View Single Post
Old 02-22-2013, 07:26 AM   #26
LindenGarcia18
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 8,417, Level: 61 Points: 8,417, Level: 61 Points: 8,417, Level: 61
Activity: 16% Activity: 16% Activity: 16%
 
LindenGarcia18's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London City UK
Posts: 1,896
Training Type: 5x5
Fav Exercise: One arm dumbbell rows.
Reputation: 69801
LindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beastLindenGarcia18 is a lifting beast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BendtheBar View Post
All done.
To me, powerlifting is clearly the superior option.
Why be big with less strength, when you can be huge and strong as hell at the same time?

Back to the hypertrophy thing. You say powerlifters look no different to bodybuilders apart from body fat percentages, and from the pictures you showed me, I understand now.
The sarco vs myo hypertrophy, seems irrelevant even if looking at it just out of interest.
I've read tons of stuff about it, and here isn't really any proof to support that you can train for either one, and any supposed evidence you can find has a contradiction to go along with it.

The only reason I was concerned with all this before was because I didn't want to put a ton of hard work in, to find out that I was just pumping my muscles up with fluid, that wouldn't last.
Its clearly not as black and white as that, like you said in the other thread, but I just felt compelled to get my head round it.

By the way, if powerlifters often have as much mass as bodybuilders, then why not just do powerlifting?
Seems like a better idea to me.
LindenGarcia18 is online now   Reply With Quote