These numbers are products of body type. People that are made for heavy lifting. You know the 5 foot 6 240 pound blobs at the gym that put up a shitload of weight? That is to make up for the fact that the only thing they can do physically that is impressive is push a 400lb barbell 12 inches off their chest with their stubby arms.
If we are talking about people that are of normal proportions then it is a different story. Sure I can only squat 365, bench 300 and deadlift 400, at 6’3" 220, but I can yoke on that little shit at the gym that puts up 405 and will “take my legs out” if I try to dunk on him.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
caneman wrote:
Yeah, those numbers seem pretty good. As an example, I believe Arnold had 500+/500+/710. Pretty awesome to see those 3 numbers next to each other.
Arnold never, ever squatted over 500. He’s stated on a number of occasions that the best he ever got on the squat was 400 for 8 reps. [/quote]
Ha ok I shouldve taken away the +, but really i dont think it takes away from my point at all.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
harris447 wrote:
caneman wrote:
Yeah, those numbers seem pretty good. As an example, I believe Arnold had 500+/500+/710. Pretty awesome to see those 3 numbers next to each other.
Arnold never, ever squatted over 500. He’s stated on a number of occasions that the best he ever got on the squat was 400 for 8 reps.
400(likely 405) x 8 is estimated at 497 max. Who knows what his max was exactly but it was near 500 and there are pictures of him deadlifting over 700.
I might add that by todays standards his legs would be considered by many as disproportionately small in comparison to his upper body.
[/quote]
So, using your math, if someone were to squat 225 for 20, their max would be 600.
Or whatever.
The point I was trying to make is that Arnold (and many others, including people on this board) couldn’t care less about the much-vaunted 1RM.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
harris447 wrote:
caneman wrote:
Yeah, those numbers seem pretty good. As an example, I believe Arnold had 500+/500+/710. Pretty awesome to see those 3 numbers next to each other.
Arnold never, ever squatted over 500. He’s stated on a number of occasions that the best he ever got on the squat was 400 for 8 reps.
400(likely 405) x 8 is estimated at 497 max. Who knows what his max was exactly but it was near 500 and there are pictures of him deadlifting over 700.
I might add that by todays standards his legs would be considered by many as disproportionately small in comparison to his upper body.
So, using your math, if someone were to squat 225 for 20, their max would be 600.
Or whatever.
The point I was trying to make is that Arnold (and many others, including people on this board) couldn’t care less about the much-vaunted 1RM.
[/quote]
The only way to truly test one rep max is to do a one rep max. Calculators are just imperfect guidelines used to estimate intensity without constantly testing or even never testing a one rep max. That particular calculator doesn’t allow for anything over 10 reps anyhow as the higher the reps the less the accuracy.
Your point is fine but these guidelines are not about achieving a 1 rep max but achieving strength levels that allow one to build an impressive physique.
The one rep max is just a convenient way to chart strength levels. If you prefer use 225x10 on bench for intermediate etc…
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
These numbers are products of body type. People that are made for heavy lifting. You know the 5 foot 6 240 pound blobs at the gym that put up a shitload of weight? That is to make up for the fact that the only thing they can do physically that is impressive is push a 400lb barbell 12 inches off their chest with their stubby arms.
If we are talking about people that are of normal proportions then it is a different story. Sure I can only squat 365, bench 300 and deadlift 400, at 6’3" 220, but I can yoke on that little shit at the gym that puts up 405 and will “take my legs out” if I try to dunk on him.[/quote]
These are guidelines for average people aimed at developing a certain appearance. The further your height is from average the less accurate they may become. If your tall, or super strong, or a midget you will obviously need to adjust them.
Regardless of what particular genetic traits an individual may have the principle that there is a certain strength level needed to also achieve a great physique is constant. These guidelines are aimed at the non exceptions in height, strength, etc…
I like the use of general strength guidelines for the pursuit of physique goals. I have a couple questions, though.
When you say fitness models tend to be about 165#, how tall are the people you are referring to?
Also, when you say these are for people of average height, are you referring to the average American male height of 5’9" (I think), or some other number?
[quote]blooey wrote:
I like the use of general strength guidelines for the pursuit of physique goals. I have a couple questions, though.
When you say fitness models tend to be about 165#, how tall are the people you are referring to?
Also, when you say these are for people of average height, are you referring to the average American male height of 5’9" (I think), or some other number?[/quote]
I said that based on some things I saw in Men’s Health a few years ago.
They profiled 4 male fitness models.
One was 220 former college fullback and was built like a truck.
I think the other three guys were in the 165 to 180 pound rand and went from maybe 5’9" to 6’.
They are incredibly lean but not very heavy. That is why I expressed sketicism that they were putting up such good numbers in the weight room.
[quote]blooey wrote:
I like the use of general strength guidelines for the pursuit of physique goals. I have a couple questions, though.
When you say fitness models tend to be about 165#, how tall are the people you are referring to?
Also, when you say these are for people of average height, are you referring to the average American male height of 5’9" (I think), or some other number?[/quote]
This chart shows the average height of white men in America at the age of 25 is 5’10" and about 50% are between 5’8" and 6’ and about 80% are between 5’7" and 6’2". Plus or minus 2 inches of 5’10" is average.
Just to lay it to rest my idea of a fitness model is on the taller end of average or above average height. 5’10" to 6’2" and 175 to 205 lbs and very lean. Similar to the build of a sprinter that I also listed as an example.
If your 5’5" or 6’5" these benchmarks will be skewed and you’ll never look like a sprinter but shouldn’t that be obvious enough?
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
I’d like to add some more levels to that, since most people never make a 500lb deadlift as an intermediate. Give them some other goals to reach.
Newb… Unable to perform all of the 3 lifts at the Beginner I Level.
These totals should help some of you “Newbs” progress up through the ranks and give you something to shoot for.
You don’t go from deadlfiting 185 to 500, without some kind of advancement.
[/quote]
Nice additions.
Quite a few thought the intermediate was a bit too high so they might feel better useing the beginner level III for an intermediate benchmark.
I think the term intermediate kind of distorted that the intermediate level was the first of the three potential end goal strength levels for an impressive physique.
To add to the idea:
Intermediate level:
Diet down and work on your weaknesses and you could enter a local physique contest and maybe place well but probably not win.
Advanced:
Diet down and enter a local contest and you might win and you may even place or win at a larger contest.
Elite:
Enter a pro contest in great shape and you may well win or get a supplement contract!!!
IMO, you can’t realistically pull some numbers out of your ass and say this should be your goal. There are too many variables. Your goal should be 10 pounds more than you can do now, when you reach that your goal goes up 10 pounds. The point is your weight training goals should depend on your overall goals and be based on beating yourself.
[quote]reddkell wrote:
IMO, you can’t realistically pull some numbers out of your ass and say this should be your goal. There are too many variables.
[/quote]
I challenge your opinion.
Create a bell curve graph of professional bodybuilders and I can assure you the majority will be in the advanced and elite strength range for similar lifts. I could also bet that the majority would be between 5’8" and 6’ etc… This is realistic.
Using guidelines, averages, odds, and statistics is not the same as being a narrow minded bigot, “pulling numbers out of my ass”, that doesn’t know that individual variables will always create exceptions and should be factored for making INDIVIDUAL guidelines and goals.
[quote]reddkell wrote:
Your goal should be 10 pounds more than you can do now, when you reach that your goal goes up 10 pounds. The point is your weight training goals should depend on your overall goals and be based on beating yourself.
[/quote]
Having long term goals and guidelines is a damn helpful tool for many people. No one is saying this is a replacement for short term progressive resistance goal setting. A hell of a lot of trainees train to be better than other people as well as their self. This is a post for people that want weight training goals to help them achieve an impressive physique not just “Beat themself”.
I like the graph idea and level indicator Helio. I would like to create one of my own and have it a little broader. Something more progressive so that is shows coming up through different strength levels. Probably about 9 or 10 levels of progress from the newby to the elite athlete. I just threw some quick numbers in there for those divided beginner levels to show what it might look like coming up through the ranks and trying to get those 300, 400, and 500 lb lifts. I could probably make a pretty accurate grid. I wish that other link would have had max’s on it instead of 5’s. I think alot of newbs would progress much further in smaller increments if a decent grid was made and gave them something to shoot for. a good way to enjoy the ride so to speak. Anyone could basicly make one for yourself based on your goals and how long you want to take to achieve them. But, an overall template wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Great link. Great opening explaination and the graph is very detailed and has 5 rep max instead of 1. The end goals for the advanced and intermediate segments are extremely close to my original numbers for intermediate and advanced but a small percentage lower on some lifts. This is great since I posted the numbers with end goals in mind.
No elite or bad ass level but this makes sense. Genetics won’t prevent most from reaching an intermediate or advanced level but elite is very rare for a reason.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
I think alot of newbs would progress much further in smaller increments if a decent grid was made and gave them something to shoot for. a good way to enjoy the ride so to speak. Anyone could basicly make one for yourself based on your goals and how long you want to take to achieve them. But, an overall template wouldn’t be a bad idea.[/quote]
I agree that a more detailed template as a foundation for charting progress would be a great tool for beginners.
My original post was about giving some pretty good and simplistic end goal benchmarks starting with the intermediate. Adding increments and beginner levels are definitely improvements.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
I think alot of newbs would progress much further in smaller increments if a decent grid was made and gave them something to shoot for. a good way to enjoy the ride so to speak. Anyone could basicly make one for yourself based on your goals and how long you want to take to achieve them. But, an overall template wouldn’t be a bad idea.
I agree that a more detailed template as a foundation for charting progress would be a great tool for beginners.
My original post was about giving some pretty good and simplistic end goal benchmarks starting with the intermediate. Adding increments and beginner levels are definitely improvements.
[/quote]
Yeah, I think I will make my own level of progressive achievment as how I see it. there are alot of stages of progression along the way from newby to beginner. I agree with vroom, he not really wrong with not wanting to call him self a beginner… he’s over there in the “Brotherhood of Iron” thread pulling 450lb deads with A.A. thats been at this for a long time. I understand the 3 classes though. My template will have about 9 classes or so. vroom would probably be about half way through it pulling around 450-495 is were he’s at now… that’s pretty far along and takes a while to get there.
The 500,600, & 700 are obviously advanced and near the end of elite status. But, I definitly don’t think you need to pull 500 to be considered intermidiate and still a beginner because you’re pulling 400 and maybe benching 325 is not a beginner. And, those numbers need to be critiqued around a little bit… such as 3,4,5. I know I was way ahead on that bench total before getting to dead and squat totals caught up. Arnolds 3’s of 500,500,700 is pretty elite. Those numbers should probably be closer to the 300, 350, 450 range or the 300, 300, 400 range. Depends on the individual too. My bench is my strongest with my squat being the weakest and my dead about just right.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Yeah, I think I will make my own level of progressive achievment as how I see it. there are alot of stages of progression along the way from newby to beginner. I agree with vroom, he not really wrong with not wanting to call him self a beginner… he’s over there in the “Brotherhood of Iron” thread pulling 450lb deads with A.A. thats been at this for a long time. I understand the 3 classes though. My template will have about 9 classes or so. vroom would probably be about half way through it pulling around 450-495 is were he’s at now… that’s pretty far along and takes a while to get there.
The 500,600, & 700 are obviously advanced and near the end of elite status. But, I definitly don’t think you need to pull 500 to be considered intermidiate and still a beginner because you’re pulling 400 and maybe benching 325 is not a beginner. And, those numbers need to be critiqued around a little bit… such as 3,4,5. I know I was way ahead on that bench total before getting to dead and squat totals caught up. Arnolds 3’s of 500,500,700 is pretty elite. Those numbers should probably be closer to the 300, 350, 450 range or the 300, 300, 400 range. Depends on the individual too. My bench is my strongest with my squat being the weakest and my dead about just right.
[/quote]
Good post. I bet I will like your template a lot.
I never really intended for it to seem like you are a beginner if you don’t meet some very specific strength level.
I think of guidelines in terms of bell curves. There is no hard line where beginners magically become intermediates or intermediates suddenly become advanced. Its a gradual climb and levels overlap.
The intermediate level I posted was intended to be on the high end of intermediate, pushing into advanced and solidly removed from beginner. If your approching those numbers your most likely intermediate if your beyond them your moving into advanced.
O.K. Helio I came up with a template that everyone could use to benchmark their progress. Everyone from the newby in his first workout to guys that are trying to make it on the Olympia stage one day.
Here goes…
[All lifts are your 1 rep max]
B= Bench Press
S= Squat
D= Deadlift
“Beginner Level”
Level I - “Newby”, train to accomplish those Level II benchmarks for strength.
[quote]Jimfound wrote:
I like the simplicity of the original post. It makes the goal for beginners/intermediates very clear. It sets these goals up in a solid way and I would think (hope) would help do away with the common pitfall so many beginners have - being to wrapped up in the details.[/quote]
When I started, 300/400/500 was my goal instinctively. So I also agree.