It all started when Chad Waterbury started writing articles.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
Here are some Poliquin quotes for the lazy
[/quote]
Like I’ve said before, it amazes me he gets a pass like he does on the crap he says. Which 3 Olympia competitors can’t bench 315lbs?
Newbs eat that shit up like crazy and then discussion forums get overrun by 19 year olds who actually think a guy with 20+" arms can’t curl 35lbs dumbbells.
I guess that explains all of the “I train MMA and can kick the ass of 250lb bodybuilders” crap.[/quote]
Poliquin has many outlandish quotes that extend well beyond this topic. Many re supplementation. Critical thinking, guys. If it sounds stupid, it probably it. Much like the bodybuilders are weak myth.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
My other post didn’t show :(.
As I was saying, to be fair, Levrone benched 500 x 4 on M3, yes with a slight spot on rep 4 but still. In that movie, and I’ll double check, he is 2 weeks out from the O, 2 fucking weeks out, dieted down, and “weak,” that’s bad ass and one strong mother fucker.
I saw vids of Branch Warren seated military press 315 x 20. Fucking monster. These dudes are some of the strongest in the world. [/quote]
That’s an unreal MP.
I think it just comes down to the fact that if a bodybuilder stopped caring about how good he looked and just focused on his strength he would be able to get a higher 1RM squat or bench faster. However the stupid thing in my opinion is how you judge strength. Some powerlifters will say they don’t care how strong they are, they just want to be able to lift heavy in the 3 lifts.
By using the same argument that bodybuilders are weak you can say powerlifters are weak. Sure they may have an impressive bench but look at that olympic lifter, he’s clean and jerking ridiculous weights for his weight class. A powerlifter couldn’t do as well so the olympic lifter must be stronger!
But then the olympic lifter will have a crappy bench compared to the powerlifter so who wins? Even strongman isn’t really a perfect judge of whos strongest, the competitors still try to get better in the specific challenges although admittedly there are a lot more.
There is no absolute mark for strength as bodybuilders and all strength sports are geared towards their own separate goals so I think the argument is a bit stupid. To say flat out bodybuilders are weak is just ridiculous. You can only say if they geared themselves to one or two specific lifts they could get better at them. But that applies to everyone.
I know that when I’m in the gym, I tend to focus on muscle contraction, form, and pump moreso than how much weight. Sometimes to get the best muscle mind connection and focus the effort on a specific muscle I need to lower the weight. That doesn’t mean a bodybuilder is weak, it just means there is a differenct focus during the lift.
[quote]elano wrote:
Where are all these people calling bbers weak? Anyone have a link to a site or article claiming this?[/quote]
Wendler takes a hard jab at the way BBers train in his 5/3/1 book, page 45. He says BBers don’t train for size or strength, but symmetry. I use 5/3/1, I do train for size, strength, symmetry, and to feel good. I really like Wendler’s book and training phylosophy. But I sure don’t want to be built like him. No offense Jim.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Look it’s simple. Lets not over complicate things.
Powerlifters = Purpose is to lift ever greater weights.
Bodybuilders = Purpose to find what makes “YOUR” muscles respond and grow. The “Weight” of the weights handled are a distant second to the focus in your workout.
This is why an average person can see a visually muscular dude say finishing a set of biceps with a 25lb Db to bring it to complete failure and think " man for all that muscle he only lifts a 25lb db?"
This is followed by the said average person taking a heavier weight and doing the same exercise next to the bodybuilder and feeling like they fit right in.
Then they look at the powerlifter and see a loaded bar full of plates for deadlifts and watch the misconceptions and rumors start lol 
[/quote]
that’s right. at the end of my shoulder day, i do lateral raises with something like 20’s, just for fun…when I’m wasted. it feels good. I do them right next to the little lady doing almost the same thing with 15’s. If somebody wasn’t there for the show, watching me do the power cleans and presses,well, they would certainly get the wrong idea of the strength of BBers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]elano wrote:
Where are all these people calling bbers weak? Anyone have a link to a site or article claiming this?[/quote]
I just mentioned Poliquin but I have to go find the specific article for you too?
When personal trainers go on about how bodybuilders can’t climb stairs, you don’t see the connection?
Hell, on this site we got comments like that frequently in the bodybuilding forum from newbs who got this impression from whatever trainer’s article they were reading.
When so many got the impression that doing biceps curls was for weaklings or pretty boys (as if they were unnecessary or didn’t aid in strength enough to worry about), you didn’t see who this was aimed at?
Someone literally has to go find all of this for you in order to notice it?[/quote]
You have to put those statements Poliquin made into proper context.
I talk to CP regularly- this exact statement came up in fact just last Monday.
He says the reason some pros (not all, important designation) use disproportionately light weights for their size is that they’ve never had to train exceedingly heavy to make gains. Fantastic genetics and incredible response to gear being reasons.
So why should they risk injury doing 500 pound benches and 100 pound curls when they have 20 inch arms using 40 pounders? An injury means less competing/appearances, less money. Bottom line- why should they mess with a system that has been working?
Problem is, Poliquin says, is that at some point even some of these elite guys reach plateaus where the only way they can force new gains is to just get more weight on the bar. At the end of the day, stronger muscle = bigger muscle. Which is why, he says, pros like Sarcev made some pretty quick gains even as established pros when they went away from lighter loads to higher loads to get their maximal strength levels up to match their bodyweight. They could then use heavier weights in their preferred higher rep ranges.
This is also why the best, most dense, most developed pro BBs are usually the guys who still train to be brutally strong. Ronnie, Dorian, J Jackson, Dennis James, etc; the top guys handle weights that would scare most people because they get this.
Do you think Ronnie uses 800 pound deads six weeks out from the O to impress the girl at the gym reception desk? Obviously he knows that for him, when he’s getting stronger, he’s getting better.
Well - it started first with their training…Just kidding!
I think this comes about because people confuse big muscles with athleticism. Just like some people confuse a ripped (low body fat) fighter with being a good fighter as compared to one that is a bit more fatty. Plus there are so any variables that determine strength.
For instance one can be a huge body builder but perhaps neglected some odd muscle that, because it is the weakest link, might cause him to under perform otherwise. SO if a person sees one body builder have a bad lift day - they may think all body builders are like this. Or some of the more ignorant ones will see a body builder using light weights and think that is all they ever do.
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]elano wrote:
Where are all these people calling bbers weak? Anyone have a link to a site or article claiming this?[/quote]
I just mentioned Poliquin but I have to go find the specific article for you too?
When personal trainers go on about how bodybuilders can’t climb stairs, you don’t see the connection?
Hell, on this site we got comments like that frequently in the bodybuilding forum from newbs who got this impression from whatever trainer’s article they were reading.
When so many got the impression that doing biceps curls was for weaklings or pretty boys (as if they were unnecessary or didn’t aid in strength enough to worry about), you didn’t see who this was aimed at?
Someone literally has to go find all of this for you in order to notice it?[/quote]
You have to put those statements Poliquin made into proper context.
I talk to CP regularly- this exact statement came up in fact just last Monday.
He says the reason some pros (not all, important designation) use disproportionately light weights for their size is that they’ve never had to train exceedingly heavy to make gains. Fantastic genetics, incredible response to gear, and ability to load muscle glycogen stores being reasons.
So why should they risk injury doing 500 pound benches and 100 pound curls when they have 20 inch arms using 40 pounders? An injury means less competing/appearances, less money. Bottom line- why should they mess with a system that has been working?
Problem is, Poliquin says, is that at some point even some of these elite guys reach plateaus where the only way they can force new gains is to just get more weight on the bar. At the end of the day, stronger muscle = bigger muscle. Which is why, he says, pros like Sarcev made some pretty quick gains even as established pros when they went away from lighter loads to higher loads to get their maximal strength levels up to match their bodyweight.
[/quote]
Like who? Any specific examples? I say I’m the strongest mofo on this site but that doesn’t make it true.
More importantly, when he says weight proportionate to size - what excercises are we talking about? Core lifts or say lateral raises? For example - I do raises with no more than 20lbs - thats what my joints can handle but thats only 8% of my body weight. Does that mean I’m weak?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Zane stronger than Arnold?
Where’d you get that from?
Zane started out with a light weight + pump philosophy and just didn’t get all that big from what I’ve read from some interview of his (no idea if it was legit) but changed his style later once he observed stronger and bigger guys train… Still, with the diet and lack of setup info etc they had back then, what do you expect…
If he were a young trainee today, he’d probably beat his golden-age best in a few years training with a serious diet and a good routine, drug-free… Or maybe he’d never get past 170 in the off-season because of all the bs many authors throw around the 'net
[/quote]
He was stronger on the squat, I didn’t imply that he was stronger on anything else. And I got that from interviews with Arnold where he talks about it. I don’t know why it’s that hard to believe unless you are overly influenced by Arnold’s cult of personality. Have you ever seen a picture of Arnold with more than 405 on his back? Now how many times have you seen that same feat accomplished for reps by guys who aren’t close to 240 pounds?[/quote]
It’s been a while but if you watch the Arnold movie “Stay Hungry,” he busts out reps of 455 on squats like it’s nothing. He talks of using higher weights on squats in his books too, maybe I’ll get some photos up. He also regularly benched 455 on his heaviest bench sets and could deadlift over 700, there’s photos of that too. No comparison between him and Zane…
I saw a bodybuilder in the gym the other day lifting what I considered exceedingly light weights for his size. He handled them with perfect form, under control and was not working all that hard despite the high reps.
My first thought was not that he was weak, but that he was probably taking a recovery or light cycle. Someone else might dismiss him as being weak if they don’t understand the strategy of cycling of weights and reps in long term training.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess that explains all of the “I train MMA and can kick the ass of 250lb bodybuilders” crap.[/quote]
This may very well be true though. When I wrestled in High School at 140 I could take 250 athletes (let alone 250 body builders). Body builders may be strong but that doesn’t mean crap if they don’t know even the basics of fighting…or have never seen their own blood before. Not that you can go into a fight with a 250 monster lightly. And there is also the chance that he will know how to fight and has seen his own blood before…and then, if you are 140 pounds, you’re toast.
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess that explains all of the “I train MMA and can kick the ass of 250lb bodybuilders” crap.[/quote]
This may very well be true though. When I wrestled in High School at 140 I could take 250 athletes (let alone 250 body builders). Body builders may be strong but that doesn’t mean crap if they don’t know even the basics of fighting…or have never seen their own blood before. Not that you can go into a fight with a 250 monster lightly. And there is also the chance that he will know how to fight and has seen his own blood before…and then, if you are 140 pounds, you’re toast.
[/quote]
I think you’re missing the point of X’s post… which is that all these guys make up a little story in their head about why they are more baddass than the huge, ripped, body-builder.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess that explains all of the “I train MMA and can kick the ass of 250lb bodybuilders” crap.[/quote]
This may very well be true though. When I wrestled in High School at 140 I could take 250 athletes (let alone 250 body builders). Body builders may be strong but that doesn’t mean crap if they don’t know even the basics of fighting…or have never seen their own blood before. Not that you can go into a fight with a 250 monster lightly. And there is also the chance that he will know how to fight and has seen his own blood before…and then, if you are 140 pounds, you’re toast.
[/quote]
I think you’re missing the point of X’s post… which is that all these guys make up a little story in their head about why they are more baddass than the huge, ripped, body-builder.
[/quote]
Yet it had to be explained.
I think anyone looking at someone that big and ASSUMING they can’t at least defend themselves to some degree is retarded.
I see blood daily. I can also throw a punch and have trained in martial arts before although haven’t kept it up like I have in the past.
This is about those who truly think big muscles equal “weak and defenseless”.
Anyone dumb enough to go into a fight with ANYONE and underestimate their opponent deserves to lose teeth.
I’ll just charge extra to fix them.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
I saw a bodybuilder in the gym the other day lifting what I considered exceedingly light weights for his size. He handled them with perfect form, under control and was not working all that hard despite the high reps.
My first thought was not that he was weak, but that he was probably taking a recovery or light cycle. Someone else might dismiss him as being weak if they don’t understand the strategy of cycling of weights and reps in long term training.[/quote]
There is one gym I ONLY train chest at because of the equipment.
I am guessing some newb is on the internet telling people about some big guy who ONLY trains chest and nothing else.
Unless you are following someone around every day of the week AND know them personally, if any of you are judging what someone can do based off of seeing them a few times, you have some screws loose.
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
You have to put those statements Poliquin made into proper context.[/quote]
No, I don’t. The people who believe this shit take him at his word. They aren’t trying to find excuses for the words written.
[quote]
I talk to CP regularly- this exact statement came up in fact just last Monday.
He says the reason some pros (not all, important designation) use disproportionately light weights for their size is that they’ve never had to train exceedingly heavy to make gains. Fantastic genetics and incredible response to gear being reasons. [/quote]
Like whom?
Dillet was the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. The guys winning the Olympia over the last 15 years were not weak at all.
AT ALL.
Johnnie Jackson?
[quote]
So why should they risk injury doing 500 pound benches and 100 pound curls when they have 20 inch arms using 40 pounders? An injury means less competing/appearances, less money. Bottom line- why should they mess with a system that has been working?[/quote]
Who got 20" arms by never going past 40lbs?
Anyone at all?
EVER?
I may use a lighter weight now to squeeze the muscle during a set, but unless you asked me, you wouldn’t know that I was doing 95lbs dumbbell curls drug free after about 4 years of serious training.
What a HUGE bodybuilder may do when he is near his peak may not be what he did to GET THERE.
You can inform Poliquin of this also.
Doesn’t this contradict the point you just stated Poliquin was trying to make?
If the most impressive guys are true strength freaks, why the hell is he trying to point out rare people who didn’t lift that heavy?
Strength is relative
I never heard this. I just assumed it was some shit people here made up so they had something to bitch about.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]stockzy wrote:
The only time i ever hear bodybuilders called weak is on the internet. I can’t remember the last time someone called bodybuilders weak and i’m around these functional idiots all the time.
The only people i know of that care about being called weak are on the internet. I’m in gyms 10 - 12 hours a day, 6 days a week and i never have this discussion???[/quote]
That doesn’t mean the thought isn’t there. It just means they are too scared to say shit in public. That may be WHY you only hear it on the internet. I mean, I don’t hear anyone calling me fat anywhere but here either or ever saying half the shit I see getting typed on screen often.
Perhaps it is like those people who honk at you in their cars but who wouldn’t have the balls to say, “excuse me” if they were standing right behind you in line at the grocery store.
People get much more bold when they think there is no risk of personal damage.[/quote]
I read the one thread on bodybuilder.com, that comes up when searching for “bodybuilders are weak” on google, and honestly, it just reeks of insecurity. “This guy looks great, and I look like shit, but whatever, he’s WEAK.” It appears as if they’re just seeing what they want to see.
I don’t think anyone would say it in public because of fear they’d quickly be proven wrong. Then they’d have one less external thing to make them feel “good” about themselves: they’re no longer stronger than that big uselessly muscled bodybuilder.
These are only my impressions from that one specific thread, which is the only place I’ve ever seen this discussed.
In any event, I don’t think this is a widely held belief. The general public will associate big muscles with strength, in my experience.