the stone is a great example of ‘strength’ not being the limiting factor for someone learning it. My first attempt at lifting a 240 stone (which was my first attempt on a stone, period), I couldn’t pick it up. It didn’t budge off the ground. It was partly technique, and partly me thinking “this is god damn heavy!” The second time I tried it, I was mentally prepared, and lapped the stone. Over the course of about 4 weeks, I got to the point where I never missed the pick, and got 6 reps over a 50" bar in competition in 1 minute. Learning curve was very quick.
This was not the case with the farmers walks. I think I practiced with farmers handles 5 or 6 times, and only marginally improved. I think there is a strength issue, somewhere along the movement chain, that’s currently holding me back. It’s not back strength, it’s not grip strength, but there are a few things I think it could be. Calf strength perhaps could suck. But most likely it’s something related to my hips, as that’s the most active joint in the farmers walk. Before I was practicing farmers, I did zero unilateral leg work, and I think that’s left me with deficiencies in strength. It is improving now, but it’s going to take a lot more work to get good at it.
you know, it’s too bad you can’t post pictures on the internet. Then, maybe we could have established what constitutes ‘big’ and what constitutes ‘strong’. Perhaps we could have even seen a picture of this mythical creature that is said to be both big and weak. One day, technology may catch up to our needs as a society. One day.
Seriously though. I just want to get an idea of what Craze actually means in his own defense. There’s been too much ambiguity of terms here, and there’s no reason for it.
[quote=“dt79, post:156, topic:215039, full:true”]
I have tried to explain this many times in previous posts. I was still capable of deadlifting much more but I did not specifically train it or execute the lift in a manner that maximized my leverages, therefore, I wouldn’t call myself weak.[/quote]
I understand. I did not say you were weak, I implied that any definition of “strong” that didn’t take into consideration that one’s ability to demonstrate strength might change based on a single training cycle would be problematic.
This gets into the issue of potential vs performance. We can agree that more muscle mass equals more potential for strength, all other things equal. This does not mean, however, that between two individuals the bigger guy will always be stronger. And I don’t think that it’s just a question of the bigger guy spending a few weeks “peaking” – if the strength has not been developed, it will take time to develop it.
I have seen this firsthand with the bodybuilder friend I mentioned above – when I first encountered him and he was training heavy on the strength lifts, I assumed he’d get much stronger quickly… but he hasn’t. It’s been over a year now and he’s still not what I would consider “strong”, given his size.
At this point I have to conclude you’re deliberately straw man-ing me. I never said that lateral raises have no place in training. I’ve stated that I do them myself. The point is that they are not overall an “important training consideration” that make a “big difference” such that any program that does not include them is inappropriate for an average guy who wants to improve his physique. This was your critique of 5x5 programs. And as I’ve pointed out, the vast majority of 5/3/1 templates and many CT programs do not include lateral raises either. Why is that, if they’re so important?
Lateral raises “make your shoulders wider”? Someone told you that, huh? How about: they’re an isolation exercises that targets the medial delt. But – important! – they’re not the only way to stimulate the medial delt. If you lift a heavy weight overhead, the medial delt is involved. If you lift a weight overhead while minimizing the use of the pecs – via a behind-the-neck press or a dumbbell press with elbows flared to the sides – the medial delt is involved even more.
So… will you allow that it’s possible for the medial delts to grow without the use of lateral raises?
It is not hard for me to accept; I have never denied it. I agree that bodybuilders do lateral raises, using them as an exercise to target the medial delts, which allows them to accrue additional training volume for that bodypart in isolation of other muscles and without significant CNS strain.
I’ve also never said anyone who wants to do them should not do them. In my very last post I explicitly stated that they’re appropriate for anyone who wants to prioritize or maximize their delts.
But the context here is and always has been one of general training priorities. And I know plenty of guys with “proportional”, “well-developed” delts who got that way with nary a lateral raise. My own delts developed fine without them for a long time. And I’ve heard high-level natural bodybuilders state explicitly that their delts grew for perfectly well for YEARS without them, as well.
I’m familiar with CT’s work. I don’t see how this hurts my argument.
Here is my position.
A training program consisting solely of compound movements, provided there is balance between these movements themselves, and form is good, will not lead to “disproportionate” development.
What it will do is – as a base of muscle is built – reveal the genetic variation of that unique individual. At that point, once actual weak points in the lifter’s “natural” physique are apparent, it might make sense for the lifter to introduce more training volume targeting certain body parts via isolation exercises, depending on his goals.
This is why I don’t think it’s important that 5x5 doesn’t include lateral raises. A lifter considering that program in the first place doesn’t need to worry about weak points and physique detail and isolation exercises – they need to focus on progressive overload with big movements that cause the entire body to grow… including, yes, the medial delts.
You can say “why not just do lateral raises from the beginning, though? Everyone likes wide shoulders!” The answer is I really don’t think adding a few sets of lateral raises is going to make a significant difference to a lifter building his first 10-30 lbs of muscle, when he’s already doing a lot of pressing. Furthermore, one could ask the same question about any bodypart. Why not do calf raises? Why not do wrist curls? Bodybuilders do those, too! I don’t really care if a lifter wants to add those things to 5x5, but I don’t think it’s important. And for you to make fun of 5x5 because it lacks them is just missing the point.
I ain’t flip but I wouldn’t consider any of them “big”. Gray and green tank guys looks decently sized, I would say. As for what would be strong, I would chime in by saying it’s really subjective. I’m currently 18(aka haven’t been lifting that long) and my standards for strong are at least a 450lbs squat for a couple of reps and maybe a high 200s/ low 300s bench? I’d like to think the more experienced guys on here might have higher standards as to what is strong.
Damn, Ben! your squat standards are pretty fucking high if we’re talking about unwrapped. I just squatted 445 for 5 reps the other day for a PR, lol. And my squat is ‘elite’ by powerlifting definitions, probably my best lift. So yes, I’d call that strong. Whereas your bench press standards aren’t even close to that level, although I’m willing to call a low 300’s bench pretty strong, given it’s rarity. I know a lot of guys who have gone to the gym for years who can’t bench 300. But MUCH fewer can squat 450 for multiple reps. That being said, I know a lot of younger guys who can’t develop their bench press the way they can squat and deadlift. So that probably factors in to your perspective.
Ok, so about the picture. I bet the guy in the green tank top can bench close to 300, probably not much more than that unless it’s a focus for him. And I could imagine calling him a big guy. Certainly not ‘the big guy at the gym’ or whatever, but he looks like he’s put in work, and I bet his lifts reflect that.
The guy in the gray tank is probably the second strongest. Can’t really tell his size for sure, but maybe like a 250 bench press. I doubt most people would call him big, but the picture isn’t great. So I don’t know for sure.
Summary: green guy gets to fall in the big category. And if he can bench… 290 or more, I’ll call him strong.
My standards here are probably lower than a lot of people on this site, but I feel like the direction we’re going is related to ‘what does the average person consider to be strong’, not ‘what does flipcollar consider to be strong in the powerlifting world’. In the flipcollar world, it’s elite or bust
OP. I think a point that has been made that you have failed to recognize is you don’t know what that big, “weak” guy did to get big.
I will give you an example of what your observation, and analysis can be compared too.
You walk into a room and see a glass of frozen water sitting on a table. You now make the conclusion that, to have a glass of frozen water, it does not have to be in freezing temperatures.
Haha okay. What would you consider “big”? Just juiced bodybuilders? Just the top hundred or so absolutely biggest natural guys in the world?
The definition we were working with for “big” was a guy with “appreciable muscle mass” that a casual observer would consider “muscular.” If you have a better definition, let’s hear it.
And if we define “strong” as squats 450, then this proposition is really easy… yes, there are lots and lots of big guys who are not strong.
This is a wide shot obviously, everyone in it would look much bigger in a mirror-selfie, but the guy in the green tank has a great physique. Would be competitive in a local natural bodybuilding show, is probably carrying approximately as much muscle as you in your avatar picture. I would definitely consider him “big,” if not “huge”… but very few natural guys are ever going to be considered huge, right?
So to be clear, if he can bench close to 300, he’s “strong”? What about other lifts? Back/leg/core strength don’t matter at all to be considered “strong” at T-nation?
This guy is not quite as developed as the other guy, but if you asked 100 passersby on the street if he’s “muscular” I think 100 of them would say “yes.” I’d say he has “appreciable muscle mass.” Is a 250 bench strong?
The guy in the blue on the left is the strongest bench presser in the gym, by the way – around 380. The picture isn’t great admittedly but interesting he wasn’t mentioned. He isn’t lean but if you asked 100 passersby if he’s “big” they would all say yes – he has a huge barrel chest and definitely “appreciable muscle mass.” So he has a strong bench for sure… do other lifts matter at all?
Btw Flip, you’ve written in other threads about your pretty basic approach to training. Presses, rows, pulls, squats, etc. Do you credit your “proportionate”, “well-developed” delts to all the lateral raises you’ve done? Or not really?
Yea, it looked like the guy in green had really good delts/arms. Was I close with the 300 bench? And yes, an lean guy benching 300 is strong. Not strong in the powerlifting world, strong in the real world. I didn’t bring up legs or back or core with him because I can’t see those things in the picture, lol. From what I can see in the picture, it LOOKS like he might have strong legs because I can see teardrop quad development, but the picture’s not good enough to say for sure. So I didn’t think it was worth mentioning. And as a side note, if you told me the guy in green practices the bench press regularly, I would have said a higher number than 300, I’m just assuming he doesn’t. Overall though, I don’t think you can look like him without being reasonable strong.
A 250 bench would be right on the edge of strong. Is that about what you think he can bench?
Is the guy in blue the guy in long sleeves, or are you talking about someone else? I didn’t mention him because I have no clue what his body actually looks like. He’s wearing a damn jacket, lol. So I literally had no way to comment on him. A 380 bench is great btw. Almost as good as mine
Ok, so other lifts certainly matter. But again, I didn’t bring that up because I couldn’t see anyone’s legs. For numbers, I think a 400 squat is strong, without question. I could be convinced to lower my standards a bit. Maybe as low as 350 or so. And a 450-500 deadlift is strong. I think a 240ish clean is strong. A 200 strict overhead press is strong.
For myself, no, lateral raises have pretty much nothing to do with my delt development. I haven’t done them enough to really say otherwise. Most of my shoulder development comes from pressing, bench and overhead. I do a lot of pullups, those could be relevant. And maybe deadlifts, although those have more to do with my traps than delts. But good traps help delts pop more.
Dude, if the two individuals are roughly the same size, of course the bigger guy may not be stronger than the smaller guy regardless of how he trains. This goes without saying. However, when you say skinny fat beginners get stronger than the big guys in the gym after doing their 5s for a few months, that is where the definition of “strength” gets silly don’t you think?
I do not know how he executes his lifts, his training style and the accuracy of his actual size and bodyfat percentage so I don’t really have an answer for you. Yes, I know competitive bodybuilders who are weak by any definition of the word but this is not common in my experience.[quote=“craze9, post:176, topic:215039”]
Just the top hundred or so absolutely biggest natural guys in the world?
[/quote]
Uh oh… this better not be going in the direction I think it’s going…
Yes, perhaps. I take your point, and I was exaggerating a bit. But in that kind of a case it really does depend on what we mean by “strong.”
If an average guy trains really hard and intelligently with a strength bias (let’s say with Yogi’s favorite, a 5x5 program) and eats big for 6 months or a year… he’s not going to have arms as big or as much total muscle mass as a guy who has been doing curls and lateral raises and DB presses for 5 years… especially if the latter guy is a wide-framed “mesomorph.” He won’t be lean or aesthetic. He’s not going to look anywhere near as “big”… he probably won’t look big at all. But if he can squat and deadlift 100 lbs more than the other guy, isn’t there a case to be made that he’s stronger?
Fair enough. This particular guy has a trainer/coach who’s a competitive strongman who does his programming. But I do wonder myself about his training, and whether he couldn’t get stronger quickly if he modified some variables. I don’t know. All I know is that if he’s 40 lbs heavier than me and lifts less, I’m not going to consider him particularly strong.
In any case we can agree there are some competitive bodybuilders who are weak. I’m not saying it’s common. Let’s agree it’s pretty rare. Now, if we expand our definition of “big” to include a category of lifter less big than competitive bodybuilders, but still “big” by a common understanding of the term, wouldn’t the class of “big but weak” lifters increase? I think it would increase significantly.