> I know some martial artists who are also
> bodybuilders
> and lifting weights has NOT slowed them down.
>
> Yea? Can they touch the tops of their heads

With what? The bottoms of their feet?

The old belief that bodybuilding makes one "tight" and
inflexible is as ridiculous as the notion that it will
make women "bulky". Sure, there are genetic freaks who
become so huge that their muscle hinders rather than
helps, but they are in the minority.

>
> Do you *never* increase the weight? I can't see any
> benefit of being able to do 1000 reps of a
> relatively
> light weight, whereas I can see huge benefits of
> doing
> 10 reps of an extremely heavy weight.
>
> The only "huge" benefits I've seen in this method
> is, that it does just
> that, makes you huge.

You don't seem to want to answer my question. Do you
*never* increase the weight? If you do, but you do so
only after a higher number of reps than most
bodybuilders, you are still engaging in progressive
resistance exercise (bodybuilding). However, if you
are contantly increasing reps, then you will
eventually be doing 100's or 1000's of reps, which
IMHO is a waste of time that could be used much more
productively.

>
> Apples and oranges. Most apes are naturally much
> stronger than a man.
>
> With a difference of four genes between humans and
> chimps, I wonder how
> strong a natural human really was. They did have a
> thicker and stronger bone
> structure than we did. Might be more like oranges
> and tangerines.

The strength differences are because of a difference
in muscle density, and perhaps more importantly, a
difference in leverage. We may be genetically very
similar, but structurally (mechanically) we are quite
different. Nope, it's still apples and oranges.

Was paleo man stronger than modern man? Very likely.
More muscular? Perhaps. But I'd bet money it was
because he carried much heavier loads than we do.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com