Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

mennohenselmans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#211

Post by rcarr »

naasking wrote: post #104
LanceH wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It’s not uncommon for a guy to gain 4 pounds of what looks like muscle when they go from a low to a high carb diet. This is probably the main reason high carb diets are so popular among bodybuilders" from the article. The main reason for high carb diets is the energy to lift more. It is not for a brief pump. (among bodybuilders)

> The main reason for high carb diets is the energy to lift more. Body builders are physique athletes motivated by aesthetics. Assuming body builders do indeed prefer high carb diets, we currently have two hypotheses here: 1. They've tracked their energy levels and the data convinced them that high carb diets improved their energy levels in the gym, which ultimately improves muscle growth over the long-term (your hyp…

> Body builders are physique athletes motivated by aesthetics.

They used to be, but now the majority of competitions have actually moved towards sheer size. Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others, is a vocal critic of this so they actually created a new division called “Classic Physique” to address the problem which is now purely dedicated to aesthetics and proportion.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#212

Post by wolongong942 »

moneywoes wrote: post #130
goldfeld wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However pump up the T and your hairline will run away from you fast, then your hair will dropset to failure.

Isn’t there something you can take to prevent that from happening?

Not really, finasteride with steroids will spike your estrogen (which was already an issue with the extra testosterone) and cause you to get permanent manboobs and other sexual issues IIRC, and if you use yet another drug to block this estrogen conversion it's even more dangerous.

Basically you have the male pattern baldness gene stay away from roids. If you need more motivation, study after study show women are less attracted to bodybuilder physiques anyway.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#213

Post by _trackno5 »

rcarr wrote: post #204
ltadeut wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I look at it through the lens of the last 10-years of "science-based" strength/bodybuilding training, there's nothing surprising there. # On rest intervals His description is pretty spot on. The rest times mostly affect the amount of volume you can do (volume is generally defined as #reps x #sets, though I prefer #reps x #sets x weight). That's actually something really useful to know because it allows you to get…

Nervous system stress/spinal load also plays a big part in maximising the amount of stress you an out a muscle group under. Louie Simmons famously has all his lifters do a fuck ton of belt squats because you can do way more of them than regular back squats because there’s no stress on the lower back and less stress on the nervous system as a result. I guess this is pretty similar to what you’re saying with the fatigu…

I’d say the belt stuff is more likely due to stability. Your nervous system limits power output when your body is not stable. That’s why bozo ball squats are just freaking dumb

But the belt totally helps with lower back fatigue for sure!

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#214

Post by klyrs »

snordgren wrote: post #140
klyrs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-ass weights." - Ronnie Coleman I don't wanna look like a bodybuilder but if I could stay skinny and shark the highland games I'd be tickled pink.

Accidentally becoming too muscular simply does not happen unless you start injecting. Don't worry about it.

I disagree. I never injected anything, but I was a distance cyclist for many years, ending almost 20 years ago and my legs are still mannish. High reps, low weight can build build muscle on a high-carb diet. What I really don't understand is why cyclists get bulky and runners don't.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#215

Post by _trackno5 »

ltadeut wrote: post #122
hackernewds wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to know about this subject. What is your take on this article then?

If I look at it through the lens of the last 10-years of "science-based" strength/bodybuilding training, there's nothing surprising there. # On rest intervals His description is pretty spot on. The rest times mostly affect the amount of volume you can do (volume is generally defined as #reps x #sets, though I prefer #reps x #sets x weight). That's actually something really useful to know because it allows you to get…

I just realised I mistyped: SFR is stimulus-to-fatigue ratio, not signal-to-fatigue ratio.

Guess I had too many meetings talking about observability today lol

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#216

Post by maerF0x0 »

LanceH wrote: post #28

They seem to be talking about bodybuilding a lot, but then (at least some) of the discussions move to muscle growth among random groups of people. The two are not the same. Bodybuilders are trying to put on muscle, sometimes in specific places, long after they have stalled in workouts most people would do. >Going on a higher carb diet increases intramuscular glycogen stores, which attracts a lot of water into the mus…

> No real bodybuilder stops eating carbs to get shredded.

depends what you mean by "stop". If you mean Heres the first article to confirm my point.

> Carbohydrate intake during the restriction phase varied and competitors reported consuming between 0 and 100 g per day. Conversely, CHO intake during loading was reported to be over 2500 g or 833 g per day

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315482/#:~:tex....

If by "stop" you mean 0g, then yeah, no one does that cause it's basically impossible save for a fast where you solely eat chicken breast and similar macro'd meats.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#217

Post by iamacyborg »

jeltz wrote: post #187
iamacyborg wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still have no idea how folks can manage 100+ mile weeks. I struggle staying uninjured hitting ~10km a day.

I think patience. I have never myself gone above 70 km per week without injuring myself, but I always increase too fast which works fine up to 60-70 km/week but above that I injure myself.

I just really enjoy running so it’s frustrating.

Hitting the gym to try proactively avoid future injuries now though.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#218

Post by iamacyborg »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #188
iamacyborg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual competitive bodybuilding is far more complicated. Sure, but that's a general truism. People focus too much on the 1% micro-optimisations instead of nailing the 99% that produces the largest rewards. I like how Steve Magness puts it[^1] > Good, solid consistent work stacked month after month, year after year is what leads to better performance. [^1]: https://twitter.com/stevemagness/status/1493946400442392589…

This 100%, but I think it is also just the proliferation of information today. 99% of the gain is about a very simple set of exercises. I maintain that most people would get a superb musculature with just cycling/running, squats, deadlifts and bench presses (ignoring pre-existing injuries). 4 exercises where the most complex machinery is a bike, and even that can be replaced with running. Doing it consistently is the…

The other bit you’re potentially missing is folks just want to emulate the “big” workouts that folks show off on social media. Which conveniently ignores the bread and butter boring stuff that’s actually critical to building effective fitness/whatever.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#219

Post by red-iron-pine »

scruple wrote: post #196
short_sells_poo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 100%, but I think it is also just the proliferation of information today. 99% of the gain is about a very simple set of exercises. I maintain that most people would get a superb musculature with just cycling/running, squats, deadlifts and bench presses (ignoring pre-existing injuries). 4 exercises where the most complex machinery is a bike, and even that can be replaced with running. Doing it consistently is the…

> most people would get a superb musculature with just cycling/running, squats, deadlifts and bench presses (ignoring pre-existing injuries). FWIW, you just described the essence of the Tactical Barbell system here. I've been using it to great effect over the last ~4 years. I will probably never touch a different strength and conditioning program as long as I live.

And most of Strong-Lifts 5x5. They add in a couple other movements but basically the same idea.

Re: Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

#220

Post by red-iron-pine »

Attummm wrote: post #62

Please be aware that scientist brad schoenfeld that is being cited throughout the article. Has changed his opinion on some topics and other topics he even did a 180. The human body is very complex system with balances and counter balances. So almost any statement can be true and false, depending on the context. Interview with Brad schoenfeld where he explains his latests thoughts on training. https://youtu.be/SUy6HwO…

Brad's personal website is literally "look better naked dot com"
Post reply on HN