oh fuck seems like this tread is headed right for a cluster fuck
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Iām pretty sure most people that can squat 200% bw donāt need to tell people they lift. [/quote]
You are ASSuming quite a bit, and are very very wrong.
What about pulls? Does a 2xBW pull make you look like you lift in a Tee Shirt?
That is the whole fucking point. SOme arbitrary lift number does not = looks like a jacked up beast. It doesnāt work that way. Sorry, but real life isnāt an article on the internet.
[/quote]
LOL again.
I think itās you who is assuming here dude.
My own personal experience tells me, focussing on the heavy shit, works better (especially from a beginnerās POV) than typical bber rep ranges.
Also,Iād say, Iāve seen a helluva lot more guys that seem to lack much in the way of size who tend to train with typical bber type rep ranges than I have dudes that can lack lift a shit ton of weight that look like non-lifters.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Iām pretty sure most people that can squat 200% bw donāt need to tell people they lift. [/quote]
You are ASSuming quite a bit, and are very very wrong.
What about pulls? Does a 2xBW pull make you look like you lift in a Tee Shirt?
That is the whole fucking point. SOme arbitrary lift number does not = looks like a jacked up beast. It doesnāt work that way. Sorry, but real life isnāt an article on the internet.
[/quote]
LOL again.
I think itās you who is assuming here dude.
My own personal experience tells me, focussing on the heavy shit, works better (especially from a beginnerās POV) than typical bber rep ranges.
Also,Iād say, Iāve seen a helluva lot more guys that seem to lack much in the way of size who tend to train with typical bber type rep ranges than I have dudes that can lack lift a shit ton of weight that look like non-lifters.[/quote]
What the fuck am I possibly assuming? Iām the one saying that their are many other factors at play that determine what someone looks like beyond their fucking total. You are the one claiming a 2xBW squat makes someone look a certain way.
Iām sorry, but in real life, a personās look, and physique is not determined on how much weight they move on any one particular lift. Does it play a role? Sure, but it is not, nor has it ever been the sole determining factor.
And for your second point. Iāve seen a million people āsquatā at teh gym and still look and act like pussies. The general gym population has never, nor ever will be, a good model to base shit off of. Most people are pussies going through the motions and will quit. Stop using people who donāt try as examples.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
My own personal experience tells me, focussing on the heavy shit, works better (especially from a beginnerās POV) than typical bber rep ranges.
[/quote]
What do you consider bodybuilder rep ranges?
Because that ^ is a stigma that never seems to go away (ābodybuilders just get a pump and thatās itā)
Show me a bodybuilder whoās only ever done one range?
I think its good to work more on strength initially because it helps with the overall foundation and then when you do move to higher rep ranges later on youl be using a helluva lot more weight on them then people that never worked in lower rep ranges and I think it can lead to more muscle in the long road via a higher overal overload of the muscles.
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
I think its good to work more on strength [/quote]
No one is saying anything different than that, at all.
That isnāt what people are going back and forth about. And if people think Iām arguing against THAT, then I donāt know what to tell them, because Iām not, nor have I ever said donāt get stronger.
This thread is great. Arguing over someoneās undetermined recovery capabilities. Arguing in circles. Sad to think that all this usage (however minor) of brainpower could have actually been put to some practical use.
exits quietly
SQUATS AND MILK!
FYI OP:
If youāre still reading this- Donāt take advice from T-Nation. Lol.
Just my 2 cents: I followed SS 5X5 to the t. No added curls for the girls or anything. It brought my strength levels up considerablyā¦ That being said, I didnāt get much bigger. Itās a strenght program, and it did just that. And Iām fine with that because I was tired of weak lifts. Now Iām working on size. I would recommend it to any beginner, just so you can get a baseline of strength. It sucks to start with empty bars though. But months down the road you can look back and say, wow, I canāt believe I started with nothing, look at me now.
to op- lift heavier, eat more. if this doesnt work maybe theres something wrong with your body. in one of the posts it quoted you as taking a month off cuz u āearned itā. well if taking time off is a reward for you, then maybe you should pick a different hobby/interest. maybe you would like zumba?
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
Just my 2 cents: I followed SS 5X5 to the t. No added curls for the girls or anything. It brought my strength levels up considerablyā¦ That being said, I didnāt get much bigger. Itās a strenght program, and it did just that. And Iām fine with that because I was tired of weak lifts. Now Iām working on size. I would recommend it to any beginner, just so you can get a baseline of strength. It sucks to start with empty bars though. But months down the road you can look back and say, wow, I canāt believe I started with nothing, look at me now.[/quote]
Do you think you werenāt eating enough?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
I think its good to work more on strength [/quote]
No one is saying anything different than that, at all.
That isnāt what people are going back and forth about. And if people think Iām arguing against THAT, then I donāt know what to tell them, because Iām not, nor have I ever said donāt get stronger.
[/quote]
I didnt read the thread I just put what I found. Ive seen your workouts in the BOI my friend I know you lift heavy
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
One thing i never understood is,
why are only the big three the measurements of strength?
Since the OP wants to get big everywhere, shouldnāt he be strong everywhere?
Shouldnāt he be trying to get to 50lb lateral raises, 80lbs curls AND 700lbs squats, not one or the other?
When people say you need to get stronger they almost always mean on the big 3+rows, overhead press and chin ups
But if big biceps were the goal, wouldnāt getting stronger on curls make more sense than focusing on a bigger squat?
While I overall agree with Mike the Bear, isolations should be done as they donāt tax the body as much and are easy to recover from. A few sets of curls isnāt gonna break anyone( with exceptions).
[/quote]
noā¦
Gotta consider hormonal response.
The previous example of someone pulling 500 with 14āā arms, just aināt gonna happen.
Lifts with the largest hormonal response:
Squats,
Deads,
pullupsā¦
There is a maxim floating around T-Nation.
If you want big arms, SQUAT.
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
Just my 2 cents: I followed SS 5X5 to the t. No added curls for the girls or anything. It brought my strength levels up considerablyā¦ That being said, I didnāt get much bigger. Itās a strenght program, and it did just that. And Iām fine with that because I was tired of weak lifts. Now Iām working on size. I would recommend it to any beginner, just so you can get a baseline of strength. It sucks to start with empty bars though. But months down the road you can look back and say, wow, I canāt believe I started with nothing, look at me now.[/quote]
Do you think you werenāt eating enough?[/quote]
Itās very possible. At the time I started that program, I had just started Fire Academy, and discovered ācleanā eating: at least 2 meals that consisted of 1 can of tuna and vegetables, sometimes just tuna, chicken, tilapia, relatively few carbs although I pretty much ate whatever I felt like. I have what I would consider not a fast metabolism, weight in the upper 190ās I think when I started. And at least 3 days a week first thing in the morning I had what Chief called ācalisthenicsā: hip thrusters, situps, side raises, windmills, calf raises, pushups, moutain climbers, and burpees. After that was 10 pullups.
Then the day would consist of outside training, pulling hose up flights of stairs, forcible entry, etc. In the evening I would get in my 5X5 training 3 days a week. I lost a little weight, but maintained about the same. Strength went up nicely though. But ya, probably not eating enough to gain weight, apparently.
Can we just eliminate the words āsizeā and āstrengthā from all newbsā vocabulary and replace it with the word āprogress?ā
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Iām pretty sure most people that can squat 200% bw donāt need to tell people they lift. [/quote]
You are ASSuming quite a bit, and are very very wrong.
What about pulls? Does a 2xBW pull make you look like you lift in a Tee Shirt?
That is the whole fucking point. SOme arbitrary lift number does not = looks like a jacked up beast. It doesnāt work that way. Sorry, but real life isnāt an article on the internet.
[/quote]
LOL again.
I think itās you who is assuming here dude.
My own personal experience tells me, focussing on the heavy shit, works better (especially from a beginnerās POV) than typical bber rep ranges.
Also,Iād say, Iāve seen a helluva lot more guys that seem to lack much in the way of size who tend to train with typical bber type rep ranges than I have dudes that can lack lift a shit ton of weight that look like non-lifters.[/quote]
What the fuck am I possibly assuming? Iām the one saying that their are many other factors at play that determine what someone looks like beyond their fucking total. You are the one claiming a 2xBW squat makes someone look a certain way.
Iām sorry, but in real life, a personās look, and physique is not determined on how much weight they move on any one particular lift. Does it play a role? Sure, but it is not, nor has it ever been the sole determining factor.
And for your second point. Iāve seen a million people āsquatā at teh gym and still look and act like pussies. The general gym population has never, nor ever will be, a good model to base shit off of. Most people are pussies going through the motions and will quit. Stop using people who donāt try as examples.[/quote]
I never said strength is the ONLY factor. Iām merely asserting my opinion that focussing on strength before switching to more of a typical bber type style training is more efficient (for complete beginners).
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
My own personal experience tells me, focussing on the heavy shit, works better (especially from a beginnerās POV) than typical bber rep ranges.
[/quote]
What do you consider bodybuilder rep ranges?
Because that ^ is a stigma that never seems to go away (ābodybuilders just get a pump and thatās itā)
Show me a bodybuilder whoās only ever done one range?[/quote]
Typical bber rep ranges are usually 7-15.
I seriously doubt ANY even half way decent bber as only ever utilized one rep range.
The problem I would say with getting a newby to MOSTLY focus on typicab bber type rep ranges is progression.
I mean, sure a truly determined person could probably make progress with pretty much any rep/set scheme.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
My own personal experience tells me, focussing on the heavy shit, works better (especially from a beginnerās POV) than typical bber rep ranges.
[/quote]
What do you consider bodybuilder rep ranges?
Because that ^ is a stigma that never seems to go away (ābodybuilders just get a pump and thatās itā)
Show me a bodybuilder whoās only ever done one range?[/quote]
Typical bber rep ranges are usually 7-15.
I seriously doubt ANY even half way decent bber as only ever utilized one rep range.
The problem I would say with getting a newby to MOSTLY focus on typicab bber type rep ranges is progression.
I mean, sure a truly determined person could probably make progress with pretty much any rep/set scheme.
[/quote]
People preffer and respond to different things.
Iād say most of my training hovers around the 5-8 rep range, because I like more explosive/power lifting - can focus more, and I completely detest the type of training that causes more lactic acid build up or whatever (for me thatās somewhere over 10 reps/set) although I do it now and then.
I get your point though, and I do tend to agree that newbies need to learn intensity.
the argument in this thread was 'sure you can do curls with a āāstarting strengthāā routine. The old debate: ācan I add an isolation exercise?ā There are those who say āāNOāā and those who say āāYESāā. To get to my point, thereās a great quote in one of the current articles:
Alan Calvert in 1924: "Here is one thing that you, who read this book, must get firmly fixed in your mind; and that is, when a man is standing on his feet he positively cannot exert the full strength of his arms unless the strength of his back and legs is in proportion to the strength of his arms.
I do not mean that the back must be just as strong as the arms, but that it must be many times stronger."
This is perhaps the greatest argument not to deviate from a program like starting strength at all. What all people who want to seriously improve their strength/size need to (initially) do is WORK THEIR BACKS!! And there is one truth:
The typical lifter who overuses the curl ends up looking like popeye - whereas the typical lifter who āoverusesā deadlifts, squats, OH-presses, bench press, clean, snatch, chin/pull ups is just generally on the right track to awesomeness. In other words, only the curl option has the chance of failing. By focusing on big movements your whole, entire body has no choice but to grow.