the future of bodybulding

Dr.EM · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:17

Ahleckz said:
To all those lolkwerk'ing, I'd like to see you explain why his idea is worthy of such a pathetic response.

Primarily because creating this simulated high mavity is, and lets be honest, always will be, more costly than using weights. Prohibitively so currently. If you can find a practical way of doing it then it would indeed allow added resistance to callisthenic exercise, but what's outlined in the original post is far from practical.

SexyGreyFox · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:18

However, according to this it is more harmful - http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Studies_Benefits_Of_Exercise_In_Space.html

Morba · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:23

Dimple said:
Same here.

My daughter has just borrowed a power plate and turning that on full and trying to do a squat or lift a weight feels 10x harder.

You clearly have no idea about bodybuilding, comparing power plate squats to barbell squats for building muscle!

Lolkwerks idea is sound, except for space, cost, safety, availability of both machine and other machines should you be away from home/home gym.

MofoKilla · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:29

kwerk your a legend keep up the good work.

Skillmister · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:32

Ahleckz said:
To all those lolkwerk'ing, I'd like to see you explain why his idea is worthy of such a pathetic response.

What?! You can't be serious? Spinning someone round fast enough that they "weigh" twice as much or putting 80kg of iron on your back... yeah because both of those are just as suitable for a gym environment, both take up the same amount of space, both cost the same, both have the same health risks...

Please tell me you've just had too much to drink already and don't actually take this seriously? Infact, give me one good reason why 'lolkwerk' isn't a suitable response to this thread.

cu3ed · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:38

touch said:
It's a sound idea with several advantages over using a normal weight (like not being able to drop the weight on yourself, not having to worry about holding the weight so you can focus more on your form).
Unfortunately it's far too expensive to be feasible.

Really, perhaps tell me then how your CNS will be stimulated into growth? and how the muscle fibres will be "torn" down to a suitable amount so that they grow back stronger/ larger?, something that cannot, not matter what you do, be obtained in this idea.

Certianly MIGHT help circulation and such, but thiers nothing that recreats the stimulation/ tear down process that bio machnically big weight does to the muscles.

SexyGreyFox · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:38

Morba said:
You clearly have no idea about bodybuilding, comparing power plate squats to barbell squats for building muscle!

I know zero about bodybuilding and would never dare to argue about it.
All I know is if I do a normal squat it's a hell of a lot easier than doing one on a power plate.
What magic is going on I have no idea but perhaps you do?
I also NEVER mentioned building muscle.

StriderX · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:45

Starting to wonder if Ahleckz is actually kwerk...

I'm on to you.

AshD93 · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:50

Kimi said:
Ive got one of those in my garden

I have a swing in my garden too.

touch · 6 Jun 2012 at 20:53

cu3ed said:
Really, perhaps tell me then how your CNS will be stimulated into growth? and how the muscle fibres will be "torn" down to a suitable amount so that they grow back stronger/ larger?, something that cannot, not matter what you do, be obtained in this idea.

I think you're misunderstanding what a centrifuge does?

cu3ed said:
thiers nothing that recreats the stimulation/ tear down process that bio machnically big weight does to the muscles.

NASA has a centrifuge that can exert 20G.
That means the force is 20 x mavity.
If i did a bodyweight squat at 20G it would be the equivalent to doing a normal squat with a 1600KG weight.
Of course thats going to stimulate tear/regrowth of muscles.

edit: obviously this is just an example and i could not do either a 1600KG squat or a squat in 20G

cu3ed · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:01

touch said:
I think you're misunderstanding what a centrifuge does?

NASA has a centrifuge that can exert 20G.
That means the force is 20 x mavity.
If i did a bodyweight squat at 20G it would be the equivalent to doing a normal squat with a 1600KG weight.
Of course thats going to stimulate tear/regrowth of muscles.

edit: obviously this is just an example and i could not do either a 1600KG squat or a squat in 20G

No, it doesnt, yoru cant obtain 20G and not pass out and be able to !squat" jesus the notion is laughable., if you think thats how it works you dont understand teh basic princable how how muscle/CNS strengh related process work within the body.

ethan · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:05

Dimple said:
Same here.

My daughter has just borrowed a power plate and turning that on full and trying to do a squat or lift a weight feels 10x harder.

I tried to lie on the one at our place (gym). At the end of its cycle, I'm lucky to get up with my teeth intact.

touch · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:06

cu3ed said:
No, it doesnt, yoru cant obtain 20G and not pass out and be able to !squat" jesus the notion is laughable., if you think thats how it works you dont understand teh basic princable how how muscle/CNS strengh related process work within the body.

No, you probably cant squat at 20G, but you cant squat 1600KG either.

I weigh around 80kg. So in 2G, my bodyweight would be 160KG
Explain to me why a sqaut at 2G would be different from a normal squat with 80KG of weight.

PikeyPriest · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:07

norm said:
lol.

The future of body building will be some kind of regulated synthetic drug. But even then you will still need stimulus to the muscle to promote growth.

I`ll see if I can find the research paper, but i`m sure there was a study with 4 groups
1) no steroids, no exercise
2) steroids, no exercise
3) no steroids, weight program
4) steroids, weight program

The steroids and weight training group had the best muscle mass and strength gains, but surprisingly group 2 had better muscle strength and mass gains than group 3. So taking steroids while doing no exercise gave better results than going to the gym.

cu3ed · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:08

touch said:
No, you probably cant squat at 20G, but you cant squat 1600KG either.

I weigh around 80kg. So in 2G, my bodyweight would be 160KG
Explain to me why a sqaut at 2G would be different from a normal squat with 80KG of weight.

I couldnt explain, it, or rather, I couldnt be botherd, at 2G you try and squat, you aint going to get anyting from yrou quads, stabilsing muscles, glutes etc, you body wont press and think teh same way under those conditions. Its REALLY not how things in teh body work at all.

Glaucus · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:08

There's also that drug that boost the entry powerhouse of muscles with no exercise at all. Which mean you cn go from couch potato to marathon runner. But it's stupidly expensive and you need a shed load of it.

cu3ed said:
I couldnt explain, it, or rather, I couldnt be botherd, at 2G you try and squat, you aint going to get anyting from yrou quads, stabilsing muscles, glutes etc, you body wont press and think teh same way under those conditions. Its REALLY not how things in teh body work at all.

Rubbish of course it would work and it would be far better than traditional weights. Everything increase in weight. It's no different to carrying 10stone of fat around all day. You muscles will grow to compensate.

It most certainly would work every muscle group including stabilization. Put your centre of mavity just marginally out and you have to resist a large weight.

It wouldnt be directly comparable to normall weight lifting as the weight isn't applied in the same place, but it would work..
It's just not in the slighest practice.

King Damager · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:09

Is anybody else confused as to what bodybulding is?

kd

Skillmister · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:10

touch said:
No, you probably cant squat at 20G, but you cant squat 1600KG either.

I weigh around 80kg. So in 2G, my bodyweight would be 160KG
Explain to me why a sqaut at 2G would be different from a normal squat with 80KG of weight.

I may be completely wrong but my brain screams out that they would be 2 wildly different situations. If i carried 80kg of iron spread out evenly over my entire body i'm sure it would be a massively different feel to squatting with 80kg directly over my shoulders/back.

Glaucus · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:12

Skillmister said:
I may be completely wrong but my brain screams out that they would be 2 wildly different situations. If i carried 80kg of iron spread out evenly over my entire body i'm sure it would be a massively different feel to squatting with 80kg directly over my shoulders/back.

Of course it would be, doesn't mean it wouldn't work, the results would be slightly different. Having everything increase in weight is far better.

cu3ed · 6 Jun 2012 at 21:13

Glaucus said:
There's also that drug that boost the entry powerhouse of muscles with no exercise at all. Which mean you cn go from couch potato to marathon runner. But it's stupidly expensive and you need a shed load of it.

Rubbish of course it would work and it would be far better than traditional weights. Everything increase in weight. It's no different to carrying 10stone of fat around all day. You muscles will grow to compensate.
It most certainly would work every muscle group including stabilization. Put your centre of mavity just marginally out and you have to resist a large weight.

It wouldnt be directly comparable to normall weight lifting as the weight isn't applied in the same place, but it would work..
It's just not in the slighest practice.

That is possobly the most ridiculous notion that obese poeple are also holding more muscle mass to "compensate" for their own weight.

Put it this way,....what you think msucle wise would be developed putting youself in 20G ( for arguments sake you dont die from that after 5 seconds), and doing "bi-Cep curls" with nothing in your hands?