Why even lift anymore????

read the article

telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11900273/Wimps-are-stronger-than-bodybuilders-study-finds.html

its actually pretty interesting

basically saying that pound for pound normies and power athletes are stronger than people who only train for size (e.g. bodybuilders)

>basically saying that pound for pound normies and power athletes are stronger than people who only train for size (e.g. bodybuilders)
THIS ISN'T ANY KIND OF BREAKING NEWS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

may seem counter-intuitive to the average person who doesn't lift or play sports

also pretty good evidence for the size =/= strength meme

shit makes no sense why are they only measuring a gram of thigh muscle? gay af ill rek any dyel pussy any time

This is what they actually studied:
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26388513
>
>Single muscle fibre contractile properties differ between body-builders, power athletes and control subjects.
>
>Peak power normalized for muscle fibre volume in power athletes is higher than in control subjects.
>Compared with control subjects, maximal isometric tension (normalized for muscle fibre cross-sectional area) is lower in body-builders.
>Although this difference may be caused in part by an apparent negative effect of hypertrophy, these results indicate that the training history of power athletes may increase muscle fibre quality, whereas body-building may be detrimental.

somehow this got twisted into "wimps are stronger"

So basically they boiled "training for hypertrophy =/= training for strength" down to "lmao bodybuilders are weak"?

Because biopsies are hard to do. Would you rather they just chopped off your arm in order to get better results?

>UK paper
The UK is sadly packed to the brim with snivelling betas and retarded liberals.

Tall people are only tall because they have so much skeleton

>bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass

>Body builders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass
>OP is only retarded because of how much lead paint he eats.

>not even understanding the most basic sarcasm

...

i bet my house that i'm pound for pound stronger than any normie ever, and i'm not even a bodybuilder but i lift for size (even though i'm still getting out of dyel)

No, it reveals that training for size specifically makes the muscle weaker. So, despite having more and being actually stronger, your muscles have DECREASED in strength.

It's kinda interesting.

>Bodybuilders have proper hydration and increased intracellular water mass to help muscles grow.
Who knew?

>despite having more and being actually stronger, your muscles have DECREASED in strength
So how am I wrong? You become stronger/stay at a simmilar strength level but your muscles increase in size.
So let's say per kilogram of your muscle you can exert less strength than someone who'd only train for strength instead of hypertrophy, right?

It's not that you decrease in strength, it's just that strength to muscle mass ratio changes, that's nothing new.

Or in other words, muscle growth is greater than the relative change in strength. How is this surprising? If it stayed equal, professional bodybuilders would have the strength of gorillas.

Use archive for clickb8 next time:

archive.is/kGeFN

WHERE DO YOU WORK OUT?

basically, yeah

>Irrespective of fibre type, the peak power (PP) of power athlete (PA) fibres was 58% higher than that of bodybuilder (BB) fibres (P < 0.05), whereas BB fibres, despite considerable hypertrophy, had similar PP to the control fibres

somehow this equates to "wimps are stronger than bodybuilders"