'small' powerlifters

[Mad Manic]

This is actually how many plers train (albeit they focus on movements and not angles) - and how Quagmire was training and you rubbished it.

btw you still haven't told us how many years of training you have under your belt to make your claims. nor your numbers or stats.

LOL before you said it's pointless to use angles and you said to just shift more weight on the big moves. And yes I KNOW that's how PLers train, I SAID THAT in Quags thread that they do assistance work and iso work.

Quagmire is not really training with PL style volume or angles even. Well, you can't really over two days. Of course only at the end of the thread did you mention that, after stringing me along.

MM

 

[Warboss Alex]

I'm accusing powerlifters of lifting for strength and saying that for muscle mass and aesthetic physiques it's BBers we need to look at. Stop washing over the details. Nobody ever says powerlifters suck or look bad or have less muscle. The point is it's sub-optimal for BBing. Period.

FYI I've trained seriously for one year now.

MM

Okay dude, so we can be adult about this and finish this and move on with no hard feelings I hope.. I'll give you this much: a pling style routine will not win you the Olympia (but Dave Henry competes and uses a power oriented routine - very low volume 3 days a week - and he's DAMN thick) but in just about any other case (99% of the world's training population) that sort of routine will get you better, quicker results than a volume-based one.

The quickest way to lift the poundages required for the volume routines to actually produce hypertrophy at an advanced level is to build up a strength and size foundation with basic powerlifting moves. volume induces hypertrophy if the weights are high enough - otherwise guys could curl the 10kg dbs for 100s of reps and get huge biceps or just squat the bar and get huge legs (simplistic example I know).

and the quickest way to get your weights at a point where volume training will induce significant hypertrophy is by doing power-based routines. it works for LOTS of people and especially natural lifters. what you say may well work for you and your friends- that's awesome, stick with it.

but you cannot come out and rubbish someone else's training methods when they obviously work for them and others.

 

[Warboss Alex]

after stringing me along.

well if you'd taken the time to follow his journals from the start you'd've seen the reasons for the 2 a week routine.

 

[Warboss Alex]

Quagmire is not really training with PL style volume or angles even.

the guy who I learned that particular template (the squat+bench/dead+row split) from has a 600lb bench press and a 900lb squat. pling 'volume' is not set - it's down to the individual's requirements and recovery abilities.

 

[Mad Manic]

Okay dude, so we can be adult about this and finish this and move on with no hard feelings I hope.. I'll give you this much: a pling style routine will not win you the Olympia (but Dave Henry competes and uses a power oriented routine - very low volume 3 days a week - and he's DAMN thick) but in just about any other case (99% of the world's training population) that sort of routine will get you better, quicker results than a volume-based one.

The quickest way to lift the poundages required for the volume routines to actually produce hypertrophy at an advanced level is to build up a strength and size foundation with basic powerlifting moves. volume induces hypertrophy if the weights are high enough - otherwise guys could curl the 10kg dbs for 100s of reps and get huge biceps or just squat the bar and get huge legs (simplistic example I know).

and the quickest way to get your weights at a point where volume training will induce significant hypertrophy is by doing power-based routines. it works for LOTS of people and especially natural lifters. what you say may well work for you and your friends- that's awesome, stick with it.

but you cannot come out and rubbish someone else's training methods when they obviously work for them and others.

Paragraph One: I have to disagree. If you're suggesting training the big lifts twice a week to speed up strength gains in the early stages where there's a lot to reap, then yes maybe. But otherwise it's volume and angles on top of the basic stuff because it wears down the fibres more. You'll still be benching, squatting etc.

Paragraph Two: Again, same thing. You're still doing the bread and butter stuff but you just do more volume and assistance/isos/angles to wear down the fibres more. You're still gaining strength especially if you do low reps as I suggested (along with med and high). Again, if you advocate newbs to train lifts twice a week, maybe I'd agree there.

Paragraph Three: I didn't rubbish his methods. If you saw my very first post, I said he should train more days with more volume and angles. It turned out he can't, so the thread was pointless infact. Simple.

I think your problem is you tend to extremes too much. You're telling the skinny kid who isolates everything to go PL style. I'm telling him to do the big lifts and then wear down the fibres more with varied reps, assistance exercises and iso's and do it over 4 days. That's all.

Also you should know that in the first year of lifting, strength and mass gains come pretty easily as long as you train the big lifts weekly (or bi-weekly even). But yes, we can end it here.

 

[mrRuckus]

Alex, how much growth potential is there in doing 1-3 reps of the big compounds only?

They always say growth comes from the higher reps but how much realistically comes from doing straight up huge weights given that the calories are there?

It sounds kind of funny to me that you wouldn't still grow large doing low reps if you ate a lot... i mean what kind of body sense would it make to put those calories into fat if you're putting huge load demands on muscle?

I really do want to know this since i kind of stupidly feel like i'm "just getting stronger" on the days i'm doing 3 rep sets.. i know that's wrong but it's a feeling nonetheless. Is the whole "rep scheme" stuff overblown for guys still small? It's kind of funny because when i'm doing any accessory work like 10 rep skullcrushers i'm thinking "this is stupid. how is this going to get me strong?" Yeah, contradiction

 

[EFFORT]

Alex, how much growth potential is there in doing 1-3 reps of the big compounds only?

They always say growth comes from the higher reps but how much realistically comes from doing straight up huge weights given that the calories are there?

It sounds kind of funny to me that you wouldn't still grow large doing low reps if you ate a lot... i mean what kind of body sense would it make to put those calories into fat if you're putting huge load demands on muscle?

I really do want to know this since i kind of stupidly feel like i'm "just getting stronger" on the days i'm doing 3 rep sets.. i know that's wrong but it's a feeling nonetheless. Is the whole "rep scheme" stuff overblown for guys still small? It's kind of funny because when i'm doing any accessory work like 10 rep skullcrushers i'm thinking "this is stupid. how is this going to get me strong?" Yeah, contradiction

run that by IA

 

[Warboss Alex]

Alex, how much growth potential is there in doing 1-3 reps of the big compounds only?

Ask the powerlifters, ask the strongmen.. hell ask the sumo wrestlers who carry more muscle mass than anyone and they sure as hell don't do volume routines.

Seriously, for anyone who isn't at an advanced level all they gotta worry about is getting stronger (in WHATEVER rep range) and eating a hell of a lot.

If you can pull 500 for 3, squat 500 for 3 and bench 500 for 3, you really think you won't be one hell of a large person just because you weren't training in the 'hypertrophy' ranges?

One of the biggest pros of all time, Dorian Yates, whose genetics were good but NOT on a par with say Flex Wheeler's, got up to his gargantuan size through HEAVY weights. Ronnie Coleman, acclaimed as the best of all time (he's definitely the freakiest), has a powerlifting background, and check his workouts: 800lb deadlifts for a couple of reps for example.

And if you ask the pros what they did in their earlier years (as they built the most of their mass before they started refining it with hypertrophy training) - you'll find MANY of them (usually the less genetically blessed a la Yates) just did simple, hard, heavy training.

Yeah, people may point out that I'm talking about the extreme end of the genetic spectrum (pro bbers) - but if the damn biggest bbers are the ones hefting the heaviest weights, doesn't this tell you something?

And to shift the heaviest weights, you gotta train in a way that enables you to get up there. And especially for the natural, genetically average trainee the fastest way to get there is a powerlifting-style routine and eat your way to higher bodyweights.

Honestly, just get strong whichever way you want (strongman, pling, oly lifting, powerbodybuilding) and eat, and you'll like the results.

Maybe for optimum development, once you're damn strong, you'll wanna do hypertrophy work to truly develop yourself to the optimum level - that's fine, go for it. But until you reach that stage any training that involves compound moves, lower reps/volume for quicker strength gains, and a frequency that YOU can recover from is going to get you the damn best results.

 

[Drum&Bass]

hmm...I have genetics to develop strong giant legs..unfortunately for me I became disproportioned because the rest of my body doesn't grow as well as my legs do (isn't that a majority of people).

I'd rather take it slow and keep a good looking proportioned physique...and why am I trying to pull 500, squat 700 and bench 400 again ???

 

[Warboss Alex]

hmm...I have genetics to develop strong giant legs..unfortunately for me I became disproportioned because the rest of my body doesn't grow as well as my legs do (isn't that a majority of people).

I'd rather take it slow and keep a good looking proportioned physique...and why am I trying to pull 500, squat 700 and bench 400 again ???

if you legs are such a strong bodypart when you can pull/squat 300 and bench 250, they will still be a strong bodypart when you can pull/squat 600 and bench 450. so too will your weak points also be weak. after your first 2-3 years of progressive growth, the way you look will be the way you always look (proportionately) - you can only get bigger. proportions/shape/physique flow are genetic and your training will not affect this.

if you want to hold back for fear of becoming 'disproportionate' feel free. but you will never realise your overall strength/size potential this way.

I shall withhold my opinion of people who want to 'take it slow'..

 

[Mad Manic]

Ask the powerlifters, ask the strongmen.. hell ask the sumo wrestlers who carry more muscle mass than anyone and they sure as hell don't do volume routines.

Seriously, for anyone who isn't at an advanced level all they gotta worry about is getting stronger (in WHATEVER rep range) and eating a hell of a lot.

If you can pull 500 for 3, squat 500 for 3 and bench 500 for 3, you really think you won't be one hell of a large person just because you weren't training in the 'hypertrophy' ranges?

One of the biggest pros of all time, Dorian Yates, whose genetics were good but NOT on a par with say Flex Wheeler's, got up to his gargantuan size through HEAVY weights. Ronnie Coleman, acclaimed as the best of all time (he's definitely the freakiest), has a powerlifting background, and check his workouts: 800lb deadlifts for a couple of reps for example.

And if you ask the pros what they did in their earlier years (as they built the most of their mass before they started refining it with hypertrophy training) - you'll find MANY of them (usually the less genetically blessed a la Yates) just did simple, hard, heavy training.

Yeah, people may point out that I'm talking about the extreme end of the genetic spectrum (pro bbers) - but if the damn biggest bbers are the ones hefting the heaviest weights, doesn't this tell you something?

And to shift the heaviest weights, you gotta train in a way that enables you to get up there. And especially for the natural, genetically average trainee the fastest way to get there is a powerlifting-style routine and eat your way to higher bodyweights.

Honestly, just get strong whichever way you want (strongman, pling, oly lifting, powerbodybuilding) and eat, and you'll like the results.

Maybe for optimum development, once you're damn strong, you'll wanna do hypertrophy work to truly develop yourself to the optimum level - that's fine, go for it. But until you reach that stage any training that involves compound moves, lower reps/volume for quicker strength gains, and a frequency that YOU can recover from is going to get you the damn best results.

I still don't get your point. The BBing routines do PL moves even with low reps but have higher reps and volume to fully wear down the fibres. It's not about skipping low rep squats for something else. Yes Coleman had a PL background, but shifted to a BB routine for obvious reasons like them all. He also advocates high reps even to average joes. I've never heard a BBer tell a newbie BBer to not train like a BBer.

You still haven't put forward any arguments that a BBing routine is inferior to a PLing routine. You seem to think a BBing routine is a micky mouse thing with high reps, drop sets etc. on mainly isolations. I still don't see how doing your basic compounds through a varied rep range plus other stuff to fully wear down fibres (volume, iso's, drop sets) is worse than what you prescribe. If you want to focus on strength then squat and bench twice a week for a start on a full body program.

I'd also like to re-iterate again, that some guys bench 80 kg and squat 100 kg but have huge chests and legs whereas otherwise shift double those weights and have worse chest and legs even at a high BW. The reason is that the former know how to wear down the fibres for optimal growth. You're telling people they need huge numbers on the big 3. That simply isn't true.

MM

 

[Quagmire911]

I still don't get your point. The BBing routines do PL moves even with low reps but have higher reps and volume to fully wear down the fibres. It's not about skipping low rep squats for something else. Yes Coleman had a PL background, but shifted to a BB routine for obvious reasons like them all. He also advocates high reps even to average joes. I've never heard a BBer tell a newbie BBer to not train like a BBer.

You still haven't put forward any arguments that a BBing routine is inferior to a PLing routine. You seem to think a BBing routine is a micky mouse thing with high reps, drop sets etc. on mainly isolations. I still don't see how doing your basic compounds through a varied rep range plus other stuff to fully wear down fibres (volume, iso's, drop sets) is worse than what you prescribe. If you want to focus on strength then squat and bench twice a week for a start on a full body program.

I'd also like to re-iterate again, that some guys bench 80 kg and squat 100 kg but have huge chests and legs whereas otherwise shift double those weights and have worse chest and legs even at a high BW. The reason is that the former know how to wear down the fibres for optimal growth. You're telling people they need huge numbers on the big 3. That simply isn't true.

MM

Don't know if this has been stated yet but here goes:

You ever heard of the word "overtraining".

 

[Mad Manic]

Don't know if this has been stated yet but here goes:

You ever heard of the word "overtraining".

Yes, also heard of undertraining and under-recovering too. I'm not sure what this has to do with my points. BBing routines aren't about killing yourself or overtraining. It's about wearing down fibres as best as one can and eating enough so they grow bigger first and stronger second.

MM

 

[Warboss Alex]

I'd also like to re-iterate again, that some guys bench 80 kg and squat 100 kg but have huge chests and legs

what do you class as huge? you were talking about pro bbers in your previous post? I don't see Jay Cutler benching 80kg. Or are we talking 'club muscle' huge?

and you are missing MY point - I have never once said a bbing style routine is inferior. bbing routines work fine if you can grow from them or if they suit your goals. as above - maybe you and I have different perceptions of what is big and what is not.

my issue is with people saying that powerlifting routines do not work optimally for muscle mass. and unless you're at an advanced level, the simple truth is they do. and a powerlifting routine comes in many shapes and forms. it just focuses primarily on getting a big total but it can definitely involve some volume work and isolations and accessory moves.

you still haven't told us your stats so we can compare you to someone like Quagmire who's doing a pling-style routine and has been lifting 6-7 months.

 

[Mad Manic]

what do you class as huge? you were talking about pro bbers in your previous post? I don't see Jay Cutler benching 80kg. Or are we talking 'club muscle' huge?

and you are missing MY point - I have never once said a bbing style routine is inferior. bbing routines work fine if you can grow from them or if they suit your goals. as above - maybe you and I have different perceptions of what is big and what is not.

my issue is with people saying that powerlifting routines do not work optimally for muscle mass. and unless you're at an advanced level, the simple truth is they do. and a powerlifting routine comes in many shapes and forms. it just focuses primarily on getting a big total but it can definitely involve some volume work and isolations and accessory moves.

you still haven't told us your stats so we can compare you to someone like Quagmire who's doing a pling-style routine and has been lifting 6-7 months.

Huge as in most people would think you're a big guy not pro bbing. But the point is it's not all about the weight one is shifting. There's a vid of a pro russian bber and he said that he saw a guy with a huge chest benching 80 and one with a med chest benching 200 kg.

Well he's been lifting at least since Jan I think since he gave numbers of lifts from Feb. We've both trained for nearly a year.

I started properly Xmas 2006 10.5 stone, rake thin (At 6'). What I then decided to do was go on one long bulk for 14 months to add as much mass as possible and then go on a cut for 2-3 months, so that means I'm 11 months in.

At the Mo My 6 Rep Max lifts are: Squat 120 x 6, Bench 85 -|) x 6, SLDL 140 x 6, Row: 95 x 6, OH Press 55 x 6, Dips (BW 15 stone + 35 kg) x 6, WG Pull Ups (BW 15 stone + 10 kg) x 6, CG Bench 80 x 6, BB Curl 45 x 6.

Cold, Flexed: My Quads are 28 inch, Arms at 16 1/3 and Chest at 44 inch.

At the mo am 14.5 stone (15 at time of training) with BF around 14 %. So gonna keep bulking for 3 more months, then cut and see how I look.

My Arms were poor until I started blitzing them with a mix of low and moreso high reps and drop sets 2-3 times per week (medium volume each time) whether it be fresh (arms day) or after an upper body workout of some kind. Infact, it wasn't that long ago that they were 14.5 tbh.

 

[wolf116]

OMG!!! Look at Dave Gulledge's back!
http://www.t-nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=699538

 

[Mad Manic]

OMG!!! Look at Dave Gulledge's back!
http://www.t-nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=699538

Lol that lower back is just insane.

 

[Quagmire911]

Isn't Gulledge the one notorious for doing squats, deads and bench, low reps for most of his lifting career...

 

[wolf116]

"I have thrown up my breakfast before because I was so sick of food. When this happens I just make the same thing and eat it again". -Dave Gulledge

Now that's hardcore.

Hold up, is he still 22?

 

[wolf116]

Lol that lower back is just insane.

Do you think his arms are out of proportion?