Bodybuilders Are Weak

Training Powerlifting
81

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I always kinda thoght it broke down like this:

-Bodybuilders = Train ONLY for aestetics. It wouldnt matter to them if they only bench press 100 pounds as long as it lead to hypertrophy. Also, I’m sure that body builders wouldnt care if they only weighed 100 pounds if they could somehow induce growth without weight gain.

-Powerlifters = Train ONLY for maximal strength in the “big 3” lifts. Wouldn’t matter to them if they only weighed 100 pounds if that somehow helped them bench 1000 pounds (I know thats impossible, I’m just stating a point)

Obviously in the real world there is crossover in the way these people train, but thats always how I thought of the “groups” withing the weightlifting community.[/quote]

It takes heavy weight to get muscles that much bigger than what the average gym goer experiences. Desmond Miller’s quads measure over 38" in the off season. That may have something to do with the fact that he HIGH REPS six plates a side for squats.

That means that while bodybuilders may not be focused so much on strength, strength well beyond what most people will ever experience is needed to get that big regardless. How many people do you see in the gym who can squat 6 plates a side deep for several reps as a regular routine and not a one rep max?

The only problem here is people calling 140lbs guys who only do curls “bodybuilders”.

People don’t get to be truly huge by lifting light weights so nothing supports the belief. You would think the Ronnie Colemans and Johnnie Jacksons would have proven that by now.

82

Interesting thread. I think what is getting lost is in the terminology perhaps. I don’t think it is the bodybuilders who are weak, I think sometimes the methods used can be interpreted as weak.

For instance, hypertrophy doesn’t focus on strength per se but when used properly and in the right amount it can get one bigger depending on the individual - what I am saying is that this method is used more by bodybuilders for definition but doesn’t mean the bodybuilder is weak.

Powerlifting methods like Westside focus on more on neural adaptation and this method is more for strength but hypertrophy is used from time to time in order to get the muscles bigger which then leads to better strength.

So one can argue that certain methods are not necessarily weaker but perhaps more strength oriented than the other. The person using them is not who is weak but perhaps the wrong method can be when not used properly - if one doesn’t get strong with it or is educated about the differences, thus the sterotypes begin.

83

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It takes heavy weight to get muscles that much bigger than what the average gym goer experiences. Desmond Miller’s quads measure over 38" in the off season. That may have something to do with the fact that he HIGH REPS six plates a side for squats.

That means that while bodybuilders may not be focused so much on strength, strength well beyond what most people will ever experience is needed to get that big regardless. How many people do you see in the gym who can squat 6 plates a side deep for several reps as a regular routine and not a one rep max?

The only problem here is people calling 140lbs guys who only do curls “bodybuilders”.

People don’t get to be truly huge by lifting light weights so nothing supports the belief. You would think the Ronnie Colemans and Johnnie Jacksons would have proven that by now. [/quote]

I couldnt agree more, but I was moreso focusing on the goals than on the mthods. If Ronnie Coleman COULD get as big as he is now without squating 800 pounds, I’m sure he would do so for a number of reasons (injury, stress on body…)

I make no mistakes in how strong a bodybuilder has to be to be professional, or even amatuer. Phenomenal strength is required to acheive that level of mass.

There was a mini debate going on about what a bodybuilder/powerlifter is, so I threw in my 2 cents.

84

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There are some crappy looking people who step on stage to compete who don’t even look like they lift. You would give them the title of ‘bodybuilder’ but not the guy who actually looks like one but never competes?
[/quote]

Unbelievable.

85

This whole question is a matter of perspective. Before you answer the question you have consider your own perspective when comparing bodybuilders to others. Are you inside the circle of resistance training individuals or outside of it?

There’s no doubt that the average bodybuilder is quite strong relative to the non-resistance training individual. Relative to other types of resistance trainees (strongman, powerlifter, o-lifter) the bodybuilder is much weaker on a pound-per-pound basis in the same exercises.

Obviously, if you ask the strongman/p-lifter/o-lifter group to lift with the same volume as a bodybuilder their performance will grind to a halt.

This can be paralleled in the world of marathon vs. sprinting.

WR marathons are run at a sub-5-minute mile or 12.5mph. Pretty damn fast to sustain for such a long time. WR 100-m or 60-m dashes are a helluva lot faster 26+ mph. Anyone who isn’t a runner would say these guys are all quite fast. Anyone who is a runner would say that the sprinters are a krapload faster.

86

Bodybuilding takes some serious genetics and discipline. John Cena couldn’t cut it and instead turned out to be a WWE superstar, that says something about the sport of competitive bodybuilding.

87

I also think that too many people tend to view the powerlifts as a sole measure of strength.

Sure a top powerlifter could outlift just about any top bodybuilder on an max bench, but how would he compare on an 8-rep leg press or dumbell curl? Are those not tests of strength as well?

88

jtrinsey,

Which member of the power athlete spectrum would you expect, based on training methodology, to be the most capably athletic?

  1. Oly lifter
  2. Heavy events thrower
  3. Power Lifter
  4. Bodybuilder

My review goes like this:

  1. oly lifters consistently test as some of the fastest, strongest, and most flexible athletes.
    2.Heavy event throwers often rival Oly lifters in 25m sprints, high jump, standing long jump, and simple power movements such as squat/dl/bench.
    3.Power lifters are often very strong, but also often have very specific capabilities and a wide range of limitations. Check out a few PL meets if you don’t believe me.
    4.BB’ers are very large, and hyper-trained. The often have a high capacity for work, and the appearance of low strength threshold compared to the other heavy event athletes. Remember the Dr Hatfield and Tom Platz comparison? It holds true fairly often, anecdotally of course.

Having trained using BB’ers as a role model for 4yrs, PLs for 3 yrs, and Oly/Throwers for 3yrs. I have dabbled a little in each, I can tell you which had me feeling the most capable. Training like an Oly/Thrower increased my vert, decreased my 40, and has added a great deal of strength and muscle.

So, expressing each as a position on the strength, conditioning, power, and hypertrophy continuum would it look like this?

1.BB’ers-most hypertrophy, most endurance, least power, moderate strength
2.PLers-most strength, moderate power, moderate hypertrophy, least endurance
3.Oly-most power, high strength, moderate endurance, moderate hypertrophy
4. thrower-high power, high strength, moderate endurance, lower hypertrophy

This leaves out several other criteria for assessing athletic capability.

So, from an objective standpoint, if you were going to be as powerful/athletic as possible where would you focus your work?

89

I dont know why this is being discussed seeing as we can’t even agree upon who’s the strongest man in the world. I’ve seen votes for the ifsa champion, the super series champ, the 105+ Olympic gold medalist, the wpo champ, the ipf champ … am I forgetting anyone?

Nobody - on this board or any other that I’ve ever seen - has ever come to a consensus agreement on the definition of ‘strong’ … I don’t think that’s about to change any time soon

So, since we can’t even seem to agree on what it is, how are we supposed to argue about whether or not the BBers fit into the category of “strong?”

90

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
I dont know why this is being discussed seeing as we can’t even agree upon who’s the strongest man in the world. I’ve seen votes for the ifsa champion, the super series champ, the 105+ Olympic gold medalist, the wpo champ, the ipf champ … am I forgetting anyone?

Nobody - on this board or any other that I’ve ever seen - has ever come to a consensus agreement on the definition of ‘strong’ … I don’t think that’s about to change any time soon

So, since we can’t even seem to agree on what it is, how are we supposed to argue about whether or not the BBers fit into the category of “strong?”[/quote]

I don’t see what the problem is really.

Bodybuilders (people who show significant amounts of muscle mass) lift heavy weights (I would class it as weight greater than 90% of the population lifts).

You have to be strong to lift something heavy.

Therefore since bodybuilders (as qualified earlier) lift heavy weights (Again, qualified earlier) they must be strong.

I thought that was simple??

Now when you throw “relatively” into the mix things get murky. But that’s not the original argument. The question was, are bodybuilders strong? The answer is yes.

91

quan2m,

Definitly agree with what you have said. However, “strong” is only relative to how it’s measured. That’s the point I was trying to make.

92

[quote]Hanley wrote:

Bodybuilders (people who show significant amounts of muscle mass) lift heavy weights (I would class it as weight greater than 90% of the population lifts).

[/quote]

I dont know that I agree with that, I think I fall more along the lines of what you alluded to later in your post - the relative nature of it.

I mean, I’d be surprised if 10% of the population could squat 405 - not that they are INCAPABLE, mind you, they just dont train. So by your definition, a 405 squat would be strong. I dont think I’m so comfortable with that.

And really, teh average person has no idea what strong is. If they ask you what you bench and you say 275, whats the reaction? “Huh, man, thats a lot”
If you say 375, you get the same reaction “huh, man, thats a lot” despite teh fact that one is (I think) a LOT more commonly seen than the other

but then again this is all nitpicking and hair-splitting. Thats all I was trying to say in my first post

ehh, my two cents

93

[quote]quan2m wrote:
jtrinsey,

Which member of the power athlete spectrum would you expect, based on training methodology, to be the most capably athletic?

  1. Oly lifter
  2. Heavy events thrower
  3. Power Lifter
  4. Bodybuilder

My review goes like this:

  1. oly lifters consistently test as some of the fastest, strongest, and most flexible athletes.
    2.Heavy event throwers often rival Oly lifters in 25m sprints, high jump, standing long jump, and simple power movements such as squat/dl/bench.
    3.Power lifters are often very strong, but also often have very specific capabilities and a wide range of limitations. Check out a few PL meets if you don’t believe me.
    4.BB’ers are very large, and hyper-trained. The often have a high capacity for work, and the appearance of low strength threshold compared to the other heavy event athletes. Remember the Dr Hatfield and Tom Platz comparison? It holds true fairly often, anecdotally of course.

Having trained using BB’ers as a role model for 4yrs, PLs for 3 yrs, and Oly/Throwers for 3yrs. I have dabbled a little in each, I can tell you which had me feeling the most capable. Training like an Oly/Thrower increased my vert, decreased my 40, and has added a great deal of strength and muscle.

So, expressing each as a position on the strength, conditioning, power, and hypertrophy continuum would it look like this?

1.BB’ers-most hypertrophy, most endurance, least power, moderate strength
2.PLers-most strength, moderate power, moderate hypertrophy, least endurance
3.Oly-most power, high strength, moderate endurance, moderate hypertrophy
4. thrower-high power, high strength, moderate endurance, lower hypertrophy

This leaves out several other criteria for assessing athletic capability.

So, from an objective standpoint, if you were going to be as powerful/athletic as possible where would you focus your work?
[/quote]

Very well said!!! From this recipe you’ll need to pick depending on your goals. If your goal is to be the best Linebacker you can be and you already have the size, then a mix of Throwing and Oly lifting would be good. however if you are trying to convert from CB to LB for instance then you might want to mix BB and PL. it really depends on goals and current abilities. Again VERY WELL SAID!!!

94

Funny how no other athletes draw such broad criticism.

“Basketball players are weak! Hitting a baseball isn’t functional!”

95

[quote]MetalMikeXVI wrote:
Funny how no other athletes draw such broad criticism.

“Basketball players are weak! Hitting a baseball isn’t functional!”[/quote]

Exactly what I was going to say. You can’t compare apples to oranges and judge them on which is the best-tasting kiwi.

96

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Hanley wrote:

Bodybuilders (people who show significant amounts of muscle mass) lift heavy weights (I would class it as weight greater than 90% of the population lifts).

I dont know that I agree with that, I think I fall more along the lines of what you alluded to later in your post - the relative nature of it.

I mean, I’d be surprised if 10% of the population could squat 405 - not that they are INCAPABLE, mind you, they just dont train. So by your definition, a 405 squat would be strong. I dont think I’m so comfortable with that.

And really, teh average person has no idea what strong is. If they ask you what you bench and you say 275, whats the reaction? “Huh, man, thats a lot”
If you say 375, you get the same reaction “huh, man, thats a lot” despite teh fact that one is (I think) a LOT more commonly seen than the other

but then again this is all nitpicking and hair-splitting. Thats all I was trying to say in my first post

ehh, my two cents

[/quote]

You see now you’re opening a can of worms…

Sure most (I’m not even comfortable saying this because I don’t believe it tbh) people could sqaut 405. Hell lets make it relative and say doublebodyweight. BUT most people could probably be a concert pianist or doctor too, they just lack they dedication or desire to do it.

You know the further I think of it the more uncomparable they actually are, I mean a 2x bodyweight squat (IPF style) is very achievable for most, and something which I already have, but becoming an accomplished pianist or doctor takes years and years of dedication. Much like what it takes to become a top level bodybuilder.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that pretty much anything is achievable for anyone given the right circumstances, but most people fail to take advantage of it, or fail to make it happen and as a result fail to be classed as strong, a doctor ot whatever.

Bascially having the ability to do something and actually doing it are totally different. And at this stage I don’t even know what point I’m arguing… :s