[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Skeletal muscle? Ha! Everybody knows that skeletons are made of bones. Thats what makes them spooky. [/quote]
LOL!
The only thing spookier is… THERE’S ONE INSIDE YOU!
Same people who think music sounds good with all bass and no treble …
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Funny thing is I think these journalists completely missed the point of the study. I doubt the intent was to compare bodybuilders to untrained individuals. From a scintific standpoint that would not be interesting at all. But comparing specific properties of muscles between two types of athletes that train different ways is actually a very interesting question. I would guess they were comparing bodybuilders to power athletes and the untrained individuals were sort of a control group.
Wish I could read the full study
Here’s the link if you’re able to read it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/EP085267/pdf
The findings seem to be more or less obvious. Especially after discussing this with one of the authors on Researchgate, here’s his (“dumbed down” in his words) explanation:
elite bBers have significantly more noncontractile hypertrophy than both controls as well as weightlifters due to the nature of their sport. They have significantly more contractile hypertrophy than controls but not necessarily elite weightlifters and powerlifters.
Bodybuilders are able to voluntarily contract fibres to close to their full potential AND recruit more motor units in a particular movement. So even though there is a drop in specific strength which stemps from ANY added noncontractile hypertrophy (which will occur to a significant extent regardless of the sporting activity except in very elite strength/power athletes in a weight class controled setting) - measured overall strength in any movement will be significantly higher than controls.
Basically if youve maximized your specific strength (strength/gram NOT strength/fibre) you’re not a very good bodybuilder since you need to maximize all kinds of hypertrophy.
Now as you eloquently put it, this was to compare bodybuilders with power athletes using regular joes as controls - the newspapers just ran with whatever makes them sleep better at night.
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
Funny thing is I think these journalists completely missed the point of the study. I doubt the intent was to compare bodybuilders to untrained individuals. From a scintific standpoint that would not be interesting at all. But comparing specific properties of muscles between two types of athletes that train different ways is actually a very interesting question. I would guess they were comparing bodybuilders to power athletes and the untrained individuals were sort of a control group.
Wish I could read the full study[/quote]