relativly light in comparison to everyone else, and they look rock solid. Kevin Levrone was undoubtedly one of the strongest bodybuilders ever but the look of his muscle was more fleshy and organic looking than it was rock solid (you know - like it grew on his body instead of being chiseled into place).
[/quote]
I disagree with the levrone statement. Look at the muscle and size of this guy. If that’s not dense idk what is.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
BARBUDA wrote:
In the bodybuilding world, you can compare the physiques of Flex Wheeler and Francis Benfatto, who were noted “pumpers,” to guys like Dorian Yates, Johnny Jackson, or Branch Warren who are known for lifting in the lower rep ranges. Granted, Flex and Francis have more aesthetic physiques, but I’m only talking about muscle density and that rock-solid look."
The first time I read this, it made sense to me.
But I just don’t see the difference. Flex Wheeler could Dumbbell Bench the 180s for Reps. Ronnie’s best was with the 200s.
It makes more sense to me that the ‘hardness’ and ‘density’ someone possesses come the time of the contest has more to do with
(1) The genetic question of “What does this guys muscle fibers look like when he’s totally ripped”
(2) And the question “How good is this guys conditioning? What’s his body composition?”
There are too many examples of contradictions to the whole “Heavy Lifting = Dense Muscle” argument. Dennis Wolf and Dexter Jackson train relativly light in comparison to everyone else, and they look rock solid. Kevin Levrone was undoubtedly one of the strongest bodybuilders ever but the look of his muscle was more fleshy and organic looking than it was rock solid (you know - like it grew on his body instead of being chiseled into place).
I disagree with the levrone statement. Look at the muscle and size of this guy. If that’s not dense idk what is.
Levrone is arguably the BEST bodybuilder ever.
There’s really no way I could find to put it though. His muscles don’t look like rocks. They look like…muscles. It’s just the way he is genetically. I look at Levrone and I think “That guy has a LOT of strong flesh.” The Same goes with Lee Haney, Ronnie, and Nasser.
And that different texture doesn’t make him any less of a bodybuilder. If anything, he has a more fleshy, non-stone look because he’s got so much muscle.
But when you’re comparing the ‘hardness’ of Levrone and Flex Wheeler to the ‘hardness’ of Branch Warren and Johnnie Jackson you’re kind of nit-picking.
Take a look at Oliva’s physique in his first few olympia appearances and then at his last one (where he came out of retirement) and you’ll see the difference between a dense build and a 'watery" build.
Ive seen some bbers who respond to volume training so well that they rarely step up the weights they use, and there’s a huge difference between what they look like unpumped versus pumped. They also don;t seem to gain as much weight (lean mass) while their muscle bellies get larger.
I think bbers with full round muscle bellies get a better pump going and respond better to volume overload (not to say that they won;t add a ton of size by progressive overload but they don’t need to)
Ive noticed that the size you gained by progresisvely lifting heavier weights (with food intake to support the strength gains of course) will usually result in a denser build that won;t be lost as easily (size lost is mostly the form of glycogen and water). Then again, the guys with the DENSER look people refer to usually carry a bit of bodyfat compared to dieting bodybuilders so that could be the reason why they don;t lose size easily…hmmm. Would like to see someone chime in on this…
Maybe I’m just bad at telling if someone is “dense” or not.
If someone accused me of that, I’d probably agree with them.
All pros look pretty dense to me. I’m still under the impression that how dense someone looks has more to do with their conditioning than anything else.
Look at skinny, yet ripped kids. No one would accuse them of looking thick or powerful, but they do look solid the same way a thin piece of slate looks more solid than a bean bag.
If myostatic tension and strength has so much to do with this whole muscle density business, then how come there are plenty of lean, weak toothpicks who DON’T look like they’re made out of cookie dough?
When you see someone in competition who looks more dense than everyone else, isn’t it usually agreed upon that their dense look is due to their superior conditioning?
Look at Segio oliva’s first few appearances and compare them to his last showing. Look at Greg Valentino’s pics (or anyone who uses synthol or equipoise) and you’ll see a COMPLETE lack of density (one extreme). look at the physique of someone like Clark beltram who traines exclusively with low reps and you’ll see a gneral lack of mass but the ‘dense look’ in the dieted down state. Since the muscle itself is largely coposed of fluids, glycogen and the actual myofibril (or whatever) I assume the general ratio between these is what gives off the “dense” look compared to the “watery” look.
i wouldn’t expect PRO bbers to have a dense look on stage (besides Ronnie) since they have carbed up and let the muscles expand like balloons right before getting on stage. pro bbers have a dense look off season for certain. Someone like Ronnie seems to have that DENSE look until even 2 weeks out probably because of his choiuce of training to keep size.
I;m still not sure exactly what contributes to the dense look though. I think training exclusively with high reps will not do much to help you there.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
When you see someone in competition who looks more dense than everyone else, isn’t it usually agreed upon that their dense look is due to their superior conditioning?[/quote]
How dense you look has to do with conditioning and how you carry your muscle mass. I am not sure why anyone would think they look “less dense” when in contest shape. Glycogen loading wouldn’t erase how dry someone looks unless they spill over.
What do you mean by “how you carry your muscle mass”?
Are you saying the “dense look” people refer to only refers to how dry they’re able to get? Did you see he difference betwene the olivia vids?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How dense you look has to do with conditioning and how you carry your muscle mass. I am not sure why anyone would think they look “less dense” when in contest shape. Glycogen loading wouldn’t erase how dry someone looks unless they spill over.[/quote]
[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
What do you mean by “how you carry your muscle mass”?
Are you saying the “dense look” people refer to only refers to how dry they’re able to get? Did you see he difference betwene the olivia vids?
Professor X wrote:
How dense you look has to do with conditioning and how you carry your muscle mass. I am not sure why anyone would think they look “less dense” when in contest shape. Glycogen loading wouldn’t erase how dry someone looks unless they spill over.
[/quote]
They didn’t diet down to the same levels that they do now. You could compete back then close to 10% body fat as long as you showed enough separation. There isn’t anyone competing today and doing well much over 6% usually with the use of diuretics. Using pics of Oliva while ignoring that is retarded.
Yes, it is based on how you carry your muscle. People associate large traps, wide shoulders and a separated upper chest with being “powerful” looking. Add in extreme definition as is seen today on stage and dry them out and you get a dense look.
About water retention…
I dunno. I’d like to hear the counter argument to Layne Norton saying it’s just fine to drink as much water as you want on the day of the contest.
www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne_farzan_teen4.htm
First he says drying out will only flatten you out. Says that if you dry out, then your body will just re-balance the ratio of water outside the cells to water within the cells, so you’ll just look smaller because you’ve lost that water.
But then he talks about setting this skinny kid’s sodium levels and stuff for his first show. Well, Mr. Layne. Mr. Natural Pro. Why care about sodium if water doesn’t matter?
And of course I can’t account for how bodybuilders can look totally different at prejudging than they do by the time the main show roles around. They’re certainly not burning any fat between that period.
Hell, I think I look different when I wake up just because I’ve gotten up to pee a few times and I’ve been sweating and not eating for 8 hours.
So while I can’t explain why Layne’s argument about water is wrong, I can provide counter examples. Can anyone tell me why it’s wrong?
I’m assuming the compensation process of releasing water from inside the cells to balance the levels of water in and out of the cells is a slow process, and bodybuilders just get on stage during that small window of time where there’s not much water outside their cells but there’s still plenty inside their cells.
Your last paragraph sums it up. I like to call it water manipulation. We can’t dehydrate too much or we die. The body needs water.
Although too much water will get stored in fat cells and hang around in the subcutaneous layer of the skin.
Manipulate the water to get pulled into the muscle cell and then you have a full and dry look.
This can be done by messing with electrolyte balances as well as through the carb loading process.
Sorry I didn’t read Layne’s article, but this is what I know about water come contest day. lol
DG
Hey guys! Glad this is becoming a interesting discussion.
TBH guys when ive been thinking about this in the past i was not really thinking about pro bbers as such. Actually what first brought about this question was just observations of people i know.
For example i know a guy who has a background in OL lifting, Nowadays he NEVER goes above 5 reps on anything. His diet is awful, i mean really awful. Now despite this (and his highish bf) he just looks damn hard - particularly his quads, hams and glutes. Its strange it looks like his muscle will never leave him.
I know other guys who are as big as that guy^ with lower bf but just dont look as hard, so that was all i was trying to get across.
Brian and professor x make good points and something that i’d not considered - where the mass is stored.
So i agree that low bf will certainly make most look dense but i think there is more to it than just that.
[quote]BARBUDA wrote:
Hey guys! Glad this is becoming a interesting discussion.
TBH guys when ive been thinking about this in the past i was not really thinking about pro bbers as such. Actually what first brought about this question was just observations of people i know.
For example i know a guy who has a background in OL lifting, Nowadays he NEVER goes above 5 reps on anything. His diet is awful, i mean really awful. Now despite this (and his highish bf) he just looks damn hard - particularly his quads, hams and glutes. Its strange it looks like his muscle will never leave him.
I know other guys who are as big as that guy^ with lower bf but just dont look as hard, so that was all i was trying to get across.
Brian and professor x make good points and something that i’d not considered - where the mass is stored.
So i agree that low bf will certainly make most look dense but i think there is more to it than just that.[/quote]
I firmly believe it’s sarcoplasmic vs. myofibril hypertrophy.
It’s nothing new that high reps sets and the “pump” draw water/blood into the muscle thus resulting in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This results in bigger muscles but no new/bigger muscle fibers.
Myofibril hypertrophy, on the other hand, enlarges the size of the actual muscle fibers themselves. This is generally done by recruiting high threshold motor units.
Guys like Branch Warren, Johnnie Jackson, Ronnie Coleman, Dorian Yates etc. definitely do look different from their high rep counter parts. They look “grainier.”
Most bodybuilders fall into the high rep camp though. Guys like Jay, Melvin, Phil all come to mind.
Hasn’t CT written about this?