View Single Post
Old 02-22-2013, 08:54 AM   #27
leefarley
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 7,457, Level: 57 Points: 7,457, Level: 57 Points: 7,457, Level: 57
Activity: 8% Activity: 8% Activity: 8%
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: England UK
Posts: 2,502
Training Exp: 2
Training Type: Fullbody
Fav Exercise: Benchpress
Fav Supp: protein powder
Reputation: 221477
leefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master memberleefarley is a master member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LindenGarcia18 View Post
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.
do powerbuilding, the best of both.
leefarley is offline   Reply With Quote