The weights vs cardio experiment
Discussion
cat@10 said:
Here’s a link about how pro rugby players are getting bigger:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/4531...
Combination of genetics and improved training. Easy enough if it’s in your blood and all you do all day.
That's an interesting read - an excellent link!http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/4531...
Combination of genetics and improved training. Easy enough if it’s in your blood and all you do all day.
You might also be interested in a TV documentary series about the Australian rugby team The Warathahs and their 201 season - it's called 'The Code' and on Sky channel 460, 'Trace Sports' at odd times on and off the evening/week - I recorded it at 11.00pm on Monday nights.
And on a related note about size/years of experience there's Lawrence Okoye, ex youth rugby player who is now our most promising discuss thrower - at only 20 years of age and after 18 months in the sport. He's 6'6", 20 stone, can run the 100m in less than 11 seconds and is throwing close to 70m. Also looks like the proverbial brick toilet block!
http://www.maximuscle.com/general/lawrenceokoye.ht...
Edited by Lost_BMW on Tuesday 10th July 16:42
cat@10 said:
HonestIago said:
DukeDickson said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
HonestIago said:
DukeDickson said:
HonestIago said:
I agree they are very genetically gifted but AAS can be the difference between a 9.7 and a 10sec 100m. People are very naive about how widespread drugs are in sport. The testing is a joke and can easily be subverted, this is why I have zero interest in the forthcoming Olympics. I wish they would just forget testing the athletes and stop feeding the public a pack of lies. Dwayne Chambers is a case in point; he has been vilified as a "cheat" by the press yet the only difference is he got caught. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Usain Bolt is natural but that's just my opinion of course.
Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!
Why? Out of interest, any real evidence?Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!
Of course it is your opinion, but the genetic roulette is often very much under-played, possibly in this sub-fora more than others. The real world gives us some very odd examples for some even odder reasons.
Another prime example in sport is rugby at both top club and international level. Yes professionalisation has made the sport more competitive and there is a greater incentive for players to be bigger/stronger/faster, but does anyone really believe its all down to them just adding more weight training to the players' schedules?! Notice all the much leaner/athletic forwards these days still coming in at 110kg+ ...and the backs who weigh 90-100kg or more even and still run 100m in 11s. Stats like these are not uncommon at the top level and and I have no idea why the general public don't question the supposed "testing" process more. Welsh winger George North (google him) is a particularly good example; 20 years old and physically looks like a freak of nature with just a couple of years of weight training...if people want to believe that's not drug-assisted then fair play to them, but its naive in the extreme.
Obviously rugby is just one other example, but its one I'm more interested in so have paid a bit more attention. Athletics is equally bad for it I have no doubt.
Drugs are extraordinarily common among top athletes.
Want an extra 20-30% to win the competition you strive for? Or how about funding the career you have by winning or being in the top 5 and thus getting lucrative sponsorship deals?
). However, I still disagree.I wouldn't say that George bloke is particularly unusual for a 6' 4'' bloke being paid to hit the gym for a couple of years (or more) and being appropriately guided, resting, eating the right food etc. I'd also cling to my point that he was given the luck of the draw yet if he was big but useless, he'd be nowhere.
We all get given the ability to do something, quite what it is would be a lottery question, even on a purely physical basis. Why would it be any different to the person who drinks, smokes etc yet lives to a ripe old age. Or, engages in serious abuse but doesn't lunch with worms and doesn't fall in the 20's?
Whilst George North is not stage-condition (6%) he is almost definitely not more than 10-12% bodyfat...and weighs 109kg according to wikipedia with a COUPLE OF YEARS training. Doesn't prove anything but food for thought all the same. Right apologies (again) for going off on a ridiculous tangent!
Gatland mentioned in an interview not long ago that George just has to look at some weights and he puts on a kilo. The Welsh management are now trying to limit his size (to maintain his speed). He’s just one of those lucky guys that gets big very easily.
Here’s a link about how pro rugby players are getting bigger:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/4531...
Combination of genetics and improved training. Easy enough if it’s in your blood and all you do all day.
As a rugby player, want to cut recovery time in half? run faster and be much bigger? Thats the question these folk face with use of banned substances. Now I'm not saying everyone is doing it but it is prolific out there in sports.
I think I'm going to carry on sitting on the fence with these folk as I've seen what happens behind closed doors and know rugby players doing these things.
pilchardthecat said:
Yes, i merely mention the heel raise thing as it confirms a diagnosis of tight calfs (according to the article).
Make stretching and foam-rolling your religion from now until the rest of your life. Forget the weight for now, focus of Range of Motion and nailing the movement patterns (creating memory trenches) of each of the 'big money-makers'. The strength will come in time. cat@10 said:
HonestIago said:
DukeDickson said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
HonestIago said:
DukeDickson said:
HonestIago said:
I agree they are very genetically gifted but AAS can be the difference between a 9.7 and a 10sec 100m. People are very naive about how widespread drugs are in sport. The testing is a joke and can easily be subverted, this is why I have zero interest in the forthcoming Olympics. I wish they would just forget testing the athletes and stop feeding the public a pack of lies. Dwayne Chambers is a case in point; he has been vilified as a "cheat" by the press yet the only difference is he got caught. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Usain Bolt is natural but that's just my opinion of course.
Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!
Why? Out of interest, any real evidence?Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!
Of course it is your opinion, but the genetic roulette is often very much under-played, possibly in this sub-fora more than others. The real world gives us some very odd examples for some even odder reasons.
Another prime example in sport is rugby at both top club and international level. Yes professionalisation has made the sport more competitive and there is a greater incentive for players to be bigger/stronger/faster, but does anyone really believe its all down to them just adding more weight training to the players' schedules?! Notice all the much leaner/athletic forwards these days still coming in at 110kg+ ...and the backs who weigh 90-100kg or more even and still run 100m in 11s. Stats like these are not uncommon at the top level and and I have no idea why the general public don't question the supposed "testing" process more. Welsh winger George North (google him) is a particularly good example; 20 years old and physically looks like a freak of nature with just a couple of years of weight training...if people want to believe that's not drug-assisted then fair play to them, but its naive in the extreme.
Obviously rugby is just one other example, but its one I'm more interested in so have paid a bit more attention. Athletics is equally bad for it I have no doubt.
Drugs are extraordinarily common among top athletes.
Want an extra 20-30% to win the competition you strive for? Or how about funding the career you have by winning or being in the top 5 and thus getting lucrative sponsorship deals?
). However, I still disagree.I wouldn't say that George bloke is particularly unusual for a 6' 4'' bloke being paid to hit the gym for a couple of years (or more) and being appropriately guided, resting, eating the right food etc. I'd also cling to my point that he was given the luck of the draw yet if he was big but useless, he'd be nowhere.
We all get given the ability to do something, quite what it is would be a lottery question, even on a purely physical basis. Why would it be any different to the person who drinks, smokes etc yet lives to a ripe old age. Or, engages in serious abuse but doesn't lunch with worms and doesn't fall in the 20's?
Whilst George North is not stage-condition (6%) he is almost definitely not more than 10-12% bodyfat...and weighs 109kg according to wikipedia with a COUPLE OF YEARS training. Doesn't prove anything but food for thought all the same. Right apologies (again) for going off on a ridiculous tangent!
Gatland mentioned in an interview not long ago that George just has to look at some weights and he puts on a kilo. The Welsh management are now trying to limit his size (to maintain his speed). He’s just one of those lucky guys that gets big very easily.
Here’s a link about how pro rugby players are getting bigger:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/4531...
Combination of genetics and improved training. Easy enough if it’s in your blood and all you do all day.
cat@10 said:
HonestIago said:
DukeDickson said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
HonestIago said:
DukeDickson said:
HonestIago said:
I agree they are very genetically gifted but AAS can be the difference between a 9.7 and a 10sec 100m. People are very naive about how widespread drugs are in sport. The testing is a joke and can easily be subverted, this is why I have zero interest in the forthcoming Olympics. I wish they would just forget testing the athletes and stop feeding the public a pack of lies. Dwayne Chambers is a case in point; he has been vilified as a "cheat" by the press yet the only difference is he got caught. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Usain Bolt is natural but that's just my opinion of course.
Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!
Why? Out of interest, any real evidence?Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!
Of course it is your opinion, but the genetic roulette is often very much under-played, possibly in this sub-fora more than others. The real world gives us some very odd examples for some even odder reasons.
Another prime example in sport is rugby at both top club and international level. Yes professionalisation has made the sport more competitive and there is a greater incentive for players to be bigger/stronger/faster, but does anyone really believe its all down to them just adding more weight training to the players' schedules?! Notice all the much leaner/athletic forwards these days still coming in at 110kg+ ...and the backs who weigh 90-100kg or more even and still run 100m in 11s. Stats like these are not uncommon at the top level and and I have no idea why the general public don't question the supposed "testing" process more. Welsh winger George North (google him) is a particularly good example; 20 years old and physically looks like a freak of nature with just a couple of years of weight training...if people want to believe that's not drug-assisted then fair play to them, but its naive in the extreme.
Obviously rugby is just one other example, but its one I'm more interested in so have paid a bit more attention. Athletics is equally bad for it I have no doubt.
Drugs are extraordinarily common among top athletes.
Want an extra 20-30% to win the competition you strive for? Or how about funding the career you have by winning or being in the top 5 and thus getting lucrative sponsorship deals?
). However, I still disagree.I wouldn't say that George bloke is particularly unusual for a 6' 4'' bloke being paid to hit the gym for a couple of years (or more) and being appropriately guided, resting, eating the right food etc. I'd also cling to my point that he was given the luck of the draw yet if he was big but useless, he'd be nowhere.
We all get given the ability to do something, quite what it is would be a lottery question, even on a purely physical basis. Why would it be any different to the person who drinks, smokes etc yet lives to a ripe old age. Or, engages in serious abuse but doesn't lunch with worms and doesn't fall in the 20's?
Whilst George North is not stage-condition (6%) he is almost definitely not more than 10-12% bodyfat...and weighs 109kg according to wikipedia with a COUPLE OF YEARS training. Doesn't prove anything but food for thought all the same. Right apologies (again) for going off on a ridiculous tangent!
Gatland mentioned in an interview not long ago that George just has to look at some weights and he puts on a kilo. The Welsh management are now trying to limit his size (to maintain his speed). He’s just one of those lucky guys that gets big very easily.
Here’s a link about how pro rugby players are getting bigger:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/4531...
Combination of genetics and improved training. Easy enough if it’s in your blood and all you do all day.
People often forget that there were huge f
kers around before PED's were about.
As and aside, PED's are often used as an excuse as to why one hasn't trained as often or as hard as they could/should have and, as such, aren't as big or as strong as they want to be. It's easier to get bigger using drugs, but you can still get huge & strong with out them, just takes a bit longer and a bit more work.
kers around before PED's were about. As and aside, PED's are often used as an excuse as to why one hasn't trained as often or as hard as they could/should have and, as such, aren't as big or as strong as they want to be. It's easier to get bigger using drugs, but you can still get huge & strong with out them, just takes a bit longer and a bit more work.
didelydoo said:
People often forget that there were huge fkers around before PED's were about.
As and aside, PED's are often used as an excuse as to why one hasn't trained as often or as hard as they could/should have and, as such, aren't as big or as strong as they want to be. It's easier to get bigger using drugs, but you can still get huge & strong with out them, just takes a bit longer and a bit more work.
All too true - look at the stats. body weight and lifts of some of the old time strongmen around the turn of the 19th-20th century, and there'd be others before many stats were kept, or from when they have been lost.kers around before PED's were about. As and aside, PED's are often used as an excuse as to why one hasn't trained as often or as hard as they could/should have and, as such, aren't as big or as strong as they want to be. It's easier to get bigger using drugs, but you can still get huge & strong with out them, just takes a bit longer and a bit more work.
Lost_BMW said:
didelydoo said:
People often forget that there were huge fkers around before PED's were about.
As and aside, PED's are often used as an excuse as to why one hasn't trained as often or as hard as they could/should have and, as such, aren't as big or as strong as they want to be. It's easier to get bigger using drugs, but you can still get huge & strong with out them, just takes a bit longer and a bit more work.
All too true - look at the stats. body weight and lifts of some of the old time strongmen around the turn of the 19th-20th century, and there'd be others before many stats were kept, or from when they have been lost.kers around before PED's were about. As and aside, PED's are often used as an excuse as to why one hasn't trained as often or as hard as they could/should have and, as such, aren't as big or as strong as they want to be. It's easier to get bigger using drugs, but you can still get huge & strong with out them, just takes a bit longer and a bit more work.
Athletes (including rugby players) haven't simply grown to be the biggest ever because of improved diets lol! Now we have legions of these super athletes in all sports.
In the past strongmen could be very big but usually fat and you'd have to go a long way back to find evidence of this since steroids have been around since the 30's and very common since the mid 40's and as these drugs and new drugs have improved top level athletes have continued to get better and better. I mean have you ever seen what a combo of HGH/Insulin and Steroids do? Its very impressive for those that have deep pockets and no fears over their long term health.
Halb said:
So have drugs.
But not as much as the training and dietary guidance these guys now get. Compared to today, the athletes in the 1960s were receiving basically nothing in terms of performance enhancing tuition, either with nutrition or assistance training away from the 'pitch' eg: in the weightroom. It used to be the school of thought that weight training made you excessively bulky and 'muscle-bound', which slowed you down and limited your flexibility. We know that now to be complete bunk. TONNES of athletes now, from a wide range of sports, are in the weight room as a matter of routine, and their diets are controlled by the gram!Maxymillion said:
But not as much as the training and dietary guidance these guys now get. Compared to today, the athletes in the 1960s were receiving basically nothing in terms of performance enhancing tuition, either with nutrition or assistance training away from the 'pitch' eg: in the weightroom. It used to be the school of thought that weight training made you excessively bulky and 'muscle-bound', which slowed you down and limited your flexibility. We know that now to be complete bunk. TONNES of athletes now, from a wide range of sports, are in the weight room as a matter of routine, and their diets are controlled by the gram!
No it's not as much, it's much greater. Look at the example of the strongmen above, or wrestlers. There were plenty of people around then who know how to train and how to build bodies for professional rugby. For speed and size, I have family that did it.The reason we have teams of supermen now. Drugs. The diet my Dad and Granddad had could not be bettered today.
The sort of training that people do today is new because it's old. The revolution that occurred in the 70s with cardio, lifestyle gyms and low-fat changed the landscape, but the old style training has resurfaced so that more people now have access to it.
Way back people knew how to get strong, knew how to get powerful. The last time I was in a park watching a pro team train, I had a little smile. In my opinion it was obvious they had a little extra in their diet.
Edited by Halb on Tuesday 10th July 22:48
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff