Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
hammertime30
New member
After looking over these posts and observing the guys in the gym, it seems that men favor strength over a great physique. So I'm just curious about how some of you feel about it. I personally like strength to a certain degree, but I choose a great physique over strength any day.
Arnold, though very strong, didn't always bench 400lbs nor did he car about it. He would often go much lighter so that he could go deeper with his movements so to increase muscle density and overall development. Just lifting heavy weight doesn't provide you with a nice symmetrical build for when sculpting the body; medium weights allow for better form and greater extension of the muscle thus improved muscle density development. All too many times I would see guys doing partial reps and using bad form just to say that they got up 350lbs, but after 5 months of it, never see any improvement in chest development! Why?
Also when cycling, heavy weight doesn't necessarily mean maximum muscle growth for the body doesn’t know the difference between 200lbs vs 170lbs. But if somehow you can make 170lbs feel just as heavy as 200lbs, then you can reap the benefits to a much greater degree. Slowing down the reps, squeezing at the top, holding on the negative, going deeper thus extending the muscle more before contracting, are good ways to improve muscle density and stimulate maximum muscle growth. However this can only be done when using lighter weights that allow you greater control. Not saying that lifting heavy doesn't have its place, but if my cycle ends and my bench drop 30lbs, I don't feel as if I need to cry about it being that losing strength doesn't mean that I lose muscle size because muscle size is not directly related to strength and vs versa. There are many guys twice my size who I can out bench, curl and squat. And there are good sized guys who are much stronger than I am but don’t have the muscle density. Why?
Arnold, though very strong, didn't always bench 400lbs nor did he car about it. He would often go much lighter so that he could go deeper with his movements so to increase muscle density and overall development. Just lifting heavy weight doesn't provide you with a nice symmetrical build for when sculpting the body; medium weights allow for better form and greater extension of the muscle thus improved muscle density development. All too many times I would see guys doing partial reps and using bad form just to say that they got up 350lbs, but after 5 months of it, never see any improvement in chest development! Why?
Also when cycling, heavy weight doesn't necessarily mean maximum muscle growth for the body doesn’t know the difference between 200lbs vs 170lbs. But if somehow you can make 170lbs feel just as heavy as 200lbs, then you can reap the benefits to a much greater degree. Slowing down the reps, squeezing at the top, holding on the negative, going deeper thus extending the muscle more before contracting, are good ways to improve muscle density and stimulate maximum muscle growth. However this can only be done when using lighter weights that allow you greater control. Not saying that lifting heavy doesn't have its place, but if my cycle ends and my bench drop 30lbs, I don't feel as if I need to cry about it being that losing strength doesn't mean that I lose muscle size because muscle size is not directly related to strength and vs versa. There are many guys twice my size who I can out bench, curl and squat. And there are good sized guys who are much stronger than I am but don’t have the muscle density. Why?
