Just FYI resistance training is not bodybuilding (flexing biceps in the mirror like in meme above), so choose your search keywords/programs carefully. Most athletic people I’ve seen (especially runners) often look like they have no muscle(edit: since people misinterpret this, the word “look” is about general appearance, not what’s under the shirt). Biceps have nothing to do with longevity. In fact, extra weight is extra load on heart.
*Edited for clarity since too many misinterpreted.
There is not a single evidence that muscle mass within natural limits becomes detrimental. Of course it’s kinda hard to test it out as well as we would need naturals, close to their maximum limit and hold that for decades, but no point to scare anyone that it’s a possibility naturally as most people will never even reach close to their maximum muscle building potential.
Even when going to steroid abuse territory, it’s questionable whatever steroids do more damage than just the muscle mass itself.
No, you can clearly see the effects of longevity in studies that focuses on resistance training versus focuses on muscle building with little cardio itself
I wouldn’t bother with this person, they’ve got a huge bee in their bonnet about bodybuilding and muscle mass. They seem to have extrapolated the negative health effects of doing huge amounts of steroids and putting on inhuman muscle mass out to all bodybuilding period, and they refuse to have this misconception educated out of them.
Excessive muscle mass. Talking more about people who basically revolve around mass building, which is not as healthy as balanced, resistance training. All my comments have been pro-cardiovascular training, it’s honestly weird how heavily I feel like being misinterpreted here. I even posted my own pic in one of the comments which shows I’m athletic with decend muscle mass, but not excessive.
Understandable, but that does once again go back to the point that detrimental amount of muscle mass is only achievable through the usage of steroids and at that point it’s questionable which did more damage.
Within natural limitations, it’s not something someone should worry about.
Though yes i do agree with you that cardiovascular training shouldn’t be completely neglected.
I think the confusion/general anger/dismissal occured from me also saying that growing arm biceps hardly relate to longevity, and for me resistance training is all about longevity and health, not simply looking good. There are muscles in your body that directly relate to health of cardiovascular system, longevity, health, etc., and then there are others that scientifically don’t really show signs of increased longevity or better health (directly), like arm biceps. They do, however, relate indirectly in a way that it still counts as an exercise, which is always good.
Fair and you’re not wrong on that part, there are other muscle that show stronger links to longevity.
I just added in extra information regarding extra mass is extra load on the heart part that it’s not something one shouldn’t even worry about, unless one falls on a needle, repeatedly. Though i apologize if i did with too much hostility.
I assume it was the same part that got everyone up and about as it’s one of the many misconceptions around training in general and the people who are strongly interested in training do get rather passionate about it.
Correct. Bodybuilding is a presentation sport with a variety of rulesets and judging criteria. Resistance training is a form of exercise with many proven physical and mental benefits
Most athletic people I’ve seen (especially runners) often look like they have no muscle
Usain Bolt was phenomenally muscular when he was competing, as are most sprinters. Many recognized Olympic sports reward larger physiques
Biceps have nothing to do with longevity.
You have my permission to skip direct bicep training.
Just make sure, assuming you want the full spectrum of proven benefits, that you hit your pulls (such as rows and pull ups, or appropriately scaled variations). This will heavily involve your biceps just so you know, but the main focus is the back.
In fact, extra weight is extra load on heart.
Dangerous medical misinformation, you should delete this. Resistance training has proven cardiac benefits. There is zero risk of acquiring “too much” muscle mass
There is no way those guys walking around at 6’1 300 lbs and sub 20% body fat are not taxing their hearts more than a similar height person of normal weight/bf%.
It should go without saying that illegal drug abuse causes countless extreme health issues
You may be surprised to learn that non-drug abusing bodybuilders usually max out around the 150-170lb mark on stage. There are very hard limits to how much muscle your body will let you build
You may be surprised to learn that non-drug abusing bodybuilders usually max out around the 150-170lb mark on stage
That’s really weird because most bodybuilders I know don’t really go below 75-80kg. Yes, I know many as I used to go to the gym, studied as mechanic and I’m from a small city that’s focused on gyms and outdoor fitness areas.
I myself weight 78. Most of my muscle is lower torso since I’ve been cycling and mountainclimbing much of my life.
I’m stating that being grossly overweight with a normal to low bf% is still bad for one’s heart. ~20% is the high end of lean for adult men and the prefix “sub” means under or lower.
It kinda is if you’re a woman. Of course there’s not very much overlap between women and 6’1" 300 lb guys.
But yeah, the problem there is the abuse of steroids and growth hormones required to get such a body. That will fuck your body up in various ways you might not even notice at first.
There is zero risk of acquiring “too much” muscle mass
This is dangerous medical misinformation. Reduced mobility, joint stress, cardiovascular strain, heat intolerance (quite important lately), compartment syndrome, rhabdomyolysis risk, etc. You can most absolutely ruin your health by having too much muscle mass. Last I checked, in statistics bodybuilders have quite terrible longevity as opposed to resistance training folks (which basically shoots in the opposite direction of longevity).
As someone mentioned, any such study is poisoned with the fact that many bodybuilders reach for steroids, but in any case when you look at data of bodybuilding versus resistance building, you gotta raise an eyebrow.
Don’t bodybuilders typically shoot for dangerously low body fat %? Like, all these symptoms sound like what you’d expect from someone on steroids who’s only not extremely underweight because they have a lot of muscle.
Perhaps once you understand why you are wrong, and you realize how much your error has the potential to harm people, you will apologize.
This study is definitionally unrelated to any form of resistance training, or the additional total body mass that you can acquire via resistance training.
It is an observational study on the outcomes of IFBB contestants. For anyone who doesn’t know, the IFBB is the primary bodybuilding federation for drug abusers. They run the “Mr. Olympia” contest which you may have heard of.
The drug abuse they glorify directly results in many extreme health issues including sudden cardiac death, in exchange for levels of muscle gain that far exceed what is possible for any natural athlete.
I want to be clear. What they are doing is extreme, illegal, dangerous, and critically, not related to resistance training in any meaningful way. The body will not allow you to become so muscular that it harms you, which is why these extreme athletes need illegal drugs to become so large in the first place.
It is shockingly irresponsible and ethically wrong for you to withhold this necessary context, and to so severely contort this paper into your unrelated false conclusion
This study is definitionally unrelated to any form of resistance training, or the additional total body mass that you can acquire via resistance training.
Why would me pointing to a study that shows worse health for just body building (as opposed to resistance training) show data about resistance training? The study is about pure body building that focuses on muscles like biceps, just like the meme above, the thread I’m commenting on.
The discussion is essentially “Cardio vs Weights”. I’m pro-cardio. You are not going to convince me of the opposite. I truly believe in longevity of resistance training as opposed to body building (focused on simply muscle growth), or whatever is your/everyone’s goal here.
I see, so in the end, you have decided to persist in falsehood. I hope you know that through humility, it is still possible for you to be redeemed from this shame.
Beyond that, the actual content in your latest comment here is ludicrous beyond credulity. You continue to literally lie about the contents of the study. You assert imagined facts about bodybuilding as a whole that nobody else ascribes to. You propose a ridiculous false dichotomy between aerobic and anaerobic exercise.
It is my hope that everyone will be able to easily see through what you are doing. Here is some accessible educational material for those who may possibly be confused by your continued repetition of dangerous and misleading information:
Strength training, also known as weight training or resistance training, is exercise designed to improve physical strength. It may involve lifting weights, bodyweight exercises (such as push-ups, pull-ups, and squats), isometrics (holding a position under tension, such as planks), and plyometrics (explosive movements like jump squats and box jumps).
The effects of strength training include greater muscular strength, improved muscle tone and appearance, increased endurance, cardiovascular health, and enhanced bone density. These benefits contribute not only to athletic performance but also to long-term health and independence, especially as individuals age.
Regular resistance training supports metabolic function, helps regulate body weight, and can improve mental well-being through the release of endorphins.
Strength training also provides functional benefits. Stronger muscles improve posture, provide better support for joints, and reduce the risk of injury from everyday activities.
Engaging in strength training has been linked to a 10-17% reduction in the risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and lung cancer. Two of its primary effects-muscle growth (hypertrophy) and increased muscular strength-are both associated with improved longevity and lower mortality rates.
Can you please stop being obtuse on purpose? I feel like you clearly know what I’m talking about (longevity effects of resistance training vs focused muscle building with little to no cardio), yet purposefully (or accidentally?) decide to constantly misinterpret me and turn this into a ridiculous argument, because it’s really weird that I pretty much agreed with everything you say, yet you disagree with me like I’m talking something entirely else. Even your examples of bodybuilding is not really the bodybuilding I was talking about as that is closer to resistance training.
You simply cannot deny a fact that pure resistance training is better than simply building my arm biceps, that is very anti-scientific but you constantly nitpick at definitions and wording instead of the idea I’m discussing, probably to appear smarter.
Bodybuilding is a form of resistance training. And there are multiple forms of bodybuilding, some healthy and some significantly less so. The above trainer seems to be talking about a sort of general fitness and casual bodybuilding that is indeed good for health and longevity.
Running is great, in moderation. But having reasonable amounts of muscle mass is also great. Most people are going to have better health outcomes looking like Brad Pitt in Fight Club rather than Edward Norton
I was talking contextually (context matters here). The meme shows a guy flexing his arm biceps. Scientifically biceps hardly relate with longevity and resistance training, that is just bodybuilding. My point was to simply point people more towards resistance building rather than simply muscle building. I’ll be honest - I skipped half of the comment I was replying to due to me being in rush
Dunno why you’re downvoted; there’s different types of muscle growth and you’ll get different results based on your routine.
For example, you can end up with very dense, efficient, lean muscle that doesn’t show up in the mirror if you have any body fat. Or you can get very puffed up muscle that isn’t super strong but looks impressive.
Neither is worse or better, they’re just different outcomes based on your goals.
Hi, sorry I was just scrolling by to see how the whole thread turned out
I apologize to be so blunt, but there simply isn’t truth to what you’re saying. It gets repeated a lot, but it’s a totally debunked myth, this idea that there’s “functional muscles” vs “show muscles” that aren’t really strong
There is some nuance to it, in that the expression of strength has a large skill and neurological factor. Like in a typical training block, someone only training for size simply wouldn’t be practicing doubles and singles, so they wouldn’t be at their best on a random day if you tested them on something they weren’t practicing
But the best bodybuilders (who train maximally for visuals) end up within like 5% of the strength of the best powerlifters (who train maximally for efficiency). There are plenty of people who compete in both and do decent in both. In fact, powerlifters do hypertrophy blocks as well, and switch to mainly practicing heavy lifts only as competition gets closer
We’re not talking about the very top 1% best people though. The chances of anybody here ever becoming a professional bodybuilder or weightlifter is very small. If you go to a real gym or actually meet people, you’ll see there’s a huge variety of builds and results.
You say it’s a myth, but if you just Google “is there such a thing as dense muscle”, there’s many articles explaining the phenomenon. Only one Reddit article pops up claiming it’s a myth, and personally I don’t put much stock in Reddit for fact based arguments.
if you just Google “is there such a thing as dense muscle”, there’s many articles explaining the phenomenon.
Like I said, it gets repeated a lot. Googling “is myth real” and ending up with one of thousands of similar fluff blogposts from over the years that say “yes! Myth is real! Check out our exclusive training program to better deal with myth!” Is totally expected. It’s all just fluff designed to sell programs based on that “key piece of information you’re missing”
We’re not talking about the very top 1% best people though
These are the people who bring what you’re saying to the utmost extreme, and their strength is ultimately similar. It’s relevant. The differences in strength are even smaller the younger your training age is.
If you go to a real gym or actually meet people, you’ll see there’s a huge variety of builds and results.
I go to several gyms. I’m at a gym every day. I am a trainer. Aside from my own clients, I also see all the regulars, how they train, and how their bodies change
Additionally, I am literally holding the textbook from my certification program in my hand right at this moment, which actually has a small section addressing this exact myth directly. It begins with, “contrary to what many believe…”
I apologize for not providing this textbook as a citation. I reference it a lot in public facing posts associated with my business and I feel that, in context, doing so now has the potential to be identifying. I prefer to keep a resolute line between my professional service and my posts here on lemmy, so that I cannot be accused of self enrichment via advertising.
Thus, everything I say on the topic comes simply from the hope that it may help people better themselves in one small way or another. In this case, it’s very common for people to avoid effective training methods that would work very well for them because they were mislead by someone making a huge fuss between “strength” and “size” and insisting they must train a certain way to heavily bias one or the other. The academic consensus is that you really don’t need to worry about that at all
Ok well I’m going to continue trusting my eyes and lived experience over an internet stranger who has a forbidden tome of knowledge.
I also think there was a miscommunication here. I’m not saying that hypertrophy doesn’t result in strength gains. All I’m saying is, that it’s possible to end up with “dense muscle”, or “skinny strong”, which might be an undesirable / desirable outcome for some people depending on what they actually want. I was pointing out the difference for people who haven’t started any strength training at all yet, so they can make informed decisions about their research and routines. Either choice is a good one, it’s entirely personal preference.
Yes as I said, my apologies for the lack of citation. But the book is far from forbidden, it’s a standard academic work written by leading exercise science researchers. Their work is universally cited, which is why I encourage you to look towards academic sources rather than advertisements
I also think there was a miscommunication here. I’m not saying that hypertrophy doesn’t result in strength gains
To be clear, what you said was:
you can get very puffed up muscle that isn’t super strong
Which is a debunked myth. So you’re walking that back now which is good.
People can definitely add significant strength without significant size, up to a point, for individualized training blocks. But if you train, even only for strength, your muscles will get larger. In your lived experience, do you have any example of someone who brought their strict press from 35lbs to 185lbs without increasing the size of their shoulders? Have you seen someone with small legs squat 455?
I’m not walking it back. Initially I simplified it so that the average person could understand it, then you came in guns blazing and turned it into a scientific debate, making it seem like muscle density doesn’t exist at all as a concept. I didn’t want to make it complicated for people just starting out, all beginners care about is results, they don’t really need to know the science. You usually end up learning as you go anyway.
The fact is that muscle density, muscle size, and functional strength are all variables. Both muscle density and muscle size increase strength, which I think was our misunderstanding.
You can have large size with low density, which is still way stronger than doing no exercise at all, of course. That’s what I was referring to before with my puffed up comment. Not useless muscles, just less muscle per muscle. Still muscle, still healthy and helpful.
You can also have low size with high density. This is the “skinny strong” I was referring to.
But best of all you can have high size with high density. The effects multiply on each other. I imagine this is the one you’re helping people create.
Of course, if you exercise, you will gain size, but depending on how you do it, you may gain more density than size per unit of time in the gym. You’ll always get a bit of both though. It’s a ratio thing.
To answer your anecdotal question, I do know someone who just cannot put on bulk for some reason. I suspect it’s either an undiagnosed medical disease, or very unlucky genetics. Anyway, they work out a lot, and are much stronger than me or many people I know, despite being “wiry” and smaller. Their arms are like corded steel. They continuously get better results every month, though I think they might be hitting some sort of upper limit in how much muscle that can be physically crammed per square centimetre of body tissue.
Right on, yeah I think we’re pretty much on the same page now.
I apologize for coming in hot. My main issue really is just with the popular myth that the ratio you’re referring to is very extreme and necessitates totally different styles of training. It’s often used to mislead women in particular, who are baited into purchasing expensive yet ineffective programs that “won’t make them bulky”. But as we continue speaking I can see that you’re not advocating for that
Here you go, even studies showing that size and strength are closely correlated.
Or even more studies, with deeper analysis and actually slightly favorable for your point, though the weak correlation is just limited to untrained individuals. The more advanced person gets the stronger the correlation gets.
Ok… those studies are saying that muscle growth is correlated with strength gains. Yes, I agree with you on this. Those articles do not disprove the existence of dense muscle. Maybe there’s been a misunderstanding. I’m not saying that size increase doesn’t lead to strength gains, that would be silly.
All I’m saying is, that it’s possible to end up with “dense muscle”, or “skinny strong”, which might be an undesirable / desirable outcome for some people depending on what they actually want. I was pointing out the difference for people who haven’t started any strength training at all yet, so they can make informed decisions about their research and routines. Either choice is a good one, it’s entirely personal preference.
Fair, probably misunderstanding then, because usually people referring to both terms usually do ignore strength and size correlation.
Though that’s just overly complicating it for beginners.
Just the most basic resistance training is more than enough to build size, strength and density all at the same time.
Skinny strong is just someone who has maxmimized their strength potential or has some leverage advantage due to genetics.
Yeah sure someone can train to become skinny strong by doing strength focused training(low rep range), but that caps out at some point as we can see from powerlifters who alternate training blocks between strength and hypertohy training.
Just FYI resistance training is not bodybuilding (flexing biceps in the mirror like in meme above), so choose your search keywords/programs carefully. Most athletic people I’ve seen (especially runners) often look like they have no muscle(edit: since people misinterpret this, the word “look” is about general appearance, not what’s under the shirt). Biceps have nothing to do with longevity. In fact, extra weight is extra load on heart.
*Edited for clarity since too many misinterpreted.
There is not a single evidence that muscle mass within natural limits becomes detrimental. Of course it’s kinda hard to test it out as well as we would need naturals, close to their maximum limit and hold that for decades, but no point to scare anyone that it’s a possibility naturally as most people will never even reach close to their maximum muscle building potential.
Even when going to steroid abuse territory, it’s questionable whatever steroids do more damage than just the muscle mass itself.
No, you can clearly see the effects of longevity in studies that focuses on resistance training versus focuses on muscle building with little cardio itself
That excessive muscle mass is detrimental or that lack of cardiovascular training is detrimental?
I wouldn’t bother with this person, they’ve got a huge bee in their bonnet about bodybuilding and muscle mass. They seem to have extrapolated the negative health effects of doing huge amounts of steroids and putting on inhuman muscle mass out to all bodybuilding period, and they refuse to have this misconception educated out of them.
Fair, bad habit. From time to time i still fall for it.
Excessive muscle mass. Talking more about people who basically revolve around mass building, which is not as healthy as balanced, resistance training. All my comments have been pro-cardiovascular training, it’s honestly weird how heavily I feel like being misinterpreted here. I even posted my own pic in one of the comments which shows I’m athletic with decend muscle mass, but not excessive.
Understandable, but that does once again go back to the point that detrimental amount of muscle mass is only achievable through the usage of steroids and at that point it’s questionable which did more damage. Within natural limitations, it’s not something someone should worry about.
Though yes i do agree with you that cardiovascular training shouldn’t be completely neglected.
I think the confusion/general anger/dismissal occured from me also saying that growing arm biceps hardly relate to longevity, and for me resistance training is all about longevity and health, not simply looking good. There are muscles in your body that directly relate to health of cardiovascular system, longevity, health, etc., and then there are others that scientifically don’t really show signs of increased longevity or better health (directly), like arm biceps. They do, however, relate indirectly in a way that it still counts as an exercise, which is always good.
Fair and you’re not wrong on that part, there are other muscle that show stronger links to longevity.
I just added in extra information regarding extra mass is extra load on the heart part that it’s not something one shouldn’t even worry about, unless one falls on a needle, repeatedly. Though i apologize if i did with too much hostility.
I assume it was the same part that got everyone up and about as it’s one of the many misconceptions around training in general and the people who are strongly interested in training do get rather passionate about it.
Correct. Bodybuilding is a presentation sport with a variety of rulesets and judging criteria. Resistance training is a form of exercise with many proven physical and mental benefits
Usain Bolt was phenomenally muscular when he was competing, as are most sprinters. Many recognized Olympic sports reward larger physiques
You have my permission to skip direct bicep training.
Just make sure, assuming you want the full spectrum of proven benefits, that you hit your pulls (such as rows and pull ups, or appropriately scaled variations). This will heavily involve your biceps just so you know, but the main focus is the back.
Dangerous medical misinformation, you should delete this. Resistance training has proven cardiac benefits. There is zero risk of acquiring “too much” muscle mass
There is no way those guys walking around at 6’1 300 lbs and sub 20% body fat are not taxing their hearts more than a similar height person of normal weight/bf%.
It should go without saying that illegal drug abuse causes countless extreme health issues
You may be surprised to learn that non-drug abusing bodybuilders usually max out around the 150-170lb mark on stage. There are very hard limits to how much muscle your body will let you build
That’s really weird because most bodybuilders I know don’t really go below 75-80kg. Yes, I know many as I used to go to the gym, studied as mechanic and I’m from a small city that’s focused on gyms and outdoor fitness areas.
I myself weight 78. Most of my muscle is lower torso since I’ve been cycling and mountainclimbing much of my life.
Are you implying 20% body fat is low?
I’m stating that being grossly overweight with a normal to low bf% is still bad for one’s heart. ~20% is the high end of lean for adult men and the prefix “sub” means under or lower.
It kinda is if you’re a woman. Of course there’s not very much overlap between women and 6’1" 300 lb guys.
But yeah, the problem there is the abuse of steroids and growth hormones required to get such a body. That will fuck your body up in various ways you might not even notice at first.
This is dangerous medical misinformation. Reduced mobility, joint stress, cardiovascular strain, heat intolerance (quite important lately), compartment syndrome, rhabdomyolysis risk, etc. You can most absolutely ruin your health by having too much muscle mass. Last I checked, in statistics bodybuilders have quite terrible longevity as opposed to resistance training folks (which basically shoots in the opposite direction of longevity).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40393525/
EDIT: Non IFBB study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9885939/
As someone mentioned, any such study is poisoned with the fact that many bodybuilders reach for steroids, but in any case when you look at data of bodybuilding versus resistance building, you gotta raise an eyebrow.
Don’t bodybuilders typically shoot for dangerously low body fat %? Like, all these symptoms sound like what you’d expect from someone on steroids who’s only not extremely underweight because they have a lot of muscle.
Yes. That’s been essentially my point. Don’t do that.
Perhaps once you understand why you are wrong, and you realize how much your error has the potential to harm people, you will apologize.
This study is definitionally unrelated to any form of resistance training, or the additional total body mass that you can acquire via resistance training.
It is an observational study on the outcomes of IFBB contestants. For anyone who doesn’t know, the IFBB is the primary bodybuilding federation for drug abusers. They run the “Mr. Olympia” contest which you may have heard of.
The drug abuse they glorify directly results in many extreme health issues including sudden cardiac death, in exchange for levels of muscle gain that far exceed what is possible for any natural athlete.
I want to be clear. What they are doing is extreme, illegal, dangerous, and critically, not related to resistance training in any meaningful way. The body will not allow you to become so muscular that it harms you, which is why these extreme athletes need illegal drugs to become so large in the first place.
It is shockingly irresponsible and ethically wrong for you to withhold this necessary context, and to so severely contort this paper into your unrelated false conclusion
Why would me pointing to a study that shows worse health for just body building (as opposed to resistance training) show data about resistance training? The study is about pure body building that focuses on muscles like biceps, just like the meme above, the thread I’m commenting on.
The discussion is essentially “Cardio vs Weights”. I’m pro-cardio. You are not going to convince me of the opposite. I truly believe in longevity of resistance training as opposed to body building (focused on simply muscle growth), or whatever is your/everyone’s goal here.
It isnt. It is sensible people talking about training vs you being weirdly combative
I think you should re-visit my very first comment.
I see, so in the end, you have decided to persist in falsehood. I hope you know that through humility, it is still possible for you to be redeemed from this shame.
Beyond that, the actual content in your latest comment here is ludicrous beyond credulity. You continue to literally lie about the contents of the study. You assert imagined facts about bodybuilding as a whole that nobody else ascribes to. You propose a ridiculous false dichotomy between aerobic and anaerobic exercise.
It is my hope that everyone will be able to easily see through what you are doing. Here is some accessible educational material for those who may possibly be confused by your continued repetition of dangerous and misleading information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training
Some highlights, emphasis mine:
Can you please stop being obtuse on purpose? I feel like you clearly know what I’m talking about (longevity effects of resistance training vs focused muscle building with little to no cardio), yet purposefully (or accidentally?) decide to constantly misinterpret me and turn this into a ridiculous argument, because it’s really weird that I pretty much agreed with everything you say, yet you disagree with me like I’m talking something entirely else. Even your examples of bodybuilding is not really the bodybuilding I was talking about as that is closer to resistance training.
You simply cannot deny a fact that pure resistance training is better than simply building my arm biceps, that is very anti-scientific but you constantly nitpick at definitions and wording instead of the idea I’m discussing, probably to appear smarter.
Muscle building is a primary effect of resistance training. Bolded that for you above.
You are not being misinterpreted. You are wrong.
And yet focusing on arm biceps is hardly resistance building
Bodybuilding is a form of resistance training. And there are multiple forms of bodybuilding, some healthy and some significantly less so. The above trainer seems to be talking about a sort of general fitness and casual bodybuilding that is indeed good for health and longevity.
Running is great, in moderation. But having reasonable amounts of muscle mass is also great. Most people are going to have better health outcomes looking like Brad Pitt in Fight Club rather than Edward Norton
I was talking contextually (context matters here). The meme shows a guy flexing his arm biceps. Scientifically biceps hardly relate with longevity and resistance training, that is just bodybuilding. My point was to simply point people more towards resistance building rather than simply muscle building. I’ll be honest - I skipped half of the comment I was replying to due to me being in rush
Lmao gottem(me). Fair
Who mentioned bodybuilding? Did you mean to respond to someone else?
The meme is about bodybuilding. Your comment talks about resistance building as if it’s the same thing
My comment didn’t talk about shit
Dunno why you’re downvoted; there’s different types of muscle growth and you’ll get different results based on your routine.
For example, you can end up with very dense, efficient, lean muscle that doesn’t show up in the mirror if you have any body fat. Or you can get very puffed up muscle that isn’t super strong but looks impressive.
Neither is worse or better, they’re just different outcomes based on your goals.
Hi, sorry I was just scrolling by to see how the whole thread turned out
I apologize to be so blunt, but there simply isn’t truth to what you’re saying. It gets repeated a lot, but it’s a totally debunked myth, this idea that there’s “functional muscles” vs “show muscles” that aren’t really strong
There is some nuance to it, in that the expression of strength has a large skill and neurological factor. Like in a typical training block, someone only training for size simply wouldn’t be practicing doubles and singles, so they wouldn’t be at their best on a random day if you tested them on something they weren’t practicing
But the best bodybuilders (who train maximally for visuals) end up within like 5% of the strength of the best powerlifters (who train maximally for efficiency). There are plenty of people who compete in both and do decent in both. In fact, powerlifters do hypertrophy blocks as well, and switch to mainly practicing heavy lifts only as competition gets closer
We’re not talking about the very top 1% best people though. The chances of anybody here ever becoming a professional bodybuilder or weightlifter is very small. If you go to a real gym or actually meet people, you’ll see there’s a huge variety of builds and results.
You say it’s a myth, but if you just Google “is there such a thing as dense muscle”, there’s many articles explaining the phenomenon. Only one Reddit article pops up claiming it’s a myth, and personally I don’t put much stock in Reddit for fact based arguments.
Here’s one: https://www.setforset.com/blogs/news/dense-muscle-vs-big-soft-muscle-training
Like I said, it gets repeated a lot. Googling “is myth real” and ending up with one of thousands of similar fluff blogposts from over the years that say “yes! Myth is real! Check out our exclusive training program to better deal with myth!” Is totally expected. It’s all just fluff designed to sell programs based on that “key piece of information you’re missing”
These are the people who bring what you’re saying to the utmost extreme, and their strength is ultimately similar. It’s relevant. The differences in strength are even smaller the younger your training age is.
I go to several gyms. I’m at a gym every day. I am a trainer. Aside from my own clients, I also see all the regulars, how they train, and how their bodies change
Additionally, I am literally holding the textbook from my certification program in my hand right at this moment, which actually has a small section addressing this exact myth directly. It begins with, “contrary to what many believe…”
I apologize for not providing this textbook as a citation. I reference it a lot in public facing posts associated with my business and I feel that, in context, doing so now has the potential to be identifying. I prefer to keep a resolute line between my professional service and my posts here on lemmy, so that I cannot be accused of self enrichment via advertising.
Thus, everything I say on the topic comes simply from the hope that it may help people better themselves in one small way or another. In this case, it’s very common for people to avoid effective training methods that would work very well for them because they were mislead by someone making a huge fuss between “strength” and “size” and insisting they must train a certain way to heavily bias one or the other. The academic consensus is that you really don’t need to worry about that at all
Ok well I’m going to continue trusting my eyes and lived experience over an internet stranger who has a forbidden tome of knowledge.
I also think there was a miscommunication here. I’m not saying that hypertrophy doesn’t result in strength gains. All I’m saying is, that it’s possible to end up with “dense muscle”, or “skinny strong”, which might be an undesirable / desirable outcome for some people depending on what they actually want. I was pointing out the difference for people who haven’t started any strength training at all yet, so they can make informed decisions about their research and routines. Either choice is a good one, it’s entirely personal preference.
Yes as I said, my apologies for the lack of citation. But the book is far from forbidden, it’s a standard academic work written by leading exercise science researchers. Their work is universally cited, which is why I encourage you to look towards academic sources rather than advertisements
To be clear, what you said was:
Which is a debunked myth. So you’re walking that back now which is good.
People can definitely add significant strength without significant size, up to a point, for individualized training blocks. But if you train, even only for strength, your muscles will get larger. In your lived experience, do you have any example of someone who brought their strict press from 35lbs to 185lbs without increasing the size of their shoulders? Have you seen someone with small legs squat 455?
I’m not walking it back. Initially I simplified it so that the average person could understand it, then you came in guns blazing and turned it into a scientific debate, making it seem like muscle density doesn’t exist at all as a concept. I didn’t want to make it complicated for people just starting out, all beginners care about is results, they don’t really need to know the science. You usually end up learning as you go anyway.
The fact is that muscle density, muscle size, and functional strength are all variables. Both muscle density and muscle size increase strength, which I think was our misunderstanding.
Of course, if you exercise, you will gain size, but depending on how you do it, you may gain more density than size per unit of time in the gym. You’ll always get a bit of both though. It’s a ratio thing.
To answer your anecdotal question, I do know someone who just cannot put on bulk for some reason. I suspect it’s either an undiagnosed medical disease, or very unlucky genetics. Anyway, they work out a lot, and are much stronger than me or many people I know, despite being “wiry” and smaller. Their arms are like corded steel. They continuously get better results every month, though I think they might be hitting some sort of upper limit in how much muscle that can be physically crammed per square centimetre of body tissue.
Right on, yeah I think we’re pretty much on the same page now.
I apologize for coming in hot. My main issue really is just with the popular myth that the ratio you’re referring to is very extreme and necessitates totally different styles of training. It’s often used to mislead women in particular, who are baited into purchasing expensive yet ineffective programs that “won’t make them bulky”. But as we continue speaking I can see that you’re not advocating for that
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40680785/
Here you go, even studies showing that size and strength are closely correlated.
Or even more studies, with deeper analysis and actually slightly favorable for your point, though the weak correlation is just limited to untrained individuals. The more advanced person gets the stronger the correlation gets.
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/correlation-strength-hypertrophy/
Ok… those studies are saying that muscle growth is correlated with strength gains. Yes, I agree with you on this. Those articles do not disprove the existence of dense muscle. Maybe there’s been a misunderstanding. I’m not saying that size increase doesn’t lead to strength gains, that would be silly.
All I’m saying is, that it’s possible to end up with “dense muscle”, or “skinny strong”, which might be an undesirable / desirable outcome for some people depending on what they actually want. I was pointing out the difference for people who haven’t started any strength training at all yet, so they can make informed decisions about their research and routines. Either choice is a good one, it’s entirely personal preference.
Fair, probably misunderstanding then, because usually people referring to both terms usually do ignore strength and size correlation.
Though that’s just overly complicating it for beginners. Just the most basic resistance training is more than enough to build size, strength and density all at the same time.
Skinny strong is just someone who has maxmimized their strength potential or has some leverage advantage due to genetics. Yeah sure someone can train to become skinny strong by doing strength focused training(low rep range), but that caps out at some point as we can see from powerlifters who alternate training blocks between strength and hypertohy training.