I think by the term muscle bound, most people think of dudes who look huge and sculpted but are not athletic. I remember Lee Haney the ex-Mr Olympia saying if he sprint 100 yards he would probably spend 6 weeks rehabbing his hammies. Alot of the big muscle boys are not as strong as their appearance would have you believe. Some are excellent athletes but not at the bloated weights they compete at. But, when your primary goal is size and shape there is a point of negative returns. But thats cool, if you are a bodybuilder. Give me a 190 pound defensive back that squats 500 benches 375, power cleans 275 and runs a 4.5 40 My brother was one. Every ounce of those guys is bad news.
Muscle-bound is a tem that coaches used back in the 50's before they realized that weight training has its benefits. Without drugs, there is NO way that anyone is going to be like Arnold or Lee Haney without drugs. Lifting weights can only help if you are doing it naturally. Most of the Olympic sprinters are squatting 500 + pounds to help with their explosiveness. The weakness is NOT the muscle or lack of flexibility but the extra weight that is carried. 250 plus pounds on a 5'10" frame is a lot of wiehgt to move. Speed will go down, but power will increase as the weight that is moved becomes larger. A 300 pound fullback that can run a 40 in 8 seconds is not so fast, but much more powerful when he hits you!!
If you ever see the World's strongest man on ESPN, they all do irregular lifts for the most part. They all lift weights and are monstrous men, but the winner the past few years has been a Polish guy named Marius Pudzianowski who is ripped (unlike the other competitors). Less weight to carry, although his absolute strength is not as great. Diet and drugs make the difference.
The difference between now and the 70's? Every athlete uses weight training now. The guys in the NFL have seen the average weight increase evey year. It sure ain't the wheaties. Why are drugs such a major factor in sports? Because they work. The weights didn't hurt David Robinson or Michael Jordan any. Ignoring weights reminds of the TKD' er who thinks he's a great fighter because he does forms all day long. Weights and steroid use have INCREASED since the 80's, at least for the athletes. The reason why you don't see as much is because the general population is now so UNFIT themselves. The average joe is in horrible shape, that's why the athlete is so much of an aberration nowadays. The gap between the athlete and mainstream has widened.
"Bulking" is just carrying excessive bodyfat. People think they're bulked with muscle, but its only fat. I knew one guy that was walking around at 230 at 5'8" thinking he was carrying muscle. When summer came around, he had lst 50 pounds and still had more to go! If you can't see your abs, you're not bulked, just fat. If performance is more important than appearance, that's one thing, but dn't fool yourself into thinking you're Arnold or something...
As for the core training, its total BS. How can anything on that beach ball do anything for your core that power cleans, some resisted ab work, or real exercises cannot? Its a total gimmick. It was used originally to increase the ROM on crunches, hten some bright spark saw he could make some money using it for everything. Boxers and Wrestlers take impacts to their "core" all day long. They're not using stupid balls. Gymnasts have to have the highest strength to weight ratio in any sport. When they work the rings or pommel horse, that requires tremendous abdominal strength. They're not using stupid balls.
Go lift or carry something heavy. The closer the training is to the actvity, the more efficient your training will be. When in real life will you ever do anything with a stupid ball? (Bedroom antics don't count).
Author
Topic: Bulk to "Core" (Read 1864 times)