'Who is Going to Look Bigger'

Training
1

… The guy who can Bench 185lbs for 10, or 315lbs for 10?."

You know that analogy? I have a problem with it.

What if the first guy takes months or years to even crack 200, what if he can’t even do 185 for 10? Does he have any reason to be bulking or trying to gain muscle, if his bench gains are really slow (even with a caloric surplus, let’s say 10lbs to bench 1RM every four weeks at best).

So because a guy can’t bench some arbritary numbers, does he need to give up on his physique goals? (one of my clients wants to bring up his chest and upper body, but can’t hit 185 for more than 3 touch reps, Googling for some advice, I stumbled across the analogy that inspired this topic).

2

How the fuck are you charging people for your services if you have to ask basic questions like these?

3

Also, what’s wrong with adding 10lbs to your bench 1RM in 4 weeks?

4

What?

5

I’m not really sure what question is being posed here, but if you are a trainer and your client has a simple and straight forward goal of increasing his upper body development that shouldn’t require extensive googling.

6

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Also, what’s wrong with adding 10lbs to your bench 1RM in 4 weeks?[/quote]
I am generally happy with a 10lb increase every 3 months or so.

7

lol?

8

I don’t think you know what “analogy” means.

9

Is 315x10 a typo, is that supposed to be 315x1?

I mean it’s still a “wat?” type thread… but that’s a typo, right? Because how the fuck else could that even make sense?

10

[quote]I_Bleed_Green wrote:
So because a guy can’t bench some arbritary numbers, does he need to give up on his physique goals? (one of my clients wants to bring up his chest and upper body, but can’t hit 185 for more than 3 touch reps, Googling for some advice, I stumbled across the analogy that inspired this topic).[/quote]

You have “clients” ?

The forum history shows that about a year ago, you had a 5/3/1 training log for a hot second and were asking mostly pretty basic questions & posting pretty beginner-level lifts.

So I am curious about the use of “clients” - are you training this person for money? Or perhaps you’re his attorney and he also happened to ask for training advice?

11

[quote]red04 wrote:
Is 315x10 a typo, is that supposed to be 315x1?

I mean it’s still a “wat?” type thread… but that’s a typo, right? Because how the fuck else could that even make sense?[/quote]
Ha, nope, literally everybody who lifts needs to be as strong as Wendler himself before they can consider training specifically for size.

Because everyone needs to train for strength above all else, all the time and in every situation. There are no comparably-effective alternatives. None. Ever. I think that’s what Green is getting at.

[quote]I_Bleed_Green wrote:
So because a guy can’t bench some arbritary numbers, does he need to give up on his physique goals?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Wendler can outbench several IFBB Men’s Physique competitors. But that doesn’t really matter because… goals.

By client, do you really mean yourself? It’s 100% okay if you do, because based on your training log last year, I’m guessing that’s right around where you are now. Weird coincidence.

In any case, clients pay for results. If you were paid money and the client said, “My goal is to add muscle to my chest and upper body”, but you’ve decided instead to increase his bench press just to hit some mythical strength standard, then you damn well better be delivering progress (measurable size increases) along the way. If you’re not, then you’re ripping off your client and highlighting your own shortcomings as a trainer.

12

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:
Is 315x10 a typo, is that supposed to be 315x1?

I mean it’s still a “wat?” type thread… but that’s a typo, right? Because how the fuck else could that even make sense?[/quote]
Ha, nope, literally everybody who lifts needs to be as strong as Wendler himself before they can consider training specifically for size.

Because everyone needs to train for strength above all else, all the time and in every situation. There are no comparably-effective alternatives. None. Ever. I think that’s what Green is getting at.

[quote]I_Bleed_Green wrote:
So because a guy can’t bench some arbritary numbers, does he need to give up on his physique goals?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Wendler can outbench several IFBB Men’s Physique competitors. But that doesn’t really matter because… goals.

By client, do you really mean yourself? It’s 100% okay if you do, because based on your training log last year, I’m guessing that’s right around where you are now. Weird coincidence.

In any case, clients pay for results. If you were paid money and the client said, “My goal is to add muscle to my chest and upper body”, but you’ve decided instead to increase his bench press just to hit some mythical strength standard, then you damn well better be delivering progress (measurable size increases) along the way. If you’re not, then you’re ripping off your client and highlighting your own shortcomings as a trainer.[/quote]

Oh I see, I misinterpreted the purpose of the question, and took it more at face value than as rhetorical about how one should train to get bigger.

13

I think the guy who can bench 315x10 is going to look bigger.

14

I get Green’s point. I think he’s commenting on how strength does not necessarily = size – effectively what Chris said.

Green, think about it this way.

People say this:

“The guy who can bench 250x4 will be bigger than the guy who can bench 110x4”

Because it’s true. Any beginner will have left gains on the table until they have reached a basic strength foundation.

What you’re getting at is the point at which this concept breaks down – and that’s well beyond the ‘basic strength foundation’ level.
The guy who can bench 400x6 isn’t necessarily bigger than the guy who can bench 300x6 – at that level, it’s a matter of specific technique and training goals.

In practice:

Your client will certainly get bigger by improving his bench. But, once a basic strength foundation has been reached (can’t say for certain where that is), training for a bigger bench will be the slower route to more upper body size.

15

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
I get Green’s point. I think he’s commenting on how strength does not necessarily = size – effectively what Chris said.

Green, think about it this way.

People say this:

“The guy who can bench 250x4 will be bigger than the guy who can bench 110x4”

Because it’s true. Any beginner will have left gains on the table until they have reached a basic strength foundation.

What you’re getting at is the point at which this concept breaks down – and that’s well beyond the ‘basic strength foundation’ level.
The guy who can bench 400x6 isn’t necessarily bigger than the guy who can bench 300x6 – at that level, it’s a matter of specific technique and training goals.

In practice:

Your client will certainly get bigger by improving his bench. But, once a basic strength foundation has been reached (can’t say for certain where that is), training for a bigger bench will be the slower route to more upper body size.

[/quote]

This is why people should stop repeating the phrase “base of strength” because they have now ended up confusing themselves.

The basic idea is that by the time this “base” has been reached, the trainee would be experienced enough and sufficently honed his technique in several basic lifts to effectively utilise more advanced forms of stimulation and progression.

It has somehow been interpreted as every beginner needing a crash course in maximal strength training because hypertrophy cannot occur before some strength standard is reached, so he has to get there ASAP, which is defeating the purpose the original idea. It is also not surprising that a large number of beginners end up spinning their wheels on these programs for an extended amount of time.

Your muscles do not know how much you are benching. But they know when the load they are required to lift is progressively increasing and they need to grow and adapt to handle this increasing load. This is all essentially about survival.

In the end, the key is still progression. Progression in volume, load, TUT, density, etc… and time under the bar.

16

[quote]dt79 wrote:
This is why people should stop repeating the phrase “base of strength” because they have now ended up confusing themselves.

The basic idea is that by the time this “base” has been reached, the trainee would be experienced enough and sufficently honed his technique in several basic lifts to effectively utilise more advanced forms of stimulation and progression.

It has somehow been interpreted as every beginner needing a crash course in maximal strength training because hypertrophy cannot occur before some strength standard is reached, so he has to get there ASAP, which is defeating the purpose the original idea. It is also not surprising that a large number of beginners end up spinning their wheels on these programs for an extended amount of time.

Your muscles do not know how much you are benching. But they know when the load they are required to lift is progressively increasing and they need to grow and adapt to handle this increasing load. This is all essentially about survival.

In the end, the key is still progression. Progression in volume, load, TUT, density, etc… and time under the bar.[/quote]

This needs to be a sticky in the beginner’s forum.

17

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
This is why people should stop repeating the phrase “base of strength” because they have now ended up confusing themselves.

The basic idea is that by the time this “base” has been reached, the trainee would be experienced enough and sufficently honed his technique in several basic lifts to effectively utilise more advanced forms of stimulation and progression.

It has somehow been interpreted as every beginner needing a crash course in maximal strength training because hypertrophy cannot occur before some strength standard is reached, so he has to get there ASAP, which is defeating the purpose the original idea. It is also not surprising that a large number of beginners end up spinning their wheels on these programs for an extended amount of time.

Your muscles do not know how much you are benching. But they know when the load they are required to lift is progressively increasing and they need to grow and adapt to handle this increasing load. This is all essentially about survival.

In the end, the key is still progression. Progression in volume, load, TUT, density, etc… and time under the bar.[/quote]

This needs to be a sticky in the beginner’s forum.
[/quote]

x2, bloody well said!

18

Also, that’s not an analogy, and this thread sucks almost as badly as you do as a trainer, OP.

19

[quote]Yogi wrote:
Also, that’s not an analogy, and this thread sucks almost as badly as you do as a trainer, OP.[/quote]

This is the second or third thread in the last few weeks where someone has referenced being a “trainer” or having “clients” despite apparent noob status themselves. Doesn’t really mean any skin off my back, but it sucks for legitimately good trainers out there because guys like this (if he indeed calls himself a “trainer”) make the whole community look stupid by association.

20

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:
Also, that’s not an analogy, and this thread sucks almost as badly as you do as a trainer, OP.[/quote]

This is the second or third thread in the last few weeks where someone has referenced being a “trainer” or having “clients” despite apparent noob status themselves. Doesn’t really mean any skin off my back, but it sucks for legitimately good trainers out there because guys like this (if he indeed calls himself a “trainer”) make the whole community look stupid by association.
[/quote]

it’s not hard to make trainers on the whole look bad. I’d say maybe one in every ten I’ve seen has been any good. My personal favourite was this douche at a gym I used years ago who would make this morbidly obese lady (easily 300lbs+) shadow box for half an hour, supersetting sets of shadox boxing with front raises.