How Long Before You Looked Like You Lift?

Training
41

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I was out last night at a thing where I had to meet a bunch of new people, and had to deal with lifting questions all night. I had 1 weird conversation with a couple, who said they had a friend who is a bodybuilder (because people feel compelled to tell me such things). I said something like ‘oh cool, I guess he’s pretty huge, right?’ Response was ‘he’s about your size.’[/quote]

And yes, I also am constantly made aware of who is a bodybuilder in the nearby vicinity, haha.[/quote]
I find they’re usually fishing for a display of modesty, and I have none to display if it’s not business related. So my usual reply, in a semi-joking manner, is, “yeah well, he can train all he wants, but I have a pretty face.”.

42

You may never look all that great. I’ve made great strength gains in the past 8 months and put on nearly 20 lbs. I’m around 6’1 ish and weigh 200-205 and I still just pretty much just look like a skinny dude. Luckily, I enjoy lifting. A powerlifting friend of mine that’s 5’6’’ with a 485 lb deadlift looks like a chubby guy. I wouldn’t worry about aesthetics- who cares ?

43

[quote]Jessupyo wrote:
You may never look all that great. I’ve made great strength gains in the past 8 months and put on nearly 20 lbs. I’m around 6’1 ish and weigh 200-205 and I still just pretty much just look like a skinny dude. Luckily, I enjoy lifting. A powerlifting friend of mine that’s 5’6’’ with a 485 lb deadlift looks like a chubby guy. I wouldn’t worry about aesthetics- who cares ? [/quote]

Having both looked not good and good, I prefer the latter.

44

[quote]Jessupyo wrote:
You may never look all that great. I’ve made great strength gains in the past 8 months and put on nearly 20 lbs. I’m around 6’1 ish and weigh 200-205 and I still just pretty much just look like a skinny dude. Luckily, I enjoy lifting. A powerlifting friend of mine that’s 5’6’’ with a 485 lb deadlift looks like a chubby guy. I wouldn’t worry about aesthetics- who cares ? [/quote]

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I certainly do enjoy lifting. Why do you make it seem as though its an either or situation? Why not both? Hell, looking like you lift doesn’t necessarily mean abs and all. Starving children in africa have abs. Me personally, I like the “bear mode” look(google if unsure). The way I see it, if you’re strong, you WILL look strong, you WILL look like you’re doing something different. If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough. This is partly what baffles me about people who train to “look strong”. Granted, I’ve nothing against them but I would say do you know who looks strong? Strong people.

Get strong first, worry about the other stuff later, strength is the foundation for most endeavours as far as I know. Granted, I’m 17, what the heck do I know?

45

[quote]Benanything wrote:
The way I see it, if you’re strong, you WILL look strong, you WILL look like you’re doing something different. If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough. [/quote]

The trap that I see many trainees falling into with this logic is that they equate a certain amount of weight lifted as “strong”, and in turn try to chase this number down using every trick in the book.

For example, I knew of a guy that thought at 300lb bench was “strong”. He had a bench in the high 1s/low 2s. This guy ended up attending an elitefts Learn to Train seminar and got hands on instruction from Vincent Dizenzo (one of the greatest raw and geared benchers of all time). He learned how to set-up his bench incredibly well: painfully tight, super high arch, driving hard with his feet, traps stuck to the bench, shoulder blades retracted, etc. He learned how to cut the ROM down as much as possible. He then went on a massive dirty bulk and gained like 30lbs.

He got his 300lb bench, and he looked like shit.

What must be kept in mind with “strong looks strong” is that strong isn’t about being able to peak to a certain weight, but instead having a foundation/base such that one can lift heavy weights without prep and tricks. Those guys that specialize in and chase specific numbers in the quest to become “strong” become proficient instead.

46

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]Benanything wrote:
The way I see it, if you’re strong, you WILL look strong, you WILL look like you’re doing something different. If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough. [/quote]

The trap that I see many trainees falling into with this logic is that they equate a certain amount of weight lifted as “strong”, and in turn try to chase this number down using every trick in the book.

For example, I knew of a guy that thought at 300lb bench was “strong”. He had a bench in the high 1s/low 2s. This guy ended up attending an elitefts Learn to Train seminar and got hands on instruction from Vincent Dizenzo (one of the greatest raw and geared benchers of all time). He learned how to set-up his bench incredibly well: painfully tight, super high arch, driving hard with his feet, traps stuck to the bench, shoulder blades retracted, etc. He learned how to cut the ROM down as much as possible. He then went on a massive dirty bulk and gained like 30lbs.

He got his 300lb bench, and he looked like shit.

What must be kept in mind with “strong looks strong” is that strong isn’t about being able to peak to a certain weight, but instead having a foundation/base such that one can lift heavy weights without prep and tricks. Those guys that specialize in and chase specific numbers in the quest to become “strong” become proficient instead.[/quote]

That’s a very good point, but would it be wrong to say that he simply wasn’t strong enough at his new bodyweight? I did say that “If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough.” Like I would like to think that most non-advanced trainees can put a few more plates on their lift so long as they ate enough and trained hard enough.

47

[quote]Benanything wrote:
That’s a very good point, but would it be wrong to say that he simply wasn’t strong enough at his new bodyweight? I did say that “If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough.” Like I would like to think that most non-advanced trainees can put a few more plates on their lift so long as they ate enough and trained hard enough.[/quote]

I would say the issue was that he wasn’t strong, period. He had become incredibly skilled at benching, but not very strong at it.

The potential for growth in a new trainee is indeed very high, but it’s a question of what exactly is growing. It’s easy to see a trainee increase their squat from 135 to 315 and say “look how strong he got”, but it’s a false conclusion. Yes, he most likely built up some strength, but constantly practicing the movement also allowed him to become very proficient at executing the movement efficiently, using all of his muscles to the best of their advantage to move as much weight as possible.

This is why we tend to see such rapid gains in new trainees. People attributed it to this concept of “newbie gains”, and wanted to say that the body rapidly adds muscle and strength due to the new stimulus. Yes, you’ll grow faster earlier in your training compared to later, but there is still a ceiling to how fast one can get stronger compared to how quickly one can get better. This is why “beginner routines” like to make beginners perform the same movements so frequently: they’re lifting too little weight to actually stress their bodies, but getting very frequent technique practice to be able to maximize weights being moved.

It’s also why these programs tend to stall out at one point, as eventually one reaches the limit of skill improvement and needs to actually start building some strength.

48

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]Benanything wrote:
That’s a very good point, but would it be wrong to say that he simply wasn’t strong enough at his new bodyweight? I did say that “If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough.” Like I would like to think that most non-advanced trainees can put a few more plates on their lift so long as they ate enough and trained hard enough.[/quote]

I would say the issue was that he wasn’t strong, period. He had become incredibly skilled at benching, but not very strong at it.

The potential for growth in a new trainee is indeed very high, but it’s a question of what exactly is growing. It’s easy to see a trainee increase their squat from 135 to 315 and say “look how strong he got”, but it’s a false conclusion. Yes, he most likely built up some strength, but constantly practicing the movement also allowed him to become very proficient at executing the movement efficiently, using all of his muscles to the best of their advantage to move as much weight as possible.

This is why we tend to see such rapid gains in new trainees. People attributed it to this concept of “newbie gains”, and wanted to say that the body rapidly adds muscle and strength due to the new stimulus. Yes, you’ll grow faster earlier in your training compared to later, but there is still a ceiling to how fast one can get stronger compared to how quickly one can get better. This is why “beginner routines” like to make beginners perform the same movements so frequently: they’re lifting too little weight to actually stress their bodies, but getting very frequent technique practice to be able to maximize weights being moved.

It’s also why these programs tend to stall out at one point, as eventually one reaches the limit of skill improvement and needs to actually start building some strength.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying T3hPwnisher. Strength =/= Skill, got it. You’re really helpful but I’m sure you already know that ahahaha.

49

No problem. That’s one of those things that took me a LONG time to figure out.

50

I wasn’t saying you can’t have both. I’m saying you shouldn’t have the expectation of both. In order for me to look turbo jacked, I’d need to weigh about 240. I don’t want to put on that kind of weight because I feel like I would lose my athleticism and mobility.

51

[quote]Jessupyo wrote:
In order for me to look turbo jacked, I’d need to weigh about 240.[/quote]

This is inaccurate, unless your definition of ‘turbo jacked’ is looking better than Arnold. Arnold was 6’2 and 230 in contest condition. At your height, a person can look extremely fucking impressive at 200-210.

52

[quote]Benanything wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]Benanything wrote:
That’s a very good point, but would it be wrong to say that he simply wasn’t strong enough at his new bodyweight? I did say that “If you don’t look strong, odds are, you just ain’t strong enough.” Like I would like to think that most non-advanced trainees can put a few more plates on their lift so long as they ate enough and trained hard enough.[/quote]

I would say the issue was that he wasn’t strong, period. He had become incredibly skilled at benching, but not very strong at it.

The potential for growth in a new trainee is indeed very high, but it’s a question of what exactly is growing. It’s easy to see a trainee increase their squat from 135 to 315 and say “look how strong he got”, but it’s a false conclusion. Yes, he most likely built up some strength, but constantly practicing the movement also allowed him to become very proficient at executing the movement efficiently, using all of his muscles to the best of their advantage to move as much weight as possible.

This is why we tend to see such rapid gains in new trainees. People attributed it to this concept of “newbie gains”, and wanted to say that the body rapidly adds muscle and strength due to the new stimulus. Yes, you’ll grow faster earlier in your training compared to later, but there is still a ceiling to how fast one can get stronger compared to how quickly one can get better. This is why “beginner routines” like to make beginners perform the same movements so frequently: they’re lifting too little weight to actually stress their bodies, but getting very frequent technique practice to be able to maximize weights being moved.

It’s also why these programs tend to stall out at one point, as eventually one reaches the limit of skill improvement and needs to actually start building some strength.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying T3hPwnisher. Strength =/= Skill, got it. You’re really helpful but I’m sure you already know that ahahaha.[/quote]

T3hPwnisher and Beanything -
That’s an interesting way to think about it. A big part of newbie gains are just about learning how to use the muscles you already have. :slight_smile: Looking at something like the ExRx Strength Standards tables has been motivating to me, since they are tied to strength at my BW.

Kind of related to “How long until you looked like you lift”, it would be interesting to go back and look at old logs to see how long it took to hit intermediate, advanced, or elite strength levels, even if you aren’t a competitive PLer.

You’d see lots of variation based on previous athletic background and of course some of us have had to take a break/ stalled out due to injuries. Still kind of fun to see where you are, and how long it took to get there.

53

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
What must be kept in mind with “strong looks strong” is that strong isn’t about being able to peak to a certain weight, but instead having a foundation/base such that one can lift heavy weights without prep and tricks. Those guys that specialize in and chase specific numbers in the quest to become “strong” become proficient instead.[/quote]

When you say prep and tricks, are you just referring to peaking for maximal strength and using extreme leverages?

I guess my own definition of strong (in general) is being able to completely stabilize all of the major joints in the body when transferring force through it. IMO, developing the stabilizers is what helps to transfer strength across different types of movements. An example can be two people squatting 500 lbs but one never utilizing his abs, hips, etc. so he is much weaker when carrying a heavy boulder in front of him. He became proficient at the specific squat movement and was able to adapt to it while training just up to his limits of stability/balance (using as minimal stability as possible) but the strength didn’t carryover well to much else. On the other hand, the guy also training for specific strength was training for general strength at the same time.

IMO, there is technique associated with general strength and it is possible to train for both specific and general strength at the same time. I think this might align with how you view it since it seems like you’re talking about general strength without peaking. I think leverages just depend on the movement, after taking into account the above.

54

Peaking, extreme leverages, recruiting other muscles into the movement, irradiation, valsalva maneuver, stimulants, nose tork, strategic bodyweight manipulation, etc. There are TONS of ways to move more weight, and one of them is definitely actually getting stronger, but a lot of people seem to fixate on using the other ways to move more weight when in reality their goal is to actually develop strength.

EDIT: It’s not to say that any of the above things are bad. They’re all pretty essential in moving heavy weight. It’s just that they are variables that can confound measurements when trying to determine progress.

Did I really get 5lbs stronger on the deadlift, or did I just get 5lbs more out of my valsalva maneuver? This is why I’m a big advocate over not getting amped up for a training lift, for training in a constant state of calm at least eliminates one of the variables.

56

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Peaking, extreme leverages, recruiting other muscles into the movement, irradiation, valsalva maneuver, stimulants, nose tork, strategic bodyweight manipulation, etc. There are TONS of ways to move more weight, and one of them is definitely actually getting stronger, but a lot of people seem to fixate on using the other ways to move more weight when in reality their goal is to actually develop strength.
[/quote]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. When benching, I used to always focus on the arch. I would focus on pinching my shoulder blades so much that sometimes I couldn’t feel my chest working. HeavyTriple has always given the advice of flaring the elbows to get the chest and delts involved. I have taken his advice to heart since he is probably the best bencher on this site and tried to figure out what this meant for almost a year.

Once I had decent development in my upper/mid back to keep my shoulders stable, I’m finally starting to get what he means. In the past month, I’ve never felt my chest and delts work harder when benching. Even though I have to drop my working weights a bit, I’m committed to the new technique because it actually feels right how I’m working as many muscle groups as possible. It’s a hit to the ego but it just feels like it’ll make a difference long term, much like improving technique in the squat and deadlift.

I do think stability plays a big role but it’s just another way to explain what strong people like you already know, haha.

57

960×960 69.6 KB

When you make Dexter look small in clothes… (not really)

Crazy how fucking big he looks on stage for such a small stature guy.