[quote]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.
And Larry Allen has benched 700 lbs raw. Was it competition pretty and technically perfect? No, but who the hell cares? It was 700 friggin’ lbs![/quote]
No disrespect; that’s F’N funny! “Competition pretty and technically perfect”? You haven’t seen many big attempts at powerlifting contests have you? Not many of the record lifts are either pretty or perfect - I think the judges start looking the other way when the weights get high. And yes, I’m a powerlifter and I’m saying this. The different federations, equipment, rules, drugs, etc., make the numbers and relative accomplishments meaningless.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.
[/quote]
It isn’t bullshit. Will you now follow this with several posts of, “yes it is” and “no it isn’t”? Keeping that weight within the portion of the exercise where the pecs receive the greatest force is not “easier” than locking out.
I just got done reading the entire thread and I can’t believe some of you are implying that those partials are harder than a full rep. So, for all you guys with those doubts, I have a little homework assignment for ya; Go home tonite and take 185 or 255 - whatever suits you best and bang out as many FUll reps as you can. Next week, do your partials and BEAT the previous week max - oops, I told you the result - no fair…LOL.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
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?
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]
Of course I’m not kidding. It’s just that I believe in the old adage “if you’re going to do something, do it right” ie, if they are having a contest of who can bench press teh most repetitions or most weight, or whatever, do it right. I dont care if it’s “random,” (whatever that means) I dont care if they are bodybuilders, or tennis players or whatever, and i don’t care if it’s done at a bodybuilding competition or halftime of a football game. No peril, just do it right.
The central point (to me) is that this was a competition, and it was done on a stage, with an audience. If this was a bodybuilder doing it in the warm up room to get a pump and he hadn’t realized that people would be viewing it, then I would say, “who cares how he’s doing it?” But that’s not the case.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just got done reading the entire thread and I can’t believe some of you are implying that those partials are harder than a full rep. So, for all you guys with those doubts, I have a little homework assignment for ya; Go home tonite and take 185 or 255 - whatever suits you best and bang out as many FUll reps as you can. Next week, do your partials and BEAT the previous week max - oops, I told you the result - no fair…LOL.[/quote]
There is HUGE difference between not locking out and “partial reps”. You need to learn the difference. Many of these pro’s use “partial reps” and the concept is not the same.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]
Why even mention powerlifting?..as that video has absoulutely no realation to powerlifting. It wasnt Olympic lifting either.
It should have read, “So and So did 46 partial bench reps.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.
It isn’t bullshit. Will you now follow this with several posts of, “yes it is” and “no it isn’t”? Keeping that weight within the portion of the exercise where the pecs receive the greatest force is not “easier” than locking out.
[/quote]
No, anyone who has been in the gym and done both knows it is easier to perform quick reps “inside the bounce from the chest” rather than locking them out. I do this every other week with 225 as a repetition method burnout. It is easier.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Kuz wrote:
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?
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.
Of course I’m not kidding. It’s just that I believe in the old adage “if you’re going to do something, do it right” ie, if they are having a contest of who can bench press teh most repetitions or most weight, or whatever, do it right. I dont care if it’s “random,” (whatever that means) I dont care if they are bodybuilders, or tennis players or whatever, and i don’t care if it’s done at a bodybuilding competition or halftime of a football game. No peril, just do it right.
The central point (to me) is that this was a competition, and it was done on a stage, with an audience. If this was a bodybuilder doing it in the warm up room to get a pump and he hadn’t realized that people would be viewing it, then I would say, “who cares how he’s doing it?” But that’s not the case.
[/quote]
I suggest you stage a protest. If I were you, I would write several letters to the Mr. Olympia promoters and inform them of your disgust. You may also want to march on the White House.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just got done reading the entire thread and I can’t believe some of you are implying that those partials are harder than a full rep. So, for all you guys with those doubts, I have a little homework assignment for ya; Go home tonite and take 185 or 255 - whatever suits you best and bang out as many FUll reps as you can. Next week, do your partials and BEAT the previous week max - oops, I told you the result - no fair…LOL.
There is HUGE difference between not locking out and “partial reps”. You need to learn the difference. Many of these pro’s use “partial reps” and the concept is not the same.[/quote]
Let’s stay within the context of the thread; I’m sure you have a point - you always do - but I rather stick with the context of THIS thread. Those reps, as shown on THAT video, are easier than full reps. PERIOD.
[quote]Viking69 wrote:
No, anyone who has been in the gym and done both knows it is easier to perform quick reps “inside the bounce from the chest” rather than locking them out. I do this every other week with 225 as a repetition method burnout. It is easier.
[/quote]
[quote]Viking69 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.
It isn’t bullshit. Will you now follow this with several posts of, “yes it is” and “no it isn’t”? Keeping that weight within the portion of the exercise where the pecs receive the greatest force is not “easier” than locking out.
No, anyone who has been in the gym and done both knows it is easier to perform quick reps “inside the bounce from the chest” rather than locking them out. I do this every other week with 225 as a repetition method burnout. It is easier.
[/quote]
Thank you! But I sense the Good Prof has some esoteric point that he insists upon clinging to in order not to agree. I think it goes…keeping the tension on the pecs (first mistake - he is assuming that all the tension was on the pecs - I find no such evidence) is harder than locking out (another fallacy - try partials at the lockout in that bouncing manner and see what dies harder - maybe not faster, but “harder”…the tris or the pecs). In my opinion, his “point” - if I correctly interpreted it - is unrelated to what we’re all debating. If you doubt it - see my little homework assignment - do it - and report back.
Not locking out like he did is hard as hell. It keeps constant tension on the muscles and exhausts them quicker IMO than full ROM.
Have any of you ever seen the world-record push-up guys? Now that is unimpressive. They literally bounce up and down about 1-2" from full extension as fast as possible. They don’t come close to doing even a 1/4 rep!!! I watched it on Regis and Kelly one day. Using the form they used I got like 120 in a minute. I can only do about 45 strict full ROM push-ups.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Viking69 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.
It isn’t bullshit. Will you now follow this with several posts of, “yes it is” and “no it isn’t”? Keeping that weight within the portion of the exercise where the pecs receive the greatest force is not “easier” than locking out.
No, anyone who has been in the gym and done both knows it is easier to perform quick reps “inside the bounce from the chest” rather than locking them out. I do this every other week with 225 as a repetition method burnout. It is easier.
Thank you! But I sense the Good Prof has some esoteric point that he insists upon clinging to in order not to agree. I think it goes…keeping the tension on the pecs (first mistake - he is assuming that all the tension was on the pecs - I find no such evidence) is harder than locking out (another fallacy - try partials at the lockout in that bouncing manner and see what dies harder - maybe not faster, but “harder”…the tris or the pecs). In my opinion, his “point” - if I correctly interpreted it - is unrelated to what we’re all debating. If you doubt it - see my little homework assignment - do it - and report back.
[/quote]
Esoteric point? In that video, his chest is receiving the majority of the force, not his triceps. His hands would have to have a closer grip for his triceps to take over the movement. Lifting that way is keeping your chest under tension the entire time, unlike many other movements where the bottom or top of the movement may be rest points. Anyone who has done a preacher curl knows that the very top of the movement is a rest point. The force is not directly on the biceps even though your biceps muscle is still flexed. If you were to remove that top portion and keep the preacher curl within the part of the exercise that keeps the force on the muscle, the biceps will tire much faster. That is simple truth. Locking out during a benchpress is a rest position. To say otherwise is to give false information.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
Kuz wrote:
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?
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.
Of course I’m not kidding. It’s just that I believe in the old adage “if you’re going to do something, do it right” ie, if they are having a contest of who can bench press teh most repetitions or most weight, or whatever, do it right. I dont care if it’s “random,” (whatever that means) I dont care if they are bodybuilders, or tennis players or whatever, and i don’t care if it’s done at a bodybuilding competition or halftime of a football game. No peril, just do it right.
The central point (to me) is that this was a competition, and it was done on a stage, with an audience. If this was a bodybuilder doing it in the warm up room to get a pump and he hadn’t realized that people would be viewing it, then I would say, “who cares how he’s doing it?” But that’s not the case.
I suggest you stage a protest. If I were you, I would write several letters to the Mr. Olympia promoters and inform them of your disgust. You may also want to march on the White House. [/quote]
Okay, this is not rocket surgery. The reason why people are complaining is that to express a strength feat, there has to be an objective measure of what is occurring. This is why these “reps” can’t be compared to anybody else’s “reps”, as they are performed to different standards. This should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Does this mean he is doing a “bad” thing by doing these reps? No, of course not. It was a show, and he was entertaining. He has entertained us as well, as we’re sitting here talking about it.
Now, as to what is “harder”, that is of course going to be different for each individual, but let me present a couple of reasons why what he did is easier for most people to achieve reps with. The first and foremost is that due to the energy systems being used for this kind of test, most people cannot do reps with weight in this range of their 1RM for longer than 40 seconds, whether they hit 20 or 50 reps. Go back and check the video…he dies just after 40 seconds into it. If you cut the amount of time needed for a rep in half by using a shorter ROM, guess what, you can get more reps in that 40 seconds.
Also, has anybody in here done a rep test with a lighter weight like this? I have, and I lock out each rep (only because I train to bench under certain conditions that require locked out benches), and for me, the first things to go are my triceps. The lockout becomes the most difficult portion of a rep test for me, even though it’s the easiest mechanical position to push through. So cutting this portion out would help a lot, though possibly not all who try this.
Another issue is that he stops right at the weak point of the bench - that transition from chest to more shoulders and triceps. I would bet this guy’s supramaximal attempts would stop right about where he’s stopping these reps. Not going through the weakest part of the bench is saving him a lot of energy. I buy that there could be more fatigue on the pecs this way, but personally, that wouldn’t be a problem for me, though perhaps my pecs are better than most people’s.
That all being said, non-complete reps (whether they are partials or just not locked out) are an effective mean of training for both powerlifting and bodybuilding if used properly. However, there is no real objective way to compare partial rep performances among individuals.
[quote]RickJames wrote:
Also, has anybody in here done a rep test with a lighter weight like this? I have, and I lock out each rep (only because I train to bench under certain conditions that require locked out benches), and for me, the first things to go are my triceps. The lockout becomes the most difficult portion of a rep test for me, even though it’s the easiest mechanical position to push through. So cutting this portion out would help a lot, though possibly not all who try this.[/quote]
At least someone is willing to discuss the physics of it. The reason locking out would tire your triceps first, is because they are required more to finish that movement. Someone with the goal of putting the most focus on their chest alone would not want their triceps to become fatigued while training chest. That means that someone wishing to put the most focus on their chest and the least focus on their triceps would do what?
Powerlifting is about moving a weight, period. bodybuilding is about building up specific muscle groups. A bodybuilder’s focus during a benchpress is therefore on BUILDING THE CHEST, not just getting the weight up. That means he would not want his triceps to take over the movement if his goal is CHEST DEVELOPMENT.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just got done reading the entire thread and I can’t believe some of you are implying that those partials are harder than a full rep. So, for all you guys with those doubts, I have a little homework assignment for ya; Go home tonite and take 185 or 255 - whatever suits you best and bang out as many FUll reps as you can. Next week, do your partials and BEAT the previous week max - oops, I told you the result - no fair…LOL.[/quote]
No you didn’t since you have clearly never tried to do it yourself. Go for it. Get back to us.
I beilive that it all depends on how you train. Back when I powerlifted, I always locked out 100% of my reps. Now that I bodybuild, I rarely do. But now a days, as a “weaker” bodybuilder, I can get more partial reps than I could when I powerlifted. But I can’t come close to what I maxed out at, with full lockout. What I’m trying to get at is that you are only as good as how you train. Full lockouts feel weird to me now and I coulden’t get up as much as I could when I trained for it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
RickJames wrote:
Also, has anybody in here done a rep test with a lighter weight like this? I have, and I lock out each rep (only because I train to bench under certain conditions that require locked out benches), and for me, the first things to go are my triceps. The lockout becomes the most difficult portion of a rep test for me, even though it’s the easiest mechanical position to push through. So cutting this portion out would help a lot, though possibly not all who try this.
At least someone is willing to discuss the physics of it. The reason locking out would tire your triceps first, is because they are required more to finish that movement. Someone with the goal of putting the most focus on their chest alone would not want their triceps to become fatigued while training chest. That means that someone wishing to put the most focus on their chest and the least focus on their triceps would do what?
Powerlifting is about moving a weight, period. bodybuilding is about building up specific muscle groups. A bodybuilder’s focus during a benchpress is therefore on BUILDING THE CHEST, not just getting the weight up. That means he would not want his triceps to take over the movement if his goal is CHEST DEVELOPMENT. [/quote]
X, from reading your posts, it seems you were saying that it was harder doing it without lockout. Do you think he was deliberately shortchanging his rep total by doing it the harder way so that he could get his swoll on in the middle of a rep contest?