|
|
lol bb.com. just lol.
There have been and are a handful of posters on bb.com that don't have their heads up their asses, but, as a newb, they're difficult to spot. They all also often post elsewhere.
Look for smaller communities, usually ones that don't hype products much. In these communities you'll find more clearheadedness, more results, and less bullshit, for the most part.
As for your question: Generally speaking, lower volume = lower mass gains, but not necessarily lower strength gains. Also, generally speaking, the closer to or below caloric maintenance the harder it is to get bigger, but not stronger.
I wouldn't recommend this without proper program structure and form guidance, but you can optimize intermuscular coordination, intramuscular coordination, rate coding, and other forms of non-hypertrophy/neuromuscular strength gains by performing high intensity, low volume exercises. This is either high weight and low reps or medium/low weight and high speed (essentially plyometrics). The latter is probably the best at warding off hypertrophy. Olympic lifts and power lifts are gonna be the best altogether.
Here's an excellent example of a guy who is small relative to strength. He has gotten so by the type of high intensity low volume/time under tension approach I mentioned as well as by keeping calories too low to get huge. He's definitely very buff, but I am similar lean mass proportions as him, yet can only snatch and clean n jerk about half what he can. Which is good for a non-elite non-juiced lifter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOWcrqOSevs
Yea he's still pretty big, just not as big as he could be if he ate more. Tons of intensity and volume over a lifetime without a severe deficit in nutrition will make anybody buff. Also note that he's on roids. Obviously the information provided is that he's not, but that's just not true.
|