T Nation

Wimps are stronger than bodybuilders!


#1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html


#2

[quote]jeremielemauvais wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html[/quote]

Who cares?
I’d rather look like a bodybuilder than a wimp, regardless of strength.


#3

Now we have Relative Muscle Quality Strength.

Love it!


#4

“Bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass, research suggests.”


#5

[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
“Bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass, research suggests.”[/quote]
The sky is blue.


#6

‘It appears that excessive muscle growth may have detrimental effects on the quality of the muscle, and one may well be better off with normal-sized muscles than with metabolically expensive large muscles.’’

expensive when compared with what? Expensive is a relative term and can be applied to various circumstances. Expensive in terms of dollars to attain? That’s relative to ones income, lifestyle, goals and alternatives.

Expensive in terms of time? Again, what’s the alternative. What a shitty article.

“The scientists, whose findings are reported in the journal Experimental Physiology, took small muscle samples from the thighs of 12 male bodybuilders, six power athletes such as sprinters, and 14 men who were physically active but did not weight train.”

What constitutes physically active? What kind of physical activities were the 14 men? From what area did they pull the sample? This study seems chalk full of biases. Plus what a shit sample size.

“In contrast to bodybuilders, power athletes appeared to have an improved level of muscle quality, the researchers found.”

Jesus, they spent money on this? I hope this was privately funded.

What a terrible article and, from what I read in the article, the study is fucking useless based off of the sample size alone. There’s absolutely zero one can reasonably infer from a study of that size other than “we need a larger sample”. Does the telegraph usually run with such a crappy study? I’m really mad at myself for reading this waste of internets.


#7

You’ll be surprised how many local news sites, blogs and other outlets via social media have re-“tweeted” this while adding their own flavour to the whole “specific strength” argument :slight_smile:

just google the title of this thread lol.

The day will soon be here when average joes (with dadbods) will confidently pick fights with bodybuilders or challenge them to arm wrestle in an attempt to humiliate them. I’m not 100% certain how that will turn out though, tbh

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Does the telegraph usually run with such a crappy study? I’m really mad at myself for reading this waste of internets.[/quote]


#8

[quote]polo77j wrote:
expensive when compared with what? Expensive is a relative term and can be applied to various circumstances. Expensive in terms of dollars to attain? That’s relative to ones income, lifestyle, goals and alternatives.

Expensive in terms of time? Again, what’s the alternative. What a shitty article.
[/quote]

Metabolically expensive = it takes more calories to maintain than the average amount of muscle. So no, in this case it is not a ‘relative’ term. You’re still right, it’s a really bad article - pretty much business as usual when a non-specialist publication talks about fitness or diet.


#9

Insects are stronger than bodybuilders.


#10

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
expensive when compared with what? Expensive is a relative term and can be applied to various circumstances. Expensive in terms of dollars to attain? That’s relative to ones income, lifestyle, goals and alternatives.

Expensive in terms of time? Again, what’s the alternative. What a shitty article.
[/quote]

Metabolically expensive = it takes more calories to maintain than the average amount of muscle. So no, in this case it is not a ‘relative’ term. You’re still right, it’s a really bad article - pretty much business as usual when a non-specialist publication talks about fitness or diet.
[/quote]

Fair enough. The CBS one dude posted is even worse. At least the Telegraph talked about the study conducted…CBS just says this is what scientist found and then completely misrepresent the findings.


#11

How do I train to maximize relative muscle quality strength?

It seems like weights decrease relative muscle quality strength, so I’m considering a 5x per week resistance band programme – 2 rest days so I don’t fatigue my CNS and overtrain.

plz comment.

(not srs)


#12

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
How do I train to maximize relative muscle quality strength?

It seems like weights decrease relative muscle quality strength, so I’m considering a 5x per week resistance band programme – 2 rest days so I don’t fatigue my CNS and overtrain.

plz comment.

(not srs)[/quote]

I’m almost positive you didn’t need to add the disclaimer lol


#13

Ha, apples and oranges! This is exactly the sort of article that publications release to increase their sales or internet traffic. If I were the average out of shape ‘wimp’, I would share this with all of my out of shape ‘wimp’ friends and re-post it on my twitter and Facebook, and we would all read the daily telegraph much more often.


#14

[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
“Bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass, research suggests.”[/quote]

Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but isn’t that common sense?


#15

Ah, that old sarcoplasmic hypertrophy chestnut has been unearthed again.

What would be really helpful is if they actually linked the study so I could read and assess it instead of getting this second-hand nonsense from an anonymous clickbait journalist. Looked through the last couple of journal issues and couldn’t find it. It’ll take a bit of convincing to make me believe that hypertrophy weakens skeletal muscle.


#16

Skeletal muscle? Ha! Everybody knows that skeletons are made of bones. Thats what makes them spooky.


#17

Here’s the full text (the article is still in Press)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/EP085267/pdf

Anyhoo, the journal is indexed on the ISI web of science, has an impact factor around 2.7 and is ranked in the top 50% of Physiology related journals, so not chump change (better than the strength and conditioning journals that Bret contreras published his original work in) so yeah.

[quote]Cimmerian wrote:
Ah, that old sarcoplasmic hypertrophy chestnut has been unearthed again.

What would be really helpful is if they actually linked the study so I could read and assess it instead of getting this second-hand nonsense from an anonymous clickbait journalist. Looked through the last couple of journal issues and couldn’t find it. It’ll take a bit of convincing to make me believe that hypertrophy weakens skeletal muscle.[/quote]


#18

In any case, a question for anyone actively involved in Physiology research (not my field at all) wouldnt it make sense that if an adult individual began a weight training regimen of any kind his muscle density would actually decrease initially (due to the increase in sarcoplasm fluid glycogen etc outweighing the contractile material which cannot be avoided regardless of rep range) and then increase over the next several years? Point being that someone training 20+ year and on stage at the Olympia likely has very nearly the same muscle density as a non training adult or even a power athlete (due to increase in actual contractile material/myofibrils etc)???


#19

My money is worth me far more when I earn minimum wage.
I rather be a rich as CEO mofo.


#20

They also appeared to only look at maximum strength, not things like strength endurance which I would expect in a measure of muscle quality. Less max force doesn’t always mean “weaker” muscle if other qualities are better. Nor does contractile strength per ounce of muscle mean that the untrained are stronger pound for pound of body weight for a number of reasons.

Primarily, body muscle percentage. But also because strength is a skill and bodybuilders are probably better trained to apply muscular strength. And also muscle recruitment which is likely also better in bodybuilders.

It is an interesting result, but as normal the headlines are full of it.