I'm taking working out seriously, and for 3 months I've virtually worked daily ever since and plan on continuing to do that.But now I'm finding myself frustrated because my motivation is performance and resilience, but I see so much emphasis on just growing muscle. From what I understand, muscles being big doesn't equate entirely to their own performance, do they? Isn't performance why we should work out? Like for example, certain athletes leverage the bounce of their tendons for massive strides or leaps. You train with a goal to achieve that, and idk, it has more benefits to daily life than just being bigger.I guess I need to lurk moar... but that's my initial impression of the world of getting fit. I don't like it.
>>76667216first
>>76667216The entire point of a muscle is to produce force, so the more fibers the better, until the point where it restricts your mobility or imbalances your body. Of course, if the conditioning of the other tissues is lagging behind you'll be too strong for your own good and more easily injured, that's why you should be careful with progressing too fast.
>>76667216Performance and resilience doing what? Some sport? Moving a grand piano?
You wrote a bunch of nonsense without actually asking a question. How retarded are you?-Never work out daily, you'd burn out-Do a split to minimize wasted time-Let a muscle group rest for a minimum of 1 day-Do a calorie surplus, muscles don't grow during deficit or maintenance calories-Get microplates and use linear progression
>>76667381Got it. I've lived a sedentary life, zero activity, so I've been easing into it as to not discourage or hurt myself...>>76667403I play music, so I do lots of moving around and singing. With that comes load-ins and load-outs, but not anything like grand pianos. Outside of that, nothing crazy, RSI risks due to job like most people so I'd like to minimize those
>>76667216then sprint full speed 2x a weeksprint like 10-20m but run into it, flying starts
