Strength vs Size for Nattys

Training
81

[quote]Sutebun wrote:
Point taken about the programs. The ones I had in mind would be more properly described as just general strength programs. But even in terms of powerlifting and just caring about numbers, there are still a mix of powerlifters who say you don’t need to bench with high frequency (2-3+ times a week) and others who emphasize frequency. And yeah, I think ythats a good point that focusing on the bench press may or may not be conductive to a PLer’s lifter goal of a bigger total while the bench press and chest movements are generally needed for body builders to achieve their goal.

I know you said in your blog before that if you could reset your training history you’d trade out all your bench pressing work for pressing work. Is this just a personal preference and more in line with your goals? I’m curious, how well do you think pressing carries over to the bench press if someone were to just military press, push press, jerk etc for years and then go all out on bringing their bench press out?
[/quote]

First, thanks for reading my blog. I appreciate having you as a reader.

It would be purely speculation on my part about the ability of the press to benefit the bench, since I’ve never tried only pressing before (although I did put 10lbs on my bench in six weeks while running 20 rep squats by only training overhead press and dips with no bench). If someone’s goal was to be a powerlifter, regular bench work would still be necessary.

If someone’s goal was to be big and strong, I would strongly argue that the flat barbell bench press is not necessary, and that overhead pressing would go far in developing a strong man and a impressive physique.

I imagine you could look at historical examples of physiques before the bench became popular for an example. Eugene Sandow has very small, tight pectorals and large round shoulders from time spent pressing overhead.

82

I’m interested in said blog ?

83

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Majin wrote:

[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
My question:

Who here used a similar method (training like a bodybuilder, using mostly reps over 8) to break through a bench press plateau? Perhaps they didn’t do it on purpose, but only later found out that their bench press had increased.[/quote]

I don’t really think that happens much. Whenever I saw someone repping a heavy weight, there’s either some low reps going on, or the person is just naturally strong. What helped me get from 225 to 300 was training it twice per week - once with lots of sets of 1-5 reps at 80-90%(24-36 total reps) and once in the 8-15 bodybuilding range. Avoiding failure at all times. I never got any stronger than that, and now my max bench is probably 250-260. I just don’t use that exercise anymore.[/quote]

Dude, no offense, but it says in the thread title that this is about “nattys”. You’re about the furthest thing from that on this site. What you do doesn’t apply at all.

I only do bench once a week and I never go below 8-10 reps. Been training this way for quite awhile now. And my strength has continually increased to a pretty respectable bench.

I run usually 5 sets of each exercise of chest with 20 reps on the first 2 sets, 15 reps on the next 2, and 10-12 on the last with weight pyramiding up.

Not saying other things don’t work for people, but that is what has worked for me. Personally, I start to get tendonitis set in with overworking my bench or related exercises.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes, because we all know what works for people on gear never works for nattys. And you do realize there was a time I was natural too and this same approach worked.

So tell me again what I do doesn’t apply at all. [/quote]

The problem is the thread title itself.

Why would the approach be so drastically different? In the end you still adapt to what you need personally. It would mean avoiding the advice of thousands of lifters based on a concept of “natural vs unnatural”.

84

[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
I’m interested in said blog ?[/quote]

I can’t link it directly, but it’s titled “Mythical Strength” and it’s a blogspot/blogger blog. If you type mythicalstrength dot com, (obviously with a .com instead), it’ll direct link you to the uk site. I had a buddy over the pond who did that for me, haha.

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem is the thread title itself.

Why would the approach be so drastically different? In the end you still adapt to what you need personally. It would mean avoiding the advice of thousands of lifters based on a concept of “natural vs unnatural”.
[/quote]
From the OP:

[quote]csulli wrote:
The reason I specify naturals is that I think gear allows for much more specialization. Lifters who are heavily assisted can focus their training (and their injectables for that matter) to more specifically target building tons of muscle or building tons of strength. But for us naughty nattys, how much difference is there really between trying to build muscle and trying to build strength?[/quote]
The difference will not be drastic, and it does not necessitate neglecting the advice of any number of lifters based on the concept of “natural vs unnatural”, at least not in the way I think you mean.

The point of the thread was not to assert that what assisted bodybuilders do is not applicable to a natural trainee. The point of the thread was basically to assert that most natural powerlifters probably need more bodybuilding work.

[quote]csulli wrote:
I think that natural powerlifters are prone to getting too far away from bodybuilding style training than is helpful. I’m sure the pendulum swings the other way too if there are natty bodybuilders out there who neglect bigger lifts or adding enough weight to keep themselves growing. So much more in common than is different.
[/quote]

Essentially pondering that there is only a hair of difference between powerlifting and bodybuilding if you’re natty. If you aren’t natty, I think it’s not as important. I think those guys can specialize a lot harder. Steroids will make a body respond differently to a given stimulus. For example Petey the pincushion powerlifter might build all the muscle he needs to keep getting stronger from just hitting heavy weight. Natty Nate’s body however isn’t going to be so prone to building that muscle, and he will get stuck, because he simply needs more mass.

And regardless of whether or not it is optimal, bodybuilders on gear can much more easily build muscle with light weight than a natural person can.

It’s just a reflection on how similar powerlifting and bodybuilding really are. But basically all my lifting inspiration and advice comes from people who aren’t natural. Most of the best raw powerlifters know not to neglect bodybuilding assistance or off season training regardless of how much gear they’re running. Similarly the advice from Bauber basically = heavy weight for lots of reps. That’s advice you can take to the bank whether you’re natural or not.

86

[quote]csulli wrote:

Essentially pondering that there is only a hair of difference between powerlifting and bodybuilding if you’re natty. [/quote]

I ponder that there is a hair of difference in what you would tell a lifter to do based only on if they are natural; or not.

This is still an individual activity…and some people do not respond much to steroids at all…so anyone basing their views of what they should do ONLY on that is making a mistake.

You should have asked “Strength vs Size for those with weaker genetics vs those with better affinity”…because your genetics are what make the difference.

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I ponder that there is a hair of difference in what you would tell a lifter to do based only on if they are natural; or not.[/quote]
I agree; optimally there shouldn’t really be any difference on the basis of whether or not you’re on gear. But, I am saying that people can get away with things on steroids that a natural person can not.

What is far more important regarding differences in training is genetics and what your body personally responds well to in regards to frequency, volume, and exercise selection.

88

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I ponder that there is a hair of difference in what you would tell a lifter to do based only on if they are natural; or not.[/quote]
I agree; optimally there shouldn’t really be any difference on the basis of whether or not you’re on gear. But, I am saying that people can get away with things on steroids that a natural person can not.[/quote]

Like what? Besides possibly recovering faster, there are not too many other powers created by the yellow sun.

Someone’s endurance is also too individual to claim it allows longer training sessions even. The results are too specific to the individual.

We do agree there…but like we saw above with the reaction to Bauber, it was believed that what he was saying didn’t even apply at all…which CLEARLY shows that the perception some people have places way more credit on “steroids” than there should be.

89

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I ponder that there is a hair of difference in what you would tell a lifter to do based only on if they are natural; or not.[/quote]
I agree; optimally there shouldn’t really be any difference on the basis of whether or not you’re on gear. But, I am saying that people can get away with things on steroids that a natural person can not.[/quote]

Like what? Besides possibly recovering faster, there are not too many other powers created by the yellow sun.[/quote]
Their muscles will anabolise more protein. There are bodybuilders who can get away with not using enough weight and still build muscle. There are powerlifters who can get away with not using enough volume and still build muscle. Is it optimal? No. But they can get away with a lot more of it than I can and still make progress.

90

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I ponder that there is a hair of difference in what you would tell a lifter to do based only on if they are natural; or not.[/quote]
I agree; optimally there shouldn’t really be any difference on the basis of whether or not you’re on gear. But, I am saying that people can get away with things on steroids that a natural person can not.[/quote]

Like what? Besides possibly recovering faster, there are not too many other powers created by the yellow sun.[/quote]
Their muscles will anabolise more protein. There are bodybuilders who can get away with not using enough weight and still build muscle. There are powerlifters who can get away with not using enough volume and still build muscle. Is it optimal? No. But they can get away with a lot more of it than I can and still make progress.[/quote]

Protein anabolism just means “recovers faster”.

Your genetics are still the base of that recovery…which is why one person can take steroids and notice an ability to recover faster and another might not see the same extent.

The base structure of what you do for your own body and genetics remains the same.

In other words, the simple fact that someone takes steroids does not change your approach in and of itself. Thinking this way is why the other poster took issue with Bauber.

What I am trying to get across is that it is a mistake to look at what you do in the gym under such a limited scope such as “natural vs unnatural”.

Genetics are why Ronnie Coleman can exist and some guy using the exact same shit can’t get past 220lbs without major side effects and limited growth.

Bottom line, stop separating how you approach things based only on “being natural”. It seems like an attempt at elitism rather than some statement about progress.

91

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It seems like an attempt at elitism rather than some statement about progress. [/quote]

92

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Protein anabolism just means “recovers faster”.

Your genetics are still the base of that recovery…which is why one person can take steroids and notice an ability to recover faster and another might not see the same extent.
[/quote]
No way doge! Anabolism is literally your muscles ability to create new tissue from the nutrients they’re given. Even if they also allow you to recover faster, given the exact same training program, the natty guy isn’t going to get as big (obviously lol); and it won’t be because he’s not recovered.

You can train recovery just like you can train anything. I’ve gotten pretty fucking good at recovering from training. I think you can train just as hard natural as you can on steroids, and I think in fact you need to do so if not even harder. The difference is someone on gear can do it and get way bigger and stronger than I will lol.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What I am trying to get across is that it is a mistake to look at what you do in the gym under such a limited scope such as “natural vs unnatural”.
[/quote]
No doubt.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bottom line, stop separating how you approach things based only on “being natural”. It seems like an attempt at elitism rather than some statement about progress.[/quote]
Not from me it isn’t, but maybe others see it as something to feel elite about. I do not limit my training in any way due to not being on gear, and in fact, I think you have to do the exact opposite.

“Nobody ever took steroids just for recovery. They took them to become big and strong.”

  • Jim Wendler
93

[quote]csulli wrote:
You can train recovery just like you can train anything. I’ve gotten pretty fucking good at recovering from training. I think you can train just as hard natural as you can on steroids, and I think in fact you need to do so if not even harder. The difference is someone on gear can do it and get way bigger and stronger than I will lol.[/quote]

…and it still doesn’t mean you change the basic approach…which is the point.

If you want to keep arguing, so be it…but simply put, acting like your approach should be different based only on whether you have used steroids or not makes no sense.

[quote]Not from me it isn’t, but maybe others see it as something to feel elite about. I do not limit my training in any way due to not being on gear, and in fact, I think you have to do the exact opposite.

“Nobody ever took steroids just for recovery. They took them to become big and strong.”

  • Jim Wendler[/quote]

Well, I think the fact that someone just above made it seem like a poster’s advice was null and void only because of steroid use proves everyone isn’t thinking like that at all.

94

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Majin wrote:

[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
My question:

Who here used a similar method (training like a bodybuilder, using mostly reps over 8) to break through a bench press plateau? Perhaps they didn’t do it on purpose, but only later found out that their bench press had increased.[/quote]

I don’t really think that happens much. Whenever I saw someone repping a heavy weight, there’s either some low reps going on, or the person is just naturally strong. What helped me get from 225 to 300 was training it twice per week - once with lots of sets of 1-5 reps at 80-90%(24-36 total reps) and once in the 8-15 bodybuilding range. Avoiding failure at all times. I never got any stronger than that, and now my max bench is probably 250-260. I just don’t use that exercise anymore.[/quote]

I only do bench once a week and I never go below 8-10 reps. Been training this way for quite awhile now. And my strength has continually increased to a pretty respectable bench.

I run usually 5 sets of each exercise of chest with 20 reps on the first 2 sets, 15 reps on the next 2, and 10-12 on the last with weight pyramiding up.

Not saying other things don’t work for people, but that is what has worked for me. Personally, I start to get tendonitis set in with overworking my bench or related exercises.
[/quote]

That’s kinda interesting. I start getting joint and tendonitis problems from higher volume workouts.

95

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Majin wrote:

[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
My question:

Who here used a similar method (training like a bodybuilder, using mostly reps over 8) to break through a bench press plateau? Perhaps they didn’t do it on purpose, but only later found out that their bench press had increased.[/quote]

I don’t really think that happens much. Whenever I saw someone repping a heavy weight, there’s either some low reps going on, or the person is just naturally strong. What helped me get from 225 to 300 was training it twice per week - once with lots of sets of 1-5 reps at 80-90%(24-36 total reps) and once in the 8-15 bodybuilding range. Avoiding failure at all times. I never got any stronger than that, and now my max bench is probably 250-260. I just don’t use that exercise anymore.[/quote]

I only do bench once a week and I never go below 8-10 reps. Been training this way for quite awhile now. And my strength has continually increased to a pretty respectable bench.

I run usually 5 sets of each exercise of chest with 20 reps on the first 2 sets, 15 reps on the next 2, and 10-12 on the last with weight pyramiding up.

Not saying other things don’t work for people, but that is what has worked for me. Personally, I start to get tendonitis set in with overworking my bench or related exercises.
[/quote]

That’s kinda interesting. I start getting joint and tendonitis problems from higher volume workouts.[/quote]

The high volume doesn’t seem to bother my joints as much as pressing heavier weight for lower reps. And I stick to 1 muscle group every 7 days.

96

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s kinda interesting. I start getting joint and tendonitis problems from higher volume workouts.[/quote]

The high volume doesn’t seem to bother my joints as much as pressing heavier weight for lower reps[/quote]

It’s always interesting to find out which guys are sports cars(high volume) and which ones are 4-wheel drive trucks(low volume).

97

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s kinda interesting. I start getting joint and tendonitis problems from higher volume workouts.[/quote]

The high volume doesn’t seem to bother my joints as much as pressing heavier weight for lower reps[/quote]

It’s always interesting to find out which guys are sports cars(high volume) and which ones are 4-wheel drive trucks(low volume).

[/quote]

lol. I’m not sure I get the comparison. I think it might vary if you are naturally aspirated or not.

98

Thanks for the interesting replies, guys.

There seems to be such a divide in (lightweight) powerlifting what concerns squatting and deadlifting vs. benching …

I’ve seen several lightweight powerlifters who have “good” (not: bodybuilder level) leg and back development and deadlift a lot, however, I know very little powerlifters who have a great bench AND do not have a “great” upper body to match it. While the reverse appears to be true for squats and deadlifts: it seems most can get by with less muscle mass, while having a great SQ/DL. (relatively speaking, of course. In this instance I compare powerlifters and bodybuilders).

Like T3hPwnisher says below (also thanks for your answers in threads, love to read them), a big upper body = usually a big bench for that bodyweight.

However, I know several bodybuilders who have a big back and big legs, but with a (comparatively! before a shit-storm starts) average squat/deadlift for their bodyweight.

Time to focus more on building up chest, shoulders and arms, I guess. Someone who’s not into the Powerlifting literature might say “duh”, but I sometimes feel I’m brainwashed as a result of reading most modern articles on the matter, that say a big back, triceps and lots of singles are the meat and potatoes for a big bench press.

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
For a bodybuilder, no one is going to care how much weight you lift, but how you look, and doing the things that will get you a good upperbody will also get you a good bench.
[/quote]

99

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s kinda interesting. I start getting joint and tendonitis problems from higher volume workouts.[/quote]

The high volume doesn’t seem to bother my joints as much as pressing heavier weight for lower reps[/quote]

It’s always interesting to find out which guys are sports cars(high volume) and which ones are 4-wheel drive trucks(low volume).

[/quote]

lol. I’m not sure I get the comparison. I think it might vary if you are naturally aspirated or not.[/quote]

I’d argue that the “sports cars” do better with lower volume but higher percentages, and the “work trucks” can get away with considerably more volume and workloads. They’d both do well with constant general maintenance (foam rolling, mobility, bodyweight work, etc…) though.

100

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s kinda interesting. I start getting joint and tendonitis problems from higher volume workouts.[/quote]

The high volume doesn’t seem to bother my joints as much as pressing heavier weight for lower reps[/quote]

It’s always interesting to find out which guys are sports cars(high volume) and which ones are 4-wheel drive trucks(low volume).

[/quote]

lol. I’m not sure I get the comparison. I think it might vary if you are naturally aspirated or not.[/quote]

I’d argue that the “sports cars” do better with lower volume but higher percentages, and the “work trucks” can get away with considerably more volume and workloads. They’d both do well with constant general maintenance (foam rolling, mobility, bodyweight work, etc…) though.[/quote]

I have just started regular foam rolling and stretching. Makes a world of fucking difference. I had let myself get pretty balled up and non limber.