[quote]Professor X wrote:
Kuz wrote:
I’m confused here. People are talking about this like it was somehow “easy”. Anyone ever try to do a bunch of bench without lockout? It’s hard as hell.
I guess some thought it was easier to do them that way. [/quote]
Huh. Not sure how almost completely removing your triceps from the equation makes it easier. Good times.
Anyone who thought this easy should actually try 225 without lockout and get back to us on how much of a breeze it is…
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m not saying that I could do anywhere close to what he did.
But to me, saying that “some dude did 46 reps at 225” is a bit misleading, seeing as how he did such a slight range of motion. Still impressive, just a bit misleading.
Like saying I can squat 400 lbs 40 times, when all I’m doing is a 1/4 squat.[/quote]
Except it would be like doing a squat where your range of motion [i]starts[/i] from the bottom and you only go up partway before dropping again… as opposed to starting from the top and dropping a few inches.
In terms of etaco’s point, I see what you mean by TUT being reduced, but given that the ROM is so tough at that lower portion and it is kept that… isn’t that tougher in the end even if the TUT for the total rep is less?
[quote]Kuz wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m not saying that I could do anywhere close to what he did.
But to me, saying that “some dude did 46 reps at 225” is a bit misleading, seeing as how he did such a slight range of motion. Still impressive, just a bit misleading.
Like saying I can squat 400 lbs 40 times, when all I’m doing is a 1/4 squat.
Except it would be like doing a squat where your range of motion is [i]starts[/i] from the bottom and you only go up partway before dropping again… as opposed to starting from the top and dropping a few inches.
In terms of etaco’s point, I see what you mean by TUT being reduced, but given that the ROM is so tough at that lower portion and it is kept that… isn’t that tougher in the end even if the TUT for the total rep is less?[/quote]
Good point, about the squat thing.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m not saying that I could do anywhere close to what he did.
But to me, saying that “some dude did 46 reps at 225” is a bit misleading, seeing as how he did such a slight range of motion. Still impressive, just a bit misleading.
Like saying I can squat 400 lbs 40 times, when all I’m doing is a 1/4 squat.[/quote]
No its not. Its like saying I can squat 400 times ass to grass I just don’t come all the way up to the top. you tell me what the hardest part of the squat is.
The guy kep the muscle under tension the whole time. Not allowing joint lock out prevents the muscle from being able to relax.
Question - X, since you train in the same manner as the lifter in the video, from your experience do you think that if he locked out all of his reps, he could still have achieved 46?
I’m curious since I have never done my bench reps like that.
[quote]Kir Dog wrote:
Question - X, since you train in the same manner as the lifter in the video, from your experience do you think that if he locked out all of his reps, he could still have achieved 46?
I’m curious since I have never done my bench reps like that.[/quote]
I could care less how many he could do. You would have to have him actually do it. The fact that he even got anywhere near that number with 225lbs is impressive regardless of whether he locked out or not. What difference does it make if he locked out and got 39 reps instead?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
TriGWU wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m not saying that I could do anywhere close to what he did.
But to me, saying that “some dude did 46 reps at 225” is a bit misleading, seeing as how he did such a slight range of motion. Still impressive, just a bit misleading.
Like saying I can squat 400 lbs 40 times, when all I’m doing is a 1/4 squat.
No its not. Its like saying I can squat 400 times ass to grass I just don’t come all the way up to the top. you tell me what the hardest part of the squat is.
The guy kep the muscle under tension the whole time. Not allowing joint lock out prevents the muscle from being able to relax.
I’m not nitpicking here, as I think 46 reps is 46 reps, partial or not. However, I’ve never felt my chest relax when I’m in a lockout position on the bench. On the contrary, they are firing like hell!
[/quote]
No, they are flexed like hell. They are NOT under tension at the top of the movement. You just don’t stop long enough to release the contraction. Simply because they are flexed does not mean they are under tension from the weight used. I mean, the physics don’t lie.
My bad, didn’t mean to start a big debate. I just thought it was pretty impressive because it’s more than i’ll ever do full range of motion or not.
soooo, the douchebags i see at most commercial fitness centers i have had to train at doing partial reps in the squat and bench by only going halfway down to the chest or halfway to parallel are actually doing the exercise the HARD way? haha!
on the other hand, on my crossfit thread over in the over 35 lifter forum, the guy with the HYOOGE upperbody i was talking about did his bench reps the same way this guy did. hmmm…
BTW, just to be an ass, i will point out that it was a “bench press contest”, so for all the people whining about how the partial reps “really gun those pecs bra” maybe they should have had a pec dec rep contest or a dumbbell fly contest, haha…
ugh, now i started, i cant stop…
anybody here remember Jeff mcgruder(sp?),
back in the early 90’s he was one of the few people back then before bench shirts got out of control that could bench over 600, i think he was a 242 or 275, i read in PL USA that at an exhibition he did 315 40 something times, holey shit! the guy reporting this (cant remember his name, herb something or other) was famous or infamous about being very critical of poor/lax judging at pl meets, so i assume(perhaps wrongly though i admit) that they were “real” reps, whatever that means at an “exhibition”.
The world record for lifting own bodyweight for reps is 104kg (228lbs) for 106 or 107 reps…! which i think is quite impressive… 
[quote]Professor X wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I’d rather have Phil Heath’s chest than that of the douchebag who got crushed under the thousand pounds at the Olympia.
LOL. I want to see the people here who are so proud of their range of motion that have surpassed his development regardless of your numbers. This is where you seperate bodybuilding from powerlifting.
To tell Ronnie Coleman he is training “wrong” when it wins him several Mr. Olympia contests simply because his technique wouldn’t win a powerlifting meet is retarded.[/quote]
I wouldn’t consider it wrong but a different technique not to be used ALL THE TIME in your training. I on the other hand have always used full range of motion because that’s how i was taught 10 years ago. I guess old habits die hard…
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
The world record for lifting own bodyweight for reps is 104kg (228lbs) for 106 or 107 reps…! which i think is quite impressive… [/quote]
Yikes. That’s like half way to it being just an aerobic exercise.
Every newbie should be taught full range of motion. I never changed my technique until I had gained a lot more muscle mass. My chest is 53". I still come down low enough to get a stretch in my pecs, however, the point that I need to come down has changed as my chest has grown. I no longer (if doing a barbell bench) would need to touch my chest with the bar.
I mention this a lot so it surprises me when I need to constantly write it over and over and over that I believe the way an advanced trainer can train to see progress is much different than a newbie would or someone who isn’t carrying larger amounts of muscle mass. Phile Heath competes at about 215lbs ripped to shreds. I think he is only about 5’10" so it isn’t like the guy is small.
Bottom line, don’t look at advanced trainers and assume everyone should train like that. Also, don’t look at advanced trainers who are succeeding and assume they are training wrong if it gets them results.
To the guy that wrote some quip about the people at his gym, most of the average trainers at most gyms don’t know what they are doing to begin with. No one is talking about what a newbie should be doing. We are talking about the difference between those who are new to training and those who clearly are carrying well above the average in terms of muscle mass.
It was just a silly tv show. It’s not like if the reps aren’t correct, a puppy would be killed or cancer would forge ahead.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
It was just a silly tv show. It’s not like if the reps aren’t correct, a puppy would be killed or cancer would forge ahead.[/quote]
It was done at the last Olympia contest as one of the “side events”. It wasn’t ever meant to be a legit powerlifting contest.
Everyone who’s saying “well who cares, look at his upperbody, it’s hyooge” - well hell, that’s great, for a bodybuilding comp. Because in a bodybuilding comp nobody cares how you train, whether it’s heavy weight and cheating, light weight with superslow, superstrict form or somewhere in between.
BUT this wasnt a bodybuilding comp, it was a bench rep comp. Every bodybuilder whose interview I’ve ever read has said “I dont know what my max bench is and I dont care.” And I absolutely believe them, 100%, it’s not part of their training goals. But then don’t put a performance based video up on the web and expect people not to call you out on the fact that not one of those was legit. If you don’t have objective parameters, what’s to stop the next guy from doing 3" less range of motion (as the second or third poster on this thread suggested) in order to get 10 more?
Bottom line, my point is that if you are competing in an aestethic competition and your appearance is what you’re worried about, that’s great for you. I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm; I think more people ought to compete in something, whatever their competition of choice. But don’t then post a performance video of a different type of competition and respond to criticisms by saying “Well, it doesn’t matter, that’s not my sport anyway,” because if that’s the case then you never should’ve posted it.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
BUT this wasnt a bodybuilding comp, it was a bench rep comp. Every bodybuilder whose interview I’ve ever read has said “I dont know what my max bench is and I dont care.” And I absolutely believe them, 100%, it’s not part of their training goals. But then don’t put a performance based video up on the web and expect people not to call you out on the fact that not one of those was legit. If you don’t have objective parameters, what’s to stop the next guy from doing 3" less range of motion (as the second or third poster on this thread suggested) in order to get 10 more?
[/quote]
You’re kidding, right? It was just some random bench press “competition” of bodybuilders at a bodybuilding contest. You make it seem as if all notions of right and wrong are in dreadful peril because there was no objective criteria for determining a full rep.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Kir Dog wrote:
True true X, I hear exactly what you’re saying. Partial reps are cool and all for different goals and attaining new muscle. This guy wasn’t doing anything productive here. Why half rep for 46 reps? If he’s tying to stimulate growth then why not throw on 365/405 for 15-20?
I’m still impressed that anyone can halp rep 225 for anything over 30 reps. Most people, including myself think that the 225 for reps thing is a total waste of training effort and energy that could be used more efficiently.
My thoughts, even though this wasn’t a legit competition, it was still a competition, and in competition you should lock out, go parallel, not cheat etc.
For the record, my best 225 reps are 14. I just want to run faster, I’ll sacrifice some reps for some seconds.
They ALL did 225lbs. They didn’t choose what they were going to do, and like was said, I doubt any of them even knew they would be doing this before they got there. Nasser El Sonbatty went first and only did like 10-15 reps. I have no doubt he can do more but he did all of his SUPERSLOW.
Obviously this wasn’t a real contest. They were all wearing the clothes they wore to the event.
Bottom line, this guy is strong as hell and most of the people criticizing because of form couldn’t do half of the number he did even if they did them the same as he did. Not locking out doesn’t mean you work LESS hard. Locking out is a rest position. That means doing them like he did actually puts MORE stress on the pectorals.[/quote]
Uh, BULLSHIT on that one. I can’t believe I wasted my time watching that video; but anyway, are you actually attempting to argue that those half reps are HARDER than full reps? LOL. All other things you have written considered, I agree with you. It wasn’t a contest, partial reps can build muscle/strength, etc. But you crossed the line when you intimated that that bullshit was harder than full reps.