Why Train for Strength If Size Is Wanted?

Training Bodybuilding
141

Most of you guys don’t even seem to understand what this thread really is about… Or the real difference between bodybuilding and many “strength” routines… Has Brick ever said you can’t get bigger on Starting Strength or some such program?

If my routine looks something like:

-Squat
-Bench
-Deadlift
-Pullups

3-5 times a week…

And I get to 250 lbs…

I’m not going to look like a bodybuilder. Not even remotely. My torso may look reasonably thick, my thighs may be quite large, my shoulders thick when viewed from the side… My biceps may be there to a degree if I a) have great bi genetics and/or b) my rowing technique sucks balls…

But the guy doing a regular bbing split, training his shoulders and traps twice a week and everything else once for a year or two (and then train his back twice a week for a year, then his arms or whatever) will look way bigger in non-tight clothes at the same weight…

His legs may be somewhat smaller/squat and DL lower, but chances are he is going to have a much thicker and wider shoulder girdle/ be much thicker and wider in whatever area he specialized in long-term compared to the guy who either tried to train everything equally or just focused on the big three and little else…

Guys like Mike Wolfe (bench specialist) aren’t bodybuilders but still have wide and thick shoulders and thick traps and huge tris (and thus a wider look)… Because they do a lot of lateral, trap and rear delt and tri work/specialize/have specialized in those areas in order to bring up their bench. For years on end.

Most of those bodybuilder-esque bench spec guys also train their bis, brachialis and brachioradialis heavy and with several exercises because those are far from unimportant in the bench press (and avoiding injury/pain).

It’s no surprise that they look (upper body -wise anyway, lower depends) like bodybuilders (who have taken the off-season a bit too far perhaps, but that’s all diet and maybe maximizing leverages… Mendelson seems to be leaner in general, or used to be).

The powerlifters who look very much like bodybuilders (leanness doesn’t matter here, those who carry too much fat could diet it off if they wanted to after all, I’m talking proportions/balance only), like Matt Kroc and
Mike Ruggeria and even Dave Tate all train or have trained, for long periods of time, very similar to bodybuilders in terms of how they set up their routines/splits, exercise selection and not ignoring certain bodyparts

Look at Mike’s routine used to go from 190 or so to 300 over at a certain other forum housing the official DC doggpound…
Mike is a mod there, handle is liftin’heavy or so… You can find the routine in the PL subforum over there.

It’s basically a bbing routine with a bit more low-rep work for the big three, though condensed to fewer days per week… Longer sessions (would be too long for me), but it’s still basically a bodybuilding routine and he looked like a bodybuilder as a result…
Switched to 4 days per week later at westside I think.

Dave did not really look like that (pic in recent arm article I think, where he fastens his weight-belt), proportion-wise, before he started working with Justin Harris… He got lean first with Berardi I think, but looked way less impressive.
He was already big, but did not quite have the bodybuilder look yet, proportion-wise (arms, biceps especially etc)…

Still, he’s always done plenty of direct tri work because he tore his chest many times and had to change his bench technique as a result… Plus shoulder work when he could (injuries) and yeah, some bicep work… Hence him looking more bodybuilder-ish than most other powerlifters who just stick to sheiko with little assistance work, for example, or even bodybuilders who don’t focus too much on shoulder with etc during their training career.

Or look at Professor X’s old pictures from when he was 255 and 270… Vs. the more recent t-cell pics at 290+… He didn’t just get bigger overall (which, by itself, would not have helped his proportions… He would simply be a bigger version of his 255lb self), he put major emphasis on his shoulder girdle area and thus has much wider shoulders now…

Coupled with previous emphasis on the upper chest and great traps this gives him a wide and powerful look which is what makes people look huge even in non tight clothes… Someone not focusing on these areas and without the shoulder genetics to make up for that lack of specialization will look far less like a bodybuilder at the same weight.

And once again: 5/3/1 is not a program. It is a set/rep and progression scheme.

Someone doing 5/3/1 on the incline bench may do this during 5/5/5+ week:

-135 x 12 (warm-up)
-225 x 8 (warm-up)
-295 x 5
-342.5 x 5
-385 x 9 (top set, you want 5 reps minimum but ultimately should go for as many good reps as you can get unless you feel too drained. As suggested by Wendler).

Speed would be explosive positives (or trying to, anyway) and controlled negatives (no need to be slow, but you need to be in control of the weight and not just let it drop like a stone).

The other weeks follow a similar format with different weights but it’s ultimately (except for deload week) this:
Ramp up to a top set, on last set get as many good reps as you can.

Now what would Dorian Yates have done (I don’t remember his exact numbers, ask Brick about those if you care for some reason)?

-135x10
-225x8
-315x6
-345x3 (maybe, I dunno… It’s what I’d do, or maybe just a double)
-385x10 ← top set.

Again, explosive (trying to, anyway) positives and controlled (in yates case for some exercises semi-slow) negatives. Bodybuilders going for generally higher reps like Branch (135x15, 225x12, 315x20 or was it 30? seated military for example) will usually go with faster negatives though.

So. Does this look familiar?

Oh no! IT’S ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE 5/3/1 SCHEME, EXCEPT THAT YATES DOES NOT CYCLE HIS WEIGHTS FROM WORKOUT TO WORKOUT! Gee…

The main difference between a yates routine and most 5/3/1 templates is how the “assistance” work is structured… Many 5/3/1 assistance templates feature fairly light weights with exact percentages for multiple sets of higher reps… (not all, and I still think it’s best to make up your own assistance template whether you’re a powerlifter or bodybuilder using 5/3/1) and there are usually less days of training per week/less exercises per muscle-group etc.

As I mentioned somewhere at the beginning of this thread, you can just do 5/3/1 for your main lifts on a totally normal bodybuilding routine… And ramp up to 1-2 all out sets on your other exercises… Hell, maybe you could even do 5/3/1 on all exercises (using the 10% jump table, not the one including 5% jumps, but that’s just imo)… Only reason I’ve never tried is because that’s too much of a bother to calculate all the weights, and I don’t really need to calculate them anyway.

But the point is: Wendler 5/3/1 scheme = very, very similar to what many bodybuilders do for almost all their exercises.

So as a bodybuilder I can use 5/3/1 just fine. No problem. It’s just that my routine and exercise selection should probably not look like the assistance templates in Wendler’s book, but like a regular bbing routine of some kind.

What was I trying to say, anyway? …

142

[quote]tap_u_out wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
As a post on here mentioned, 99% of the people here will not actually compete in bodybuilding. That being the case, is it really a productive use of time to hit the biceps “from different angles?” Is symmetry really all that important? What’s more, I would guess around 75% of the people who come to this or any site looking to “get big” are really doing it to improve sports preformance. But they don’t say “I want to get big to get better at football/hockey/wrestling.” They just say “I want to get big.” And that’s when the fighting starts between the bodybuilding crowd and the strength crowd. This is why the writers are all promoting strength-based routines. It’s a way to hedge their bet. For the kid looking to get big for football, a strength routine is appropriate. For the guy looking to get big for personal reasons and not to compete in bodybuilding, a strength routine is appropriate.
[/quote]

First, as X said, who really cares if someone decides to compete at BB’ing or not. If their goal is to have a BB’ers physique, then yes, they should train in such a way as to allow them to reach that goal. And as far as symmetry goes, yeah, it actually is fairly useful even to a non bodybuilder as it generally prevents muscle imbalances/injuries later on down the road. Even elite level powerlifters (who’s goal is generally just to have the highest total possible) do plenty of assistance work to try to eliminate “weak links” or muscle imbalances.

Second, even if your theory is true and most people do come here looking to gain size/strength for sport reasons, there is a whole forum titled “Powerlifting” one titled “Olympic lifting” one titled “combat sports” and one titled “conditioning”. So there’s really no reason that they need to be giving their input on the “Bodybuilding training” forum if that’s not how they train or their goal.

[quote]
I do Olympic lifting. My workouts involve either the snatch or clean and jerk, a snatch or clean pull, and a squat or front squat. Sometimes I’ll do a Romanian deadlift or even a conventional deadlift. That’s it. That’s all there is to my routine. Nice and simple. I can do it in my basement, but I also go to a weightlifting gym. If you flex your biceps at my gym, we will laugh at you. If you come in wanting to build big pecs, we will laugh at you. We have many “bodybuilding refugees” who were fed up with not getting stronger but are now happy with their strength gains. We don’t care how big you are; all we care about is weight on the bar. Even that is secondary - what’s even more important is your technique. We don’t worry about spotters. But we’ve also noticed something interesting - as we gain strength and put weight on the bar, we also tend to look better. Shocking. If we miss a lift, we drop the weight and no one yells. There are no mirrors. We don’t post shirtless pictures of ourselves on Internet forums. That’s just strange.[/quote]

Good for you. But if that’s the case, then what on earth are you doing posting in the “Bodybuilding Training” forum? Do you see any of the guys who are training specifically for bodybuilding going into the “Olympic Lifting” forum and posting things like “you guys all look horrible and have no lateral delts, flat chests, and nonexistant biceps”? No, you don’t. You know why? Because we all know that those guys are training specifically with Olympic lifting in mind, not bodybuilding.

We don’t tell you how to train for your goal, or that training like we do will get you to your goal just as well as programs specifically designed to make you better at the Snatch and Clean and Jerk. Nor do we tell you that you are “strange” for having different goals than we do. Why is it so difficult for you to do the same?[/quote]

Because this thread also mentions “why train for strength?” [/quote]

Bodybuilding also contains the word “building”.

So if I’m an architect or construction worker, should I post this forum even if I don’t train?

Should I enter the Olympic Lifting sub-forum because there’s the word “lifting” in the forum name, which is something I do as well, and then tell MikeTheBear that he should hit his biceps “from multiple angles” ?

We train for strength yes, even as bodybuilders… This whole thread is not about whether you should train for strength as such or not, or whether you can or can’t get bigger on a “strength” routine, it’s about things such as:

Starting Strength sucks for bodybuilding purposes.
Which is because it’s not a bodybuilding routine.
And if you want wide and thick shoulders and huge traps plus stand-out arms, that kind of routine is simply not put together the right way. You can eat like a bodybuilder all you want, that routine is not going to make you look like one unless you are some genetic marvel.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

143

Oh, and I think it’s more common to find powerlifters and strongman than olympic lifters looking fairly bodybuilder-ish (to various degrees) not simply because of any weight-class restrictions or diet or whatever, but because powerlifting and bodybuilding still share many similarities (or CAN share) in terms of program design etc…

I.e. a powerlifter or strongman can train relatively similar to a bodybuilder like MacGrath and Zack Khan in terms of split-setup and diet (protein/amount of food… Because most of them are likely to go for higher weight classes than an olympic lifter of similar height, or so it seems to me) and do well at their chosen sport.

Strong-men like Poundstone will likely skip the “train a combination of muscle-groups like delts+traps twice per week” -part to leave more in the tank for their event work, while powerlifters will likely specialize more in the upper back or posterior chain vs. shoulder width, for example.

Most Olympic Lifting routines aren’t conductive to that kind of setup (needs too much focus on the oly lifts etc) /added “hypertrophy” work for every major muscle-group and will likely just contain some overhead pressing, deadlifts (perhaps) and squats…

It’s also easier to change your proportions/ bring up weak bodyparts in size by not just adding volume on top of an already crazy routine (i.e. full body 5 times a week ala oly lifting, just as an example) but by having a more laid-back approach for the rest of your body, giving it the chance to focus it’s resources more on improving strength and size of the weak area in question.

144

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not sure why rugby players and MMA trainers are even in this thread OR this forum.
[/quote]

Rugby players and martial artists can’t be recreational bodybuilders too?

The thread seemed to develop into a discussion of the relative merits of training for size and/or strength, and the differences, if any. I was just offering an opinion based on the fact that I have to cycle the two for my sport.
[/quote]

Are you fucking serious?

I used to train martial arts with the FULL understanding that my progress would be subpar in the gym as long as I was spending three night a week sparring.

It isn’t about whether you can do bodybuilding on the side. This is about making the most progress, not simply doing shit randomly just so you can say you did it.

Most of you won’t see much at all in the way of gains because you won’t pick a fucking goal and run with it. You are trying to be “super athlete who does MMA, boxes, runs marathons, does power lifting all while squatting on a fucking bosu ball”.

If you happen to be one of these “all over the fucking place” people, then either accept you will make lesser progress in EVERYTHING or just stay out of the way.

Unless you now get stopped regularly because of looking like a bodybuilder, I doubt anyone cares.[/quote]

I once saw a 250lb man do a 225lb Squat on an UPTURNED Bosu Ball. He was a mild douchebag though and would do some local shows at like 10% bf even after doing a cycle or two. Epic.

Alan[/quote]

Comments like this tell me two things:

  1. Neither of you actually read my original post. The only reason the fact I play rugby was relevant was because it involved a 9/3 month split of training for strength, then size. My point (bafflingly, actually in agreement with Prof. X et al) was that there was obviously a difference, but that people were hesitant to look at their progress in their chosen goal objectively, which muddles the results. The fact that it’s for rugby is inconsequential.

  2. BantamRunner has completely missed the point of what anyone was talking about in the first place. While I’m at it, so has tap_u_out.

145

There’s a lot of anger here! Prof X, for someone who has spends the majority of his day on this forum and has over 31000 posts you’re not getting too much respect!

146

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
What are we talking about here? Brick you’re trying very hard (I don’t know why) to put your ideological thinking out there. Its all semantics. Is being huge the equivalent of being a bodybuilder? We have guys in pro wrestling, the Lashleys, the Cenas and the Ezekiel Jacksons looking huge but they aren’t bodybuilders. What are they doing when they are in the gym? We don’t have to call it anything but TRAINING. I could care less if a guy was doing push ups and curls all day but at the end of the day he looked like something. Feel me? I learned and etched a phrase into my brain not so long ago that went along the lines of “results are all that matter.” If I’m following the I bodybuilder program I’m not doing a program strictly done by Kai Greene or Dexter Jackson even though the principles of both MAY be very similar or identical; intertwined, mashed and mushed to the point where you cant extract them.

[/quote]
This is a somewhat invalid argument because Cena, at least, started out trying to be a bodybuilder, as did Triple H and others… could be just a love of wrestling or $$$ made them change course slightly.

147

[quote]tap_u_out wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
As a post on here mentioned, 99% of the people here will not actually compete in bodybuilding. That being the case, is it really a productive use of time to hit the biceps “from different angles?” Is symmetry really all that important? What’s more, I would guess around 75% of the people who come to this or any site looking to “get big” are really doing it to improve sports preformance. But they don’t say “I want to get big to get better at football/hockey/wrestling.” They just say “I want to get big.” And that’s when the fighting starts between the bodybuilding crowd and the strength crowd. This is why the writers are all promoting strength-based routines. It’s a way to hedge their bet. For the kid looking to get big for football, a strength routine is appropriate. For the guy looking to get big for personal reasons and not to compete in bodybuilding, a strength routine is appropriate.
[/quote]

First, as X said, who really cares if someone decides to compete at BB’ing or not. If their goal is to have a BB’ers physique, then yes, they should train in such a way as to allow them to reach that goal. And as far as symmetry goes, yeah, it actually is fairly useful even to a non bodybuilder as it generally prevents muscle imbalances/injuries later on down the road. Even elite level powerlifters (who’s goal is generally just to have the highest total possible) do plenty of assistance work to try to eliminate “weak links” or muscle imbalances.

Second, even if your theory is true and most people do come here looking to gain size/strength for sport reasons, there is a whole forum titled “Powerlifting” one titled “Olympic lifting” one titled “combat sports” and one titled “conditioning”. So there’s really no reason that they need to be giving their input on the “Bodybuilding training” forum if that’s not how they train or their goal.

[quote]
I do Olympic lifting. My workouts involve either the snatch or clean and jerk, a snatch or clean pull, and a squat or front squat. Sometimes I’ll do a Romanian deadlift or even a conventional deadlift. That’s it. That’s all there is to my routine. Nice and simple. I can do it in my basement, but I also go to a weightlifting gym. If you flex your biceps at my gym, we will laugh at you. If you come in wanting to build big pecs, we will laugh at you. We have many “bodybuilding refugees” who were fed up with not getting stronger but are now happy with their strength gains. We don’t care how big you are; all we care about is weight on the bar. Even that is secondary - what’s even more important is your technique. We don’t worry about spotters. But we’ve also noticed something interesting - as we gain strength and put weight on the bar, we also tend to look better. Shocking. If we miss a lift, we drop the weight and no one yells. There are no mirrors. We don’t post shirtless pictures of ourselves on Internet forums. That’s just strange.[/quote]

Good for you. But if that’s the case, then what on earth are you doing posting in the “Bodybuilding Training” forum? Do you see any of the guys who are training specifically for bodybuilding going into the “Olympic Lifting” forum and posting things like “you guys all look horrible and have no lateral delts, flat chests, and nonexistant biceps”? No, you don’t. You know why? Because we all know that those guys are training specifically with Olympic lifting in mind, not bodybuilding.

We don’t tell you how to train for your goal, or that training like we do will get you to your goal just as well as programs specifically designed to make you better at the Snatch and Clean and Jerk. Nor do we tell you that you are “strange” for having different goals than we do. Why is it so difficult for you to do the same?[/quote]

Because this thread also mentions “why train for strength?”[/quote]

The fragment “why train for strength” that you quoted is actually part of a complete sentence, if you happened to read (and maybe comprehend) that complete sentence you would realize that “wanting size” is crucial to the intended topic of this thread. You have specifically stated that personally you prioritize athletic performance over size gains, good for you. No one cares. You train for strength because you feel it is useful to you, again no one cares. There is absolutely no reasonable reason for you to become involved in a discussion about training for size when that is quite simply not what you do.

148

Lol at the MMA guy talking about beating up people over the internet. This isn’t highschool dude, no one is going to meet you in the parking lot after the final bell.

Fucking priceless.

149

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Oh, and if you did come to the Olympic lifting forum and said things like “you guys all look horrible and have no lateral delts, flat chests, and nonexistant biceps” we would probably agree with you and then tell you that we didn’t care one way or the other.[/quote]

You are so quick to defend yourself and so blinded by your bias you completely missed the point of Sento’s post.

Good work, now go clean and jerk until you’re blue in the face.

150

The problem with this forum is that too many people equate “Working Out in a Gym” with “Bodybuilding”.

I don’t see Pro X. hanging out in the Combat forum telling people how to train for MMA. I do however see a lot of people who just “work out” hanging out in the BB forum. Why? Because of threads like this. It’s a monster that keeps feeding itself.

The term “Bodybuiling” implies a goal, same as “Powerlifting” and “MMA”. These are sports. “Conditioning” or just working out is not a sport and does not imply a goal.

If you just workout without a goal you can’t call yourself a Bodybuilder or a Powerlifter or whatever…you’re just a dude working out. Which is fine. Many people just workout because they want to be healthy or they want to bang hot chics. Nothing wrong with that.

Then there are posters who feed the bears when they are told directly “Do Not Feed The Bears”.

Alan

151

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
What was I trying to say, anyway? …
[/quote]

I don’t know but that was a great post. This entire thread is enough to give anyone a headache, I don’t see how getting stronger for reps vs getting stronger for reps was enough to fill 7 pages.

152

[quote]tap_u_out wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]tap_u_out wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am not sure why rugby players and MMA trainers are even in this thread OR this forum.

Just because we want to be here. Pull your head out of your ass. I train for strength, mass and conditioning. Does this make us “all over the place”? Nope. Athletes lift. Period. We are functional and strong. We also build mass. That’s a FACT. If you’re an athlete that’s your goal. You have to deal with more than looking symmetrical onstage.

Btw, sparring 3 times a week is NOTHING. It aint shit! You maybe huge and muscular, but I’d like to see you run through a tough conditioning session and see how well you do. Try keeping your mass. We have a hard time keeping mass not because “we are all over the place” but because it’s the rigours of the sport. And we try to make the most progress in the gym anyway. It’s not easy.

Speaking of powerlifters… Has anyone seen Dave Tate cut? He dwarfs some bodybuilders. What about CT? Anyone remember the article “The beast evolves?” He is originally an olympic lifter… I’d love for you to tell Dave Tate that “he’s all over the place”, lol.

“Unless you now get stopped regularly because of looking like a bodybuilder, I doubt anyone cares.” Typical meathead comment… We’ve seen plenty of your kind come and go… all sadly choked out, arm barred or knocked out… But I’m sure you don’t care…

[/quote]

^ ^ ^ Here’s a guy who completely missed the point and is proving everything that X and co. said to be perfectly accurate. Congrats. Run along now and go snuggle with another dude “in full guard”. [/quote]

That’s a lame statement… It’s very easy to talk behind your keyboard. I urge you to walk into any BJJ or MMA gym near you and tell the smallest guy in there to go “snuggle” in full guard. Please… Does being turned into a pretzel appeal to you? Get the fuck out of here and go get your little bikini and go oil yourself up along with other dudes. Do you help each other out while oiling? I’m sure you do! That turns me on! LMAO.[/quote]

Lol you actually roll around with other guys and YOU’RE making gay jokes? That’s rich.

You’ve been asked to leave this forum. You have nothing to offer. No one cares about your opinion on bodybuilding. There is a combat forum that is severely missing your valuable input.

153

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
What are we talking about here? Brick you’re trying very hard (I don’t know why) to put your ideological thinking out there. Its all semantics. Is being huge the equivalent of being a bodybuilder? We have guys in pro wrestling, the Lashleys, the Cenas and the Ezekiel Jacksons looking huge but they aren’t bodybuilders. What are they doing when they are in the gym? We don’t have to call it anything but TRAINING. I could care less if a guy was doing push ups and curls all day but at the end of the day he looked like something. Feel me? I learned and etched a phrase into my brain not so long ago that went along the lines of “results are all that matter.” If I’m following the I bodybuilder program I’m not doing a program strictly done by Kai Greene or Dexter Jackson even though the principles of both MAY be very similar or identical; intertwined, mashed and mushed to the point where you cant extract them.

[/quote]
This is a somewhat invalid argument because Cena, at least, started out trying to be a bodybuilder, as did Triple H and others… could be just a love of wrestling or $$$ made them change course slightly.[/quote]

Good post. If you see some athlete with proportions that symmetrical without huge imbalances, chances are they put at least some focus into training for appearance at some point and not just for their sport.

There is a reason Triple H wanted to do the commentary for the Mr. Olympia show a few years back…because he loved bodybuilding…whether he actually competed or not.

154

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

Untrue. A muscle can be made stronger but not bigger. However, the reverse is true. A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. [/quote]

Completely false.

155

You know what I love about a lot of MMA fighters and dudes like tap-u-out…? It’s the way they all think they are the baddest mother-fuckers on the planet and can say what they want 'cos if anyone disagree’s with them they can ‘beat them down’.

But guess what? I’m actually mature enough to solve my problems without my fists. I really couldn’t give a shit that you do Muay Thai, you’re still a fucking idiot and I’m still going to tell you what I think if you ask.

[quote]tap_u_out wrote:
Btw, sparring 3 times a week is NOTHING. It aint shit! You maybe huge and muscular, but I’d like to see you run through a tough conditioning session and see how well you do. Try keeping your mass. We have a hard time keeping mass not because “we are all over the place” but because it’s the rigours of the sport. And we try to make the most progress in the gym anyway. It’s not easy.[/quote]

See what I mean. Baddass motherfuckers dude. I’d be quiet if I were you Bones, this guy obviously trains harder than you ever have and we simply couldn’t comprehend the toughness of his training

156

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

Untrue. A muscle can be made stronger but not bigger. However, the reverse is true. A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. [/quote]

Completely false.[/quote]

You’re wrong. You can become more efficient in a lift without gaining weight at all. Take REAL beginners who can sometimes make strength gains without gaining a pound! Or the powerlifter or Olympic lifter who increases his total while staying at the same weight.

157

For me, strength increases have always come with a corresponding increase in size, and vice versa. Maybe I’m doing something wrong.

158

Why are MMA “fighters” such twats on the internet. Every video I see of a bodybuilder on youtube has some smart ass saying “ye hes big but he can’t fight, I’d kick his ass” well no shit sherlock, he DOESNT CARE! If he did, he train to be an MMA fighter.

Myself, I’m a member of a rifle club, and I could kill all these MMA fighters from 100 yards, but I don’t go onto MMA forums and say “Ye he can fight, but I could kill him with a gun”

I weep for humanity sometimes, what Bricknyce said is just complete COMMON SENSE, I honestly dont understand how anyone can be stupid enough to argue with it. If you want to be an MMA fighter, train to be one, if you want to be a powerlifter, train to be one, if you want to be a bodybuilder, train to be one. It isn’t hard??

159

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
For me, strength increases have always come with a corresponding increase in size, and vice versa. Maybe I’m doing something wrong.[/quote]

Do you people have mental deficiencies or something? Are you serious with this post. There is no way you read the thread and are still this lost as to what the point of it is.

OBVIOUSLY GETTING STRONGER IS A GOAL FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO GET BIGGER. The point is that doing a 5x5 program (a strength based program) is not the ideal way to train to get bigger.

Come on people get your head out of your asses and COMPREHEND what is being said. You’re making yourselves look like clowns continuously missing the point.

And Airtruth you have again showed your lack of understanding about this shit. When you take ONE (1) PERSON and bicep goes from 14" curling 35lb DB for reps and then watch him grow his arms to 19" it is true 100% of the time that HIS arm will be stronger. Did you assume that Brick was talking about comparing different people? That wouldn’t make any sense at all.

160

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
For me, strength increases have always come with a corresponding increase in size, and vice versa. Maybe I’m doing something wrong.[/quote]

Same here, I guess we’re just weird!