Problem with muscle definition

Saucemaster · Jul 12, 2007

Jared is probably right for most people--it's hard to be very strong at 165. I know, I'm right around 165, and despite a lot of training, I could be a lot stronger. BUT it depends a lot on how you train, what your frame is, etc. 165 is, what, super middleweight in boxing? I guarantee you that a boxer whose fighting weight is 165 is strong as hell by any vaguely reasonable standard.

Jared · Jul 12, 2007

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

Jared is probably right for most people--it's hard to be very strong at 165. I know, I'm right around 165, and despite a lot of training, I could be a lot stronger. BUT it depends a lot on how you train, what your frame is, etc. 165 is, what, super middleweight in boxing? I guarantee you that a boxer whose fighting weight is 165 is strong as hell by any vaguely reasonable standard.
Thanks for clarifying: I meant 165 with no muscle definition. Competitive boxers tend to have pretty low bodyfat.

My point is that at that weight the OP is better off trying to add muscle than cutting.

drainpipe · Jul 12, 2007

If he hasn't really ever lifted weights or trained before, he could do both at once.

Mike Lowry · Jul 14, 2007

Originally Posted by Jared

+1 You can't be that strong at 165 lbs.

Alphonso Soriano is 6' and around 165 and I'd say he's pretty damn strong.

gdl203 · Jul 14, 2007

Did you try dog food?

Jared · Jul 14, 2007

Originally Posted by Mike Lowry

Alphonso Soriano is 6' and around 165 and I'd say he's pretty damn strong.
Do you know he's strong because he beat you in a wrestling match or because of his - here it comes - muscle definition?

quevola · Jul 14, 2007

Originally Posted by Jared

Do you know he's strong because he beat you in a wrestling match or because of his - here it comes - muscle definition?

We can probably conclude that he is strong because he can hit a 90-mph fastball over 400 feet.

sambojones · Jul 16, 2007

if you want to see definition you'll have to put on some muscle first check out this site www.intensemuscle.com and go to the doggpound its pretty much the best size and definition program out there atm not the best for raw power but it adds lean muscle very quickly...

dopey · Jul 16, 2007

Anybody here have any opinions on the "Superslow" method of weight/strength training?

sambojones · Jul 16, 2007

by super slow i think your talking about slow negatives and thats more for adding size it'll bulk ya up and make ya look nice but its not that great for adding raw strength its more of a bodybuilder thing

dopey · Jul 16, 2007

Originally Posted by sambojones

by super slow i think your talking about slow negatives and thats more for adding size it'll bulk ya up and make ya look nice but its not that great for adding raw strength its more of a bodybuilder thing

No. I mean this regimen or protocol.
Note: Those are some random links that discuss the method, but I didn't look long enough to find anything more coherent.

sambojones · Jul 16, 2007

i didn't know there was a program called superslow i assumed you were referring to the slow negatives technique and after looking at your links thats pretty much it there's nothing really new or unique in those sites its just high intensity training and training to muscle failure by use of slow negative reps (at least that what it was on the superslow site after looking at that one i just kinda skimmed the rest) like i said it will add lean muscle quickly and strength at a moderate pace. you'll put on some size and lean muscle and you'll look nicer

Jared · Jul 16, 2007

Originally Posted by dopey

No. I mean this regimen or protocol. Note: Those are some random links that discuss the method, but I didn't look long enough to find anything more coherent.
It's slow negatives + slow positives. You might find this thread and the articles it links to relevant: http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/s...ad.php?t=37969

dopey · Jul 16, 2007

Originally Posted by Jared

It's slow negatives + slow positives. You might find this thread and the articles it links to relevant: http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/s...ad.php?t=37969
Thanks. Those articles were a little too advanced for me. (And those websites (both the message board and the links) were some of the most screamingly painful on the eyes forums I have ever seen. Really hard to look at.)

Jared · Jul 17, 2007

Originally Posted by dopey

Thanks. Those articles were a little too advanced for me. (And those websites (both the message board and the links) were some of the most screamingly painful on the eyes forums I have ever seen. Really hard to look at.)
Not every forum can have a designer like j.

I admit I didn't understand all of what I skimmed through there. Personally, I take that as a symptom that exercise is still more art than science: there are partial theories and significant but mostly "unscientific" data. So if I want to figure out the optimal way to exercise, I need to read a bunch and synthesize an answer using my best judgement. But until I plateau, perhaps it's not worth the effort for slight improvement and I should just concentrate on form, nutrition, and other well-established aspects?

Problem with muscle definition

Sized Down 2

Distinguished Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Purveyor of the Secret Sauce

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Member

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Yes, I have a signature fragrance I wear every day

Yes, I have a signature fragrance but I don't wear it daily

No, I have several fragrances and rotate through them

I don't wear fragrance

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: