[quote]Pj92x wrote:
So where has this pro heavy compound anti volume anti isolation advice come from in recent years?[/quote]
I dunno man, I’ve always been pro heavy compound, pro volume, and pro isolation.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
So where has this pro heavy compound anti volume anti isolation advice come from in recent years?[/quote]
I dunno man, I’ve always been pro heavy compound, pro volume, and pro isolation.[/quote]
After reading on here, I started adding in more isolation exercises to compliment my compound movements, and I realize how relatively weak my triceps and biceps are in relation to my chest and lats. That’s exciting because it means I have a lot of room for improvement focusing on weak areas.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Jens.D wrote:
This: ?The problem with many hypertrophy-based programs is that they leave out the strength component. You might get bigger as a result of the program, but if you don?t get any stronger you?re still a chump in my book.
That?s right, I don?t care how big you are, if you aren?t strong you?re a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on. All show and no go. End of story.?- Jim Wendler
[/quote]
I have never seen anyone who is muscularly very big and weak. Weak as compared to elite powerlifters? Very possible. Weak compared to the general population or most on this board? Fuck no.[/quote]
Conversely, I’ve seen many powerlifters who look awful from a physique/BB standpoint. Now maybe that is just the gyms I’ve trained at.
*Disclaimer, I’m not telling anyone how to live or train.
Ah, this non-sense again. People arguing about this strength vs size crap immediately show the world that they are clueless about the most basic elements of strength training and BBing.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
So where has this pro heavy compound anti volume anti isolation advice come from in recent years?[/quote]
I dunno man, I’ve always been pro heavy compound, pro volume, and pro isolation.[/quote]
I have always been pro everything that works. =D
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Ah, this non-sense again. People arguing about this strength vs size crap immediately show the world that they are clueless about the most basic elements of strength training and BBing.[/quote]
LOL, I wonder how many times this discussion has played out on the web 10,000 times, 100,000 times, 10000000000000000000000000000000000times.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Jens.D wrote:
This: ?The problem with many hypertrophy-based programs is that they leave out the strength component. You might get bigger as a result of the program, but if you don?t get any stronger you?re still a chump in my book.
That?s right, I don?t care how big you are, if you aren?t strong you?re a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on. All show and no go. End of story.?- Jim Wendler
[/quote]
I have never seen anyone who is muscularly very big and weak. Weak as compared to elite powerlifters? Very possible. Weak compared to the general population or most on this board? Fuck no.[/quote]
Depends on how you define big and a weak. I see a lot of guys in the 180-200 range with yolked upper bodies who still struggle with even 225 (or less…) on bench…
[quote]amayakyrol wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Jens.D wrote:
This: ?The problem with many hypertrophy-based programs is that they leave out the strength component. You might get bigger as a result of the program, but if you don?t get any stronger you?re still a chump in my book.
That?s right, I don?t care how big you are, if you aren?t strong you?re a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on. All show and no go. End of story.?- Jim Wendler
[/quote]
I have never seen anyone who is muscularly very big and weak. Weak as compared to elite powerlifters? Very possible. Weak compared to the general population or most on this board? Fuck no.[/quote]
Depends on how you define big and a weak. I see a lot of guys in the 180-200 range with yolked upper bodies who still struggle with even 225 (or less…) on bench…[/quote]
If they are struggling to bench 225, then they don’t have yolked upper bodies.
I’d say it boils down to getting stronger in a higher rep range than PL’s.
So I still want to get stronger via progressive overload but I want to see those weight increases in the 8-20 rep range.
Oh man OP, you sound exactly like the old PTI’s when I was in training for RM, “We don’t care if you can lift weights, it’s not functional!”. I’d be thinking to myself, you want me to carry this big son of a bitch wearing all his equipment up a hill? But strength training isn’t functional? Riiiiiiiighhht…or my personal favourite “running will build all the leg muscle you could ever want, squats will just make it harder for you to run distances.” Looking back I’m wondering where the hell they got their information from?!
Out of interest are you currently in RM as that’s your picture, but I noticed in another thread you said you were training for the para’s?
Arent we over the dogmatic approach of rep ranges as it relates to size and strength? Do all rep ranges…after a while instict will take over on certain exercises and what is needed for them (i.e. autoregulation).
Going to throw a number out here let’s say 80
Say for people to actually stress a muscle into growth it needs to be worked with 80% of its 1RM
If a weaker individuals 1RM is 100, then 80% is 80. Using 80 they may only get 4 reps
Now a larger person comes along and they use 80% also but their max is 200. 80% would be 160
Now when this person uses 160 they can do 8 or so reps.
The larger individual tells the smaller one to use 8 reps as they are best.
But to the weaker guy, 8 reps only equates to 65% of his 1RM. Not creating enough stimulus
If you watch strong guys train their first rep looks just as hard as any other in that set. How ever they can get more reps because their range is higher aka further from ther 1RM
Surge nubret trained with higher rep ranges however when he was called out on being weak he would load up the bar with 400 pounds and lift it. At least that’s what he wrote on bb.com
He also ate 2kg of horse meat a day…
I am doing 5/3/1 and considering the Texas Method as my patience with progression with 5/3/1 is getting stale. But I’ll say this, I’ve been making the best gains in size and strength I ever had. Sure I will have to switch to a bodypart split to bring up my lagging upper pecs and lat flare and if I were to continue on this I might lose in some areas, quad sweep say, but the overall size I’m getting is good.
I like the old saying, “You can’t sculpt a pebble”. And really, what benefit would a beginner who can’t bench 135 or squat 225 or do a set of 10 pullups gonna do with concentration curls, lateral raises, calf raises, and the like?
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
I disagree with what you are saying, just from personal experience. I do 531, and yesterday for my bench 3+ week, I did 300 for 4, then afterwards dropped back to 240 which was the same weight as my first set, and knocked out 12 reps. Sometimes I drop back to 225 after my third set, and can hit 15-16 reps at that. Seems like a wide rep range, so my strength isn’t just in the low reps. Oh, and morning weigh in, 150.0 lbs. [/quote]
i did 3 at 110 kg dropped 20 kg to 90 and could do 20 reps i would call myself better at high reps than low reps, but to do only 12 after dropping 20 kg for a weight you could do for 4 doesn’t make you good at high reps
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I am doing 5/3/1 and considering the Texas Method as my patience with progression with 5/3/1 is getting stale. But I’ll say this, I’ve been making the best gains in size and strength I ever had. Sure I will have to switch to a bodypart split to bring up my lagging upper pecs and lat flare and if I were to continue on this I might lose in some areas, quad sweep say, but the overall size I’m getting is good.
I like the old saying, “You can’t sculpt a pebble”. And really, what benefit would a beginner who can’t bench 135 or squat 225 or do a set of 10 pullups gonna do with concentration curls, lateral raises, calf raises, and the like?[/quote]
Build up their chest, calves, upper back and biceps while eating at a caloric surplus?
[quote]buildsomemuscle wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
I disagree with what you are saying, just from personal experience. I do 531, and yesterday for my bench 3+ week, I did 300 for 4, then afterwards dropped back to 240 which was the same weight as my first set, and knocked out 12 reps. Sometimes I drop back to 225 after my third set, and can hit 15-16 reps at that. Seems like a wide rep range, so my strength isn’t just in the low reps. Oh, and morning weigh in, 150.0 lbs. [/quote]
i did 3 at 110 kg dropped 20 kg to 90 and could do 20 reps i would call myself better at high reps than low reps, but to do only 12 after dropping 20 kg for a weight you could do for 4 doesn’t make you good at high reps[/quote]
That just makes you very good at high reps, or bad at heavy weight, depending on how you want to look at it. Using various online max calculators, 110kg for 3 equals a max of 120, but 90 kg for 20 equals a max of 145kg if you were well rounded in your strength.
Whereas my 136kg for 4 calculates to a max of 153 kg, and my 109kg for 12 equals 151kg. I am well rounded at high or low, no glaring strength one way or the other.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]amayakyrol wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Jens.D wrote:
This: ?The problem with many hypertrophy-based programs is that they leave out the strength component. You might get bigger as a result of the program, but if you don?t get any stronger you?re still a chump in my book.
That?s right, I don?t care how big you are, if you aren?t strong you?re a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on. All show and no go. End of story.?- Jim Wendler
[/quote]
I have never seen anyone who is muscularly very big and weak. Weak as compared to elite powerlifters? Very possible. Weak compared to the general population or most on this board? Fuck no.[/quote]
Depends on how you define big and a weak. I see a lot of guys in the 180-200 range with yolked upper bodies who still struggle with even 225 (or less…) on bench…[/quote]
If they are struggling to bench 225, then they don’t have yolked upper bodies.
[/quote]
17" arms at under 8% body fat isn’t yolked?
[quote]amayakyrol wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]amayakyrol wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Jens.D wrote:
This: ?The problem with many hypertrophy-based programs is that they leave out the strength component. You might get bigger as a result of the program, but if you don?t get any stronger you?re still a chump in my book.
That?s right, I don?t care how big you are, if you aren?t strong you?re a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on. All show and no go. End of story.?- Jim Wendler
[/quote]
I have never seen anyone who is muscularly very big and weak. Weak as compared to elite powerlifters? Very possible. Weak compared to the general population or most on this board? Fuck no.[/quote]
Depends on how you define big and a weak. I see a lot of guys in the 180-200 range with yolked upper bodies who still struggle with even 225 (or less…) on bench…[/quote]
If they are struggling to bench 225, then they don’t have yolked upper bodies.
[/quote]
17" arms at under 8% body fat isn’t yolked? [/quote]
Who mentioned 17 inch arms at 8% bodyfat? I would bet money just about anyone with that size arms and bf% could rep 225…
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]amayakyrol wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]amayakyrol wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Jens.D wrote:
This: ?The problem with many hypertrophy-based programs is that they leave out the strength component. You might get bigger as a result of the program, but if you don?t get any stronger you?re still a chump in my book.
That?s right, I don?t care how big you are, if you aren?t strong you?re a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on. All show and no go. End of story.?- Jim Wendler
[/quote]
I have never seen anyone who is muscularly very big and weak. Weak as compared to elite powerlifters? Very possible. Weak compared to the general population or most on this board? Fuck no.[/quote]
Depends on how you define big and a weak. I see a lot of guys in the 180-200 range with yolked upper bodies who still struggle with even 225 (or less…) on bench…[/quote]
If they are struggling to bench 225, then they don’t have yolked upper bodies.
[/quote]
17" arms at under 8% body fat isn’t yolked? [/quote]
Who mentioned 17 inch arms at 8% bodyfat? I would bet money just about anyone with that size arms and bf% could rep 225…
[/quote]
x2
There is no way a 200 lb man with 17in arms at %8 bf can’t bench 225 or less…c’mon.
I am dead serious. This guy’s arms are obviously bigger than mine (16") while being much leaner. He has the upperbody of a serious physique competitor. Can’t bench anything.