[quote]Bull_Scientist wrote:
I think would be able to lift a lot more weight in the bench press, OH press, squat, deadlift if you gained that much weight. Rippetoe said in one of his articles that beginners should put on 40 to 50 lbs. of weight in one year. This would mean that Rippetoe would expect that approx. 20-35 lbs. of that total weight gained would be fat and water because no matter how flawless a novice’s nutrition and training program is it’s really not possible for most beginners to gain more than 12-15 lbs. of dry muscle in one year (you’d lucky to put on about 20lbs. of dry muscle. at the most if you are blessed with good genetics for building muscle). [/quote]
There’s only one way to find out. Go gain as much fat as you can and come back to show us some records you’ve broken.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
You’re not correct. Explain why you think leverages are improved on the bench press, deadlift, or squat by simply adding 40 lbs of fat to a body. If you add 40 lbs to your frame, then when you squat you’ll actually have to move 40 additional pounds. Have you considered that?
Here’s a question for you. What if I put on a ‘fat suit’ right now and went to the gym. This fat suit would weigh 40 lbs, distributed across my body in the way that a person would naturally add fat. So, more mass in the abdominal region, legs, etc. Do you actually think I would bench press, squat, or deadlift more weight than I am currently capable of moving?[/quote]
I think would be able to lift a lot more weight in the bench press, OH press, squat, deadlift if you gained that much weight. Rippetoe said in one of his articles that beginners should put on 40 to 50 lbs. of weight in one year. This would mean that Rippetoe would expect that approx. 20-35 lbs. of that total weight gained would be fat and water because no matter how flawless a novice’s nutrition and training program is it’s really not possible for most beginners to gain more than 12-15 lbs. of dry muscle in one year (you’d lucky to put on about 20lbs. of dry muscle. at the most if you are blessed with good genetics for building muscle). [/quote]
You’re so full of shit. I directly quoted you earlier when you mentioned gaining ‘40 lbs of JUST FAT’. You’ve changed your criteria now. Now you’re adding in a gain of 12-15 lbs of dry muscle. This wasn’t what you said at first. Of course gaining 15 lbs of muscle will make you stronger. Any idiot can agree with that.
Anecdotally I’ve found that weight gain/loss does really change my bench. Over summer I lost just a bit of weight (somewhere between 3-5 kilograms I think) and my bench initially stalled and then by the end of the summer I had just about wrestled it back to where it had been 3 months earlier. Now all my other lifts had been going up, which indicated an increase in general strength, additionally I kept my bench routine pretty much the same so that shouldn’t have changed anything.
So my logic is that as I lost fat and remained at least as strong overall if not gaining strength, but my bench got worse, that this surely indicates that the fat loss resulted in bench strength loss? (And this loss only in bench strength should show that I didn’t lose muscle or strength overall along with the fat). Additionally now I’ve ‘bulked’ back up for an upcoming meet my bench has shot up again, obviously this is going to be partially due to muscle gains but still, it does add further value to my point.
[quote]rusty92 wrote:
Anecdotally I’ve found that weight gain/loss does really change my bench. Over summer I lost just a bit of weight (somewhere between 3-5 kilograms I think) and my bench initially stalled and then by the end of the summer I had just about wrestled it back to where it had been 3 months earlier. Now all my other lifts had been going up, which indicated an increase in general strength, additionally I kept my bench routine pretty much the same so that shouldn’t have changed anything.
So my logic is that as I lost fat and remained at least as strong overall if not gaining strength, but my bench got worse, that this surely indicates that the fat loss resulted in bench strength loss? (And this loss only in bench strength should show that I didn’t lose muscle or strength overall along with the fat). Additionally now I’ve ‘bulked’ back up for an upcoming meet my bench has shot up again, obviously this is going to be partially due to muscle gains but still, it does add further value to my point. [/quote]
Too many confounding variables here for me to actually believe the added fat mass alone contributes to a better bench press. You make quite a few leaps of faith in your reasoning.
[quote]rusty92 wrote:
Anecdotally I’ve found that weight gain/loss does really change my bench. Over summer I lost just a bit of weight (somewhere between 3-5 kilograms I think) and my bench initially stalled and then by the end of the summer I had just about wrestled it back to where it had been 3 months earlier. Now all my other lifts had been going up, which indicated an increase in general strength, additionally I kept my bench routine pretty much the same so that shouldn’t have changed anything.
So my logic is that as I lost fat and remained at least as strong overall if not gaining strength, but my bench got worse, that this surely indicates that the fat loss resulted in bench strength loss? (And this loss only in bench strength should show that I didn’t lose muscle or strength overall along with the fat). Additionally now I’ve ‘bulked’ back up for an upcoming meet my bench has shot up again, obviously this is going to be partially due to muscle gains but still, it does add further value to my point. [/quote]
Too many confounding variables here for me to actually believe the added fat mass alone contributes to a better bench press. You make quite a few leaps of faith in your reasoning.[/quote]
I think you missed the main point, the part about adding weight (and some fat mass) improving bench is obviously not evidence enough. But the main point I was trying to make is sort of reverse engineering the question, in that I found fat loss negatively affected my bench (and the fact that weight loss didn’t hinder any other strength gains should indicate I didn’t lose muscle).
Basically over a 3 month period I lost fat and my bench went down, then the past couple of months as soon as I started gaining weight (some muscle some fat) my bench shot back up. So while this isn’t exactly quantitative proof that fat levels change bench press strengths it surely could be seen to indicate this is at least partially true?
I think it’s far more likely that the strength changed minimally, and instead the ROM decreased as the fat was added and increased as it was removed.
Increased torso circumference (especially at point of contact for the bench) would mean decreased ROM. It would be the same as if I were to bench flat backed on a bench, then on the second set bench with a crazy stupid arch, note that I was able to bench more weight, and deduce that arching makes you stronger (or being flat backed makes you weaker).
[quote]rusty92 wrote:
I think you missed the main point, the part about adding weight (and some fat mass) improving bench is obviously not evidence enough. But the main point I was trying to make is sort of reverse engineering the question, in that I found fat loss negatively affected my bench (and the fact that weight loss didn’t hinder any other strength gains should indicate I didn’t lose muscle).
Basically over a 3 month period I lost fat and my bench went down, then the past couple of months as soon as I started gaining weight (some muscle some fat) my bench shot back up. So while this isn’t exactly quantitative proof that fat levels change bench press strengths it surely could be seen to indicate this is at least partially true?[/quote]
Why do you think the change in bodyweight affected your bench?
Do you think that it affected your ROM? I can see how increased mass (fat or otherwise) on the upper back, chest, and butt could reduce the ROM by an inch or more.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I think it’s far more likely that the strength changed minimally, and instead the ROM decreased as the fat was added and increased as it was removed.
Increased torso circumference (especially at point of contact for the bench) would mean decreased ROM. It would be the same as if I were to bench flat backed on a bench, then on the second set bench with a crazy stupid arch, note that I was able to bench more weight, and deduce that arching makes you stronger (or being flat backed makes you weaker).
Bench is really a silly lift.[/quote]
I would definitely have to agree that the increased ‘size’ will have decreased ROM, however I would also argue that this was pretty minimal as we’re only talking about a few kg and as well as this almost all my fat loss/gain happens directly on my stomach. Additionally I only every struggle at lockout (although admittedly if it was a smaller ROM and therefore easier off my chest then the speed may have carried over into the lockout making that part easier.) Basically I’d say that what you’ve said will factor into it but I think there is more to it than that? Not sure what and I could be wrong, but that’s just what I think at least at the moment
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I think it’s far more likely that the strength changed minimally, and instead the ROM decreased as the fat was added and increased as it was removed.
Increased torso circumference (especially at point of contact for the bench) would mean decreased ROM. It would be the same as if I were to bench flat backed on a bench, then on the second set bench with a crazy stupid arch, note that I was able to bench more weight, and deduce that arching makes you stronger (or being flat backed makes you weaker).
Bench is really a silly lift.[/quote]
I would definitely have to agree that the increased ‘size’ will have decreased ROM, however I would also argue that this was pretty minimal as we’re only talking about a few kg and as well as this almost all my fat loss/gain happens directly on my stomach. Additionally I only every struggle at lockout (although admittedly if it was a smaller ROM and therefore easier off my chest then the speed may have carried over into the lockout making that part easier.) Basically I’d say that what you’ve said will factor into it but I think there is more to it than that? Not sure what and I could be wrong, but that’s just what I think at least at the moment
[/quote]
did you factor in glycogen retention or hormonal profile? Of course not. You’re only considering that the process of dieting down affects fat mass. It does more than that. This is why I said there are too many confounding variables.
When I’ve dieted down, I’ve also lost bench strength. Most people do. But I’ve been able to regain that strength following the dieting process without adding fat back on, which indicates to me that other factors affected my strength, not the fat mass.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
did you factor in […] hormonal profile?[/quote]
Could you elaborate?
I can see how nutrition (specifically calcium and potassium levels) can affect strength due to better muscular activation, but I just don’t know enough about hormones outside of protein synthesis and fat distribution.
Although, now that I think/read about it more, norepinephrine and epinephrine can definitely have effects on strength. I’m just not sure those are relevant in this context.
Flipcollar I had actually considered extraneous factors like glycogen retention etc, hence why I talked about all my other lifts still shooting up, and surely if it was one of these reasons that you stated then it would be all my lifts that would be negatively effected, not just my bench strength?
Also just a side note, I am in no way saying that I know the reasons or mechanics behind it, just that I believe that at least some increased fat mass to some extent increases bench strength and the same with fat loss and strength loss.
Also I am happy to concede that some of the gains/losses seen may well be from increased/decreased ROM, and this still goes towards the general view that increasing fat increases bench strength (if you measure bench strength as the maximum amount of weight to be moved, rather than the maximum amount through the same range of motion in both fatter and leaner conditions.) However I still don’t think that is the only reason.
[quote]rusty92 wrote:
Flipcollar I had actually considered extraneous factors like glycogen retention etc, hence why I talked about all my other lifts still shooting up, and surely if it was one of these reasons that you stated then it would be all my lifts that would be negatively effected, not just my bench strength?
[/quote]
I think it’s just easier for most of us to make progress on legs under any conditions, because most of us have more untapped growth potential there. I can’t speak for you, but I know that early on in my own lifting I spent a hell of a lot more time on bench press than I did squat. As a result, my bench press got over 300 before my squat did. After I started hammering my legs more, it became more difficult for me to gain, or even maintain, my bench strength consistently, but my squat and deadlift shot up.
I don’t remember your numbers, so I don’t know that this is true of you, I just know it’s a common experience.
In terms of numbers mine would probably go against that idea but that’s only because my arm span is around 2m and I’m about 186cm tall so I am definitely not built for bench, but for future reference numbers are 195/132.5/247.5 (hopefully 200/135/260 as of Saturday when I have my next meet).
What you say does make sense though, I’ve also been thinking and I suppose all these things combined could be the reason, so a combination of a change of ROM, slower progress on bench anyway, and possibly things like reduced glycogen affecting bench more than others, which makes sense because on bench I can really feel it if I ever hit it not fully hydrated (glycogen affection water retention being my logic link here). Additionally does having more fat around your shoulder joints, even if a small amount, provide more stability etc because that sure could contribute if true.
However for me this would still suggest that at least temporarily increasing or decreasing body fat will have an effect on bench performance? Which was along the lines of the original question posed/going against what the article said I think?
If we’re talking about my training over the summer then on Mondays yes I squatted prior to it, and on Saturdays no, however I was following the same general program that I have for ages which includes prior to the weight loss as well as now with the weight gain.
I think the stability point may have some validity. Increased stability on the bench from simply being a larger person could contribute to a stronger bench.
I normally bench after lower body lifts as well. The bench work felt harder as I cut weight but I attributed that to less recovery and lower energy levels with the cut. I doubt my range of motion changed.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
Look at Carl Christensen from IPF worlds. He is a SHW and definitely NOT fat. [/quote]
Have you seen him without his shirt? He’s pretty dang pudgy. He has moobs.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
Look at Carl Christensen from IPF worlds. He is a SHW and definitely NOT fat. [/quote]
Have you seen him without his shirt? He’s pretty dang pudgy. He has moobs. [/quote]
LOL. Yea, I would call that fat, without a doubt.
This picture is from the GPA World’s this last weekend. There are some real behemoths in this picture (guys 350+) with at least a semblance of abs.
