You said that increased bodyfat is beneficial because of set point theory, because of increased joint lubrication, and because of better leverages.
I asked if there was an upper threshold where those benefits had diminishing returns.
You haven’t answered that question.[/quote]
BECAUSE THE ANSWER TO THAT IS BASED ON THE GENETICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND HOW FAT THAT PERSON CAN ACCEPT BEING.
What is an “upper threshold” for me will not hold for someone else.
There is no better way to put that. [/quote]
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point at which joint lubrication is no longer improved by higher bodyfat?
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point at which leverages are no longer improved by higher bodyfat?
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point where increased bodyfat does not contribute positively to set point theory’s role in establishing increased muscular mass?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Good points, but it didn’t really address the question. Jake definitely has a handle on his ability to track calories and macros; e.g., he has a physique contest prep thread on here.
There’s the issue ecto/hardgainer/high-metabolism guys trying to gain muscle, and you, MG, and BCT have outlined a pretty similar approach… but for someone who puts on fat easier, how would approach muscle gain while remaining relatively lean? I agree that topic hasn’t really been addressed well.[/quote]
If you’re referring to somebody who doesn’t wanna track calories, then the approach is the same. Make small incremental changes, while keeping tabs on your physique. I would imagine someone who is an easy-gainer might wanna add more protein in to gain, as opposed to more carbs. Maybe less overall food on days off, etc.
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point at which joint lubrication is no longer improved by higher bodyfat?[/quote]
The only people I have ever heard of noting a problem with body fat being too low are people with extremely low body fat…meaning this is a non-issue for someone over contest condition or of “NORMAL” body fat percentage…above near contest condition.
[quote]
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point at which leverages are no longer improved by higher bodyfat?[/quote]
The strength of that individual. You are asking a question here that relies solely on the genetics, build and strength progress of one person…so you would have to look at that one person and see.
[quote]
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point where increased bodyfat does not contribute positively to set point theory’s role in establishing increased muscular mass?[/quote]
How would anyone know this if it is not a proven fact but a theory?
You base what you do on the results you get. The questions you are asking imply you think that there actually is some specific answer for all people here…when there is NOT and can’t be.
I would avoid OBESITY…but the rest depends on the genetics and metabolism of that one person.
And for the record, I do believe everybody should have a general sense of understanding of nutrtition and calories.
With a basic understanding of nutrition, nothing is truly ‘guessing.’
SteelyD referred to this before. He knows exactly how many cals he’s adding when he sneaks in an extra piece of steak, etc. without actually tracking cals.
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
And for the record, I do believe everybody should have a general sense of understanding of nutrtition and calories.
With a basic understanding of nutrition, nothing is truly ‘guessing.’
SteelyD referred to this before. He knows exactly how many cals he’s adding when he sneaks in an extra piece of steak, etc. without actually tracking cals.[/quote]
Same here. It has never been an issue…and it worked and kept me motivated for decades…which is more important than being “perfect” for a short time and giving up like most people.
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point at which joint lubrication is no longer improved by higher bodyfat?[/quote]
The only people I have ever heard of noting a problem with body fat being too low are people with extremely low body fat…meaning this is a non-issue for someone over contest condition or of “NORMAL” body fat percentage…above near contest condition.[/quote]
So by the same reasoning, that means “increased joint lubrication” isn’t relevant to this discussion. Ok. Not sure why you brought it up in the first place then. Nobody was talking about “near contest condition”.
[quote][quote]
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point at which leverages are no longer improved by higher bodyfat?[/quote]
The strength of that individual. You are asking a question here that relies solely on the genetics, build and strength progress of one person…so you would have to look at that one person and see.[/quote]
Which factors would you look at with that individual?
[quote][quote]
What individual factors (genetic or not – excluding psychological factors) are involved in determining the point where increased bodyfat does not contribute positively to set point theory’s role in establishing increased muscular mass?[/quote]
How would anyone know this if it is not a proven fact but a theory?[/quote]
What exactly are you asking here?
If you’re asking how they would know which factors are involved… then by understanding the theory, its implications, and speculating around that knowledge.
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
How I believe a natural should bulk…
Truthfully, I believe Professor X’s method in combination with BlueCollarTr8n’s method is best for a natural to “Bulk”, especially one who is trying to put on as much muscle as possible.
The truth is, other than the most dedicated of weightlifters (mostly only found on websites like these & very rare in real life), will never count calories, nor care to. Every gym rat I?ve ever talked to and asked q?s on how to gain weight, will say eat as much REAL FOOD as possible, and lift as heavy as possible. None will go into calories. I’ve seen way too many weightlifters take the ‘slow & steady’ approach to bulking and fail. Progress is too slow and incremental. Besides, it’s very difficult to overeat when eating REAL “CLEAN” FOOD. Especially for a noob with a raging metabolism and an ectomorph type frame.
This noob should eat as much as possible, while attempting to gain as much strength as possible. He will develop a natural ability to learn what amounts of food he must eat which will result in both weight & strength gain. Changes will be made as progress is made. Breakfast will gradually increase from 3 eggs to 4, then to 5, then to 6, as his body weight, strength, & appetite increases. Lunch can increase from a smaller plate of protein & carbs, to a bigger plate, etc.
Nobody is saying to bulk off pizza and ice-cream. It is very difficult to eat 4K calories of ‘CLEAN’ food aka eggs, rice, potatoes, chicken, beef, etc. The common theme in these forums is people who OVERBULK and now have fat to lose, but at least they gained the muscle. When I look around the numerous gyms I visit, I see more people who are unable to gain weight, rather than those who are gaining too much.
[/quote]
Gotta say that’s a load of crap. A ton of big national level competitors I follow on PM count calories. The best trainers you can hire will have you count calories and you will have amazing progress. Counting cals or macros is very important to good long term progress
Edit: I see that you kinda went back against this and I am in agreement that everyone should track for a while at least and get an idea most people are so out in left field on how much they eat. How many calories that olive oil they use as dressing and cookie or how little they actually eat
But for tracking calories it honestly takes 30s a meal if that. And if you cook in bulk for the week it’s easy to pack meals that have your macros for the day. Now if people don’t want to do this I think they have to accept slightly less than optimal progress. Counting macros everyday and adjusting for goals will allow for maximal progress both bulking and cutting
I can say this…some of you MUST feel threatened to keep this up this long.
Let me know when you want to discuss the actual topic.
I see you are busy trolling right now so you may be pre-occupied.[/quote]
LOL
Dodge, evade, obscure…you are a professional evader I’ll give you that.
He called you on your bullshit, I agreed…that is not trolling hommie.[/quote]
He called me on my bullshit?
[/quote]
Yep and it was 100% accurate…hence my 100% accurate post.
[/quote]
This discussion is about bulking…
if I was writing bad info, it would be easy to just focus on the discussion.
[/quote]
Thats the point, you don’t give any specific advice…except to say “don’t get as fat as I did…even though you will never get HOOGE unless you put on a bunch of bodyfat”
HORSE-shit
Nattys don’t need to put on a bunch of usless weight to gain muscle…that’s just an excuse, because you know if you ever leaned down you would see how pointless it was for you to get fat.
[/quote]
Pics of your food log or it didn’t happen. Same goes for Ryan, and brick head… Lol
I can say this…some of you MUST feel threatened to keep this up this long.
Let me know when you want to discuss the actual topic.
I see you are busy trolling right now so you may be pre-occupied.[/quote]
LOL
Dodge, evade, obscure…you are a professional evader I’ll give you that.
He called you on your bullshit, I agreed…that is not trolling hommie.[/quote]
He called me on my bullshit?
[/quote]
Yep and it was 100% accurate…hence my 100% accurate post.
[/quote]
This discussion is about bulking…
if I was writing bad info, it would be easy to just focus on the discussion.
[/quote]
Thats the point, you don’t give any specific advice…except to say “don’t get as fat as I did…even though you will never get HOOGE unless you put on a bunch of bodyfat”
HORSE-shit
Nattys don’t need to put on a bunch of usless weight to gain muscle…that’s just an excuse, because you know if you ever leaned down you would see how pointless it was for you to get fat.
[/quote]
Pics of your food log or it didn’t happen. Same goes for Ryan, and brick head… Lol
[/quote]
I can say this…some of you MUST feel threatened to keep this up this long.
Let me know when you want to discuss the actual topic.
I see you are busy trolling right now so you may be pre-occupied.[/quote]
LOL
Dodge, evade, obscure…you are a professional evader I’ll give you that.
He called you on your bullshit, I agreed…that is not trolling hommie.[/quote]
He called me on my bullshit?
[/quote]
Yep and it was 100% accurate…hence my 100% accurate post.
[/quote]
This discussion is about bulking…
if I was writing bad info, it would be easy to just focus on the discussion.
[/quote]
Thats the point, you don’t give any specific advice…except to say “don’t get as fat as I did…even though you will never get HOOGE unless you put on a bunch of bodyfat”
HORSE-shit
Nattys don’t need to put on a bunch of usless weight to gain muscle…that’s just an excuse, because you know if you ever leaned down you would see how pointless it was for you to get fat.
[/quote]
Pics of your food log or it didn’t happen. Same goes for Ryan, and brick head… Lol
[/quote]
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
I guess one of the things that’s frustrating for a guy like me on this forum is that all advice and attitudes presented in a thread like this seem to be geared for the “hard-gainers”…the guys who had trouble putting on size in the beginning.
Sure, the eat more, eat clean, don’t be super strict counting, see volume and strength go up week to week is awesome advice…FOR THEM.
Not for me, and not for those of us who get into the iron game because we are endomorphic and have trouble keeping weight OFF. To insinuate that because we need to count to keep calories in check we “don’t know our bodies very well” is complete bullshit.
What about a thread for natty “bulking” for the rest of us?..the ones who are terrified of getting fat, because we actually get fat if we slip just a little.
So yea, I guess there’s a fullhouse and a lean gainz side on TNation right now, but what about us who can’t really take either approach without either being a complete fatass OR completely miserable and ready to chew off our own arm at any instant?
[/quote]
Nobody’s implying that if you keep track of your cals you ‘don’t know your body very well’ Or I wasn’t at least. Again, different strokes for different folks. But even in your example, after tracking cals for an extended period of time, you’d get an idea of what volume of food you can handle in a typical day, and what kind of results you’d get off of that. And overtime can develop the ability to make small incremental changes, without having to keep track of every calorie.
I’ve already stated that the best approach to the best gains is to keep track of cals, and adjust accordingly. But again, not everybody wants to do this.
Altho, I do believe every person should develop a basic sense of knowledge when it comes to food, nutrition, and calories etc. It will be a lot more easier to develop the ability to naturally do this without having to count calories. [/quote]
Good points, but it didn’t really address the question. Jake definitely has a handle on his ability to track calories and macros; e.g., he has a physique contest prep thread on here.
There’s the issue ecto/hardgainer/high-metabolism guys trying to gain muscle, and you, MG, and BCT have outlined a pretty similar approach… but for someone who puts on fat easier, how would approach muscle gain while remaining relatively lean? I agree that topic hasn’t really been addressed well.[/quote]
Thank you!
Seems to be in vogue these days to treat everyone who asks a question like a newb no matter what. I don’t get what’s so confusing about my question. Some of us pack on fat very easily and it fucks with you psychologically. How do you approach gaining?
I can say this…some of you MUST feel threatened to keep this up this long.
Let me know when you want to discuss the actual topic.
I see you are busy trolling right now so you may be pre-occupied.[/quote]
LOL
Dodge, evade, obscure…you are a professional evader I’ll give you that.
He called you on your bullshit, I agreed…that is not trolling hommie.[/quote]
He called me on my bullshit?
[/quote]
Yep and it was 100% accurate…hence my 100% accurate post.
[/quote]
This discussion is about bulking…
if I was writing bad info, it would be easy to just focus on the discussion.
[/quote]
Thats the point, you don’t give any specific advice…except to say “don’t get as fat as I did…even though you will never get HOOGE unless you put on a bunch of bodyfat”
HORSE-shit
Nattys don’t need to put on a bunch of usless weight to gain muscle…that’s just an excuse, because you know if you ever leaned down you would see how pointless it was for you to get fat.
[/quote]
Pics of your food log or it didn’t happen. Same goes for Ryan, and brick head… Lol
[/quote]
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]
I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]
5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]
His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)
[/quote]
Interesting. So because I was injured and haven’t done a bench press in a decade…you thought I should have been repping with 405 when we weren’t even focusing on strength training?
Strange that you think the way you do.
Considering I didn’t get to warm up before taping ad that was literally the first rep on a bench I had done in quite a while, it is strange you find fault in that.
A truly weak person wouldn’t have been using that first the first time doing the exercise in years…again not to mention CT was using similar weight…[/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315?[/quote]
Can’t this just be, at least in part, a consequence of years and years of relying on machines instead of free weights for compound movements?
When using instruments that lock you into fixed movement patterns, isn’t it expected that the ancillary muscles that would otherwise be fighting to stabilize the weight would likely become less efficient at that task?
Can’t the difficulty found when switching back to free weights be the byproduct of a loss of coordination combined with a decrease in force output due to a perceived awkward novelty of the movement by the supporting musculature?
I mean, I thought this sort of phenomenon was commonly mentioned when discussions of “functional” training crop up.
If you add in the injuries (though I don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the likelihood that he was already fatigued from other exercises, doesn’t this give a fairly plausible scenario that explains why his performance didn’t live up to expectations? Though would I be incorrect in believing that the band would help with stabilizing the weight to a degree?
I really don’t have too great of an idea as I am not riddled with injuries that would have killed mortal men and don’t rely almost exclusively on machines, so I’ve never experienced that sort of thing firsthand.[/quote]
Yeah, I have no doubt PX benched 405+ at some point. But I don’t know anyone in the lifting community (BB’er, PL’er, etc) who uses machines for 80% of their lifting. [/quote]
Then you don’t know many with injuries. I used free weights for most of my early training. Not sure why this matters.
It would seem that some are just focusing on things to criticize. Your results matter, not which exercise you did unless in powerlifting.
I also have written more times than I can count that I was injured when in CO…not to mention that CT was using similar weights but no one is calling him weak.[/quote]
What the hell dude?
I stated in the comment, I totally think you benched 405+ at some point. I didn’t criticize you, I just thought it was weird. You’re one of the few guys who I know who does so (Bauber said one of his training partners does too). How stating that using mostly machines is not something I see most other BB’er or PL’ers do is a criticism to you, I’m not sure…
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315?[/quote]
Can’t this just be, at least in part, a consequence of years and years of relying on machines instead of free weights for compound movements?
When using instruments that lock you into fixed movement patterns, isn’t it expected that the ancillary muscles that would otherwise be fighting to stabilize the weight would likely become less efficient at that task?
Can’t the difficulty found when switching back to free weights be the byproduct of a loss of coordination combined with a decrease in force output due to a perceived awkward novelty of the movement by the supporting musculature?
I mean, I thought this sort of phenomenon was commonly mentioned when discussions of “functional” training crop up.
If you add in the injuries (though I don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the likelihood that he was already fatigued from other exercises, doesn’t this give a fairly plausible scenario that explains why his performance didn’t live up to expectations? Though would I be incorrect in believing that the band would help with stabilizing the weight to a degree?
I really don’t have too great of an idea as I am not riddled with injuries that would have killed mortal men and don’t rely almost exclusively on machines, so I’ve never experienced that sort of thing firsthand.[/quote]
Yeah, I have no doubt PX benched 405+ at some point. But I don’t know anyone in the lifting community (BB’er, PL’er, etc) who uses machines for 80% of their lifting. [/quote]
Then you don’t know many with injuries. I used free weights for most of my early training. Not sure why this matters.
It would seem that some are just focusing on things to criticize. Your results matter, not which exercise you did unless in powerlifting.
I also have written more times than I can count that I was injured when in CO…not to mention that CT was using similar weights but no one is calling him weak.[/quote]
What the hell dude?
I stated in the comment, I totally think you benched 405+ at some point. I didn’t criticize you, I just thought it was weird. You’re one of the few guys who I know who does so (Bauber said one of his training partners does too). How stating that using mostly machines is not something I see most other BB’er or PL’ers do is a criticism to you, I’m not sure…
[/quote]
Dude we are tiny how dare us question his knowledge
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
I guess one of the things that’s frustrating for a guy like me …
Not for me, and not for those of us who get into the iron game because we are endomorphic and have trouble keeping weight OFF. To insinuate that because we need to count to keep calories in check we “don’t know our bodies very well” is complete bullshit.
What about a thread for natty “bulking” for the rest of us?..the ones who are terrified of getting fat, because we actually get fat if we slip just a little.
[/quote]
Dude, if you’re terrified of fat then you’ve identified the problem. Look, I was a chubby kid. I rowed crew and played hockey in college. When I wasn’t doing that, I was running. I straddled 165-170, abs and all but with A LOT of output and in spite of a faddish early 90’s high carb no fat diet (probably wrecked my system).
So, having a propensity for fat, I went against the grain of status quo and PX himself by taking the “eat for size” route in my 30’s and 40’s. My strength gains took off. I didn’t start off very lean at 170 (just having lost 70 lbs), and after 6 years now, I’ve slowly started bringing it down.
But that’s the key: I OWNED IT FOR 6 YEARS. No fat phobia. “Former Fat Boy Syndrome” was invented on this site. It sells supplements. Our hosts here should LOVE bulkers because eventually they need to lose weight and one thing they do well here is weight loss.
That’s not to say ‘go get fat’. My point is if you’ve been dealt the ‘fat hand’, then you have to dig deep and decide what your level of acceptance is and how does that align with your goals. Then you have to constantly reassess.
It was easy for me. I have a hot wife who loves to ride the Steely D, beautiful children, make great money, and have no need to impress women. That’s a plus for me because I don’t have to worry about poodling my abs around on the beach. I know myself. I know myself very well and am comfortable enough to not give a rat’s ass about e-Dudes and know enough that I could take the weight off. I’m doing it now. I’m doing it MY way. Not a drastic cut-- that would be counter productive. I’m doing it slow and easy, because that’s my way and I’m loving the gym, PR’s abound, losing a pound here and there. I held 260 for a year. I posted a pic of me with Joe DeAngelis this time last year. I was 260 (just weighed in that day) I’m 5 lbs lighter now but look a bit leaner (just took a round of pics this week). I believe in “recomp” if you’re working your ass off. Little adjustments to my diet here and there.
If a dumb fuck like me can do it, anyone can.
Remember: Haterz gon’ hate. You gotta OWN it. I respect that.
Look, if you’re a BB competitor, then absolutely makes sense not to make things hard on yourself. If you’re not, then do whatever is right and fuck everyone.
For years guys have gotten big (yes with some fat and smoothed abs), then dieted. It works.
Is the most efficient way? I don’t know, but it works.
Is the healthiest way? I don’t know, but it works.
Is it the best way? I don’t know but it works.
Is wrong? How can it be, it works.
A lot of the dialog here is nothing more than people arguing over the best color of mailboxes.
TL;DR - Fatboy need food.
But, seriously, waaay too much binary thinking on these boards.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
A lot of the dialog here is nothing more than people arguing over the best color of mailboxes.
[/quote]
I wish it were.
It’s more like…
“I think mailboxes should be black”
“Why would you color a mailbox?”
“Well, it has to be some color”
“No it doesn’t. I write romance novels for a living; I know these kinds of things.”
“You know, steel has color, even if you don’t paint it, right?”
“Why are you talking about knives, I thought we were talking about mailboxes”
“We were. Nobody said anything about knives.”
“Why would you paint a knife?”
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]
I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]
5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]
His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)
[/quote]
Interesting. So because I was injured and haven’t done a bench press in a decade…you thought I should have been repping with 405 when we weren’t even focusing on strength training?
Strange that you think the way you do.
Considering I didn’t get to warm up before taping ad that was literally the first rep on a bench I had done in quite a while, it is strange you find fault in that.
A truly weak person wouldn’t have been using that first the first time doing the exercise in years…again not to mention CT was using similar weight…[/quote]
You benched 405 at 23 to 25 years old?
[/quote]
I did…
This is me 2 years ago at 23. Not 405, but I could definitely press 405 at the time. I will have a video of me up next week of 405 for around 10ish reps.
And this is me 3 years ago doing 385. I;ve known a few guys in that age range can pump out 405.
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]
I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]
5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]
His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)
[/quote]
Interesting. So because I was injured and haven’t done a bench press in a decade…you thought I should have been repping with 405 when we weren’t even focusing on strength training?
Strange that you think the way you do.
Considering I didn’t get to warm up before taping ad that was literally the first rep on a bench I had done in quite a while, it is strange you find fault in that.
A truly weak person wouldn’t have been using that first the first time doing the exercise in years…again not to mention CT was using similar weight…[/quote]
You benched 405 at 23 to 25 years old?
[/quote]
I did…
This is me 2 years ago at 23. Not 405, but I could definitely press 405 at the time. I will have a video of me up next week of 405 for around 10ish reps.
And this is me 3 years ago doing 385. I;ve known a few guys in that age range can pump out 405.[/quote]
From a long limbed, narrow clavicled, awful bench presser, I mean this in the kindest way possible: Fuck you =]
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]
I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]
5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]
His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)
[/quote]
Interesting. So because I was injured and haven’t done a bench press in a decade…you thought I should have been repping with 405 when we weren’t even focusing on strength training?
Strange that you think the way you do.
Considering I didn’t get to warm up before taping ad that was literally the first rep on a bench I had done in quite a while, it is strange you find fault in that.
A truly weak person wouldn’t have been using that first the first time doing the exercise in years…again not to mention CT was using similar weight…[/quote]
You benched 405 at 23 to 25 years old?
[/quote]
I did…
This is me 2 years ago at 23. Not 405, but I could definitely press 405 at the time. I will have a video of me up next week of 405 for around 10ish reps.
And this is me 3 years ago doing 385. I;ve known a few guys in that age range can pump out 405.[/quote]
From a long limbed, narrow clavicled, awful bench presser, I mean this in the kindest way possible: Fuck you =][/quote]
Lol I have tiny narrow clavicles too…
Okay not really sorry bro. Just keep pressing you will get there!
