is powerlifting the new bodybuilding

[0ni]

@RyanF: did you ever read the Starting Strength book, and this article? http://startingstrength.com/articles/clarification_rippetoe.pdf ? That said, I don't agree with eating 3500 calories a day to lose weight, because for me at least, it won't. In the book he specifically states that GOMAD is only for super skinny guys who can't put on weight as a last ditch effort, and to not do it for longer than 6 weeks or so.

@0ni : Ronnie Coleman, Arnold spring to mind

Arnold's first real routine out of just doing curls and bench was this one:
T NATION | Reg Parks 5x5 Program

See what he looked like doing that? Better than anyone I've seen at that age and quite unlike any "strength base" program I've ever seen. The volume is pretty brutal and this would be tough to do three times a week.

Here is Ronnie Coleman in his powerlifting days:
Ronnie Colemans First Power Lifting Competition - YouTube

Does this look like someone that shunned hypertrophy work to you? Do you have any citation on how Coleman trained in his powerlifting days? Frankly, he looks fucking ridiculous and I have no idea why you'd use him as an example

 

[bozodos]

my point was, and using the two best known examples, that these guys started on 'strength' programs, not BB splits. As Silverback said, due to BB being a subjective competition, a lot of it comes down to genetics and muscle insertions over anything else. Those guys weren't training to 'get big' initially, they were training to get stronger.

It's the problem I see with most other people - all obsessed about getting 'big', with no fucks given towards gaining the strength needed to help grow muscles.

 

[0ni]

But getting bigger and stronger is the same fucking thing jesus christ

 

[bozodos]

no it's not, plenty of unaesthetic or small people who are extremely strong.

 

[0ni]

They don't eat enough
We've already been through this before.

 

[D1cko]

Would it be fair to say that training for strength primarily, builds stronger skeletal structure and tendons etc? It could be why it takes a little longer to grow than someone training only for pump up muscles...

 

[0ni]

We've been over this a hundred times on the forum.
Diet has you looking good. Time under tension has you growing AND getting stronger. And that is all there is to it. A powerlifter will need to practice the lifts they compete in and go heavy near a competition but other than that, the two principles of training are identical

 

[D1cko]

Ok...well I disagree on certain things...
I think you can train differently to achieve slightly different results.

 

[Goosey]

But getting bigger and stronger is the same fucking thing jesus christ

Bigger muscle allows strength

 

[Goosey]

no it's not, plenty of unaesthetic or small people who are extremely strong.

you really cannot compare one to another, many factors involved, but it still stands the a bigger muscle is going to be a stronger muscle.

They don't eat enough
We've already been through this before.

or not work hard enough

Would it be fair to say that training for strength primarily, builds stronger skeletal structure and tendons etc? It could be why it takes a little longer to grow than someone training only for pump up muscles...

"training only for pump up muscles", not sure what you mean, but put it this way, no one has ever built a body on a low intensity program.

I think a person needs to build on a program using higher reps for the reasons you state, like tendon strength..., if he wants to play around with lower reps

Ok...well I disagree on certain things...
I think you can train differently to achieve slightly different results.

There is only ONE result we all want IMO.

These training for different results are poppy-cock, and this is the smoke and mirrors i speak of..

 

[RyanF]

@RyanF: did you ever read the Starting Strength book, and this article? http://startingstrength.com/articles/clarification_rippetoe.pdf ? That said, I don't agree with eating 3500 calories a day to lose weight, because for me at least, it won't. In the book he specifically states that GOMAD is only for super skinny guys who can't put on weight as a last ditch effort, and to not do it for longer than 6 weeks or so.

@0ni : Ronnie Coleman, Arnold spring to mind

You mean this book?



No, it never occurred to me that I could open it up and read it. Three times, to make sure I understood it.

And yes, of course I've read his clarification, and become all too familiar with YNDTP.

It doesn't matter how skinny you are, 4L milk/day is only sensible advice for bulking if it's the only change you make, and beforehand you were drinking 3-3.5L milk/day.

Ryanf

I'm going to be honest here and say that I've never read a Rippetoe book, I have one on my kindle, but yet to read, only what I've seen in short articles on the net and videos.

i don't even know his background but whatever I've seen or read makes sense to me, my opinion is, there not a lot to write about in weight lifting (how to add muscle) you could do this in probably 1000 words, but I'm interested in what you wrote about your success with it, and then say some was "horse-shit".

Could you just give me the horse shit points in few words?

There's a lot I could critique him on. I've already discussed his sloppy nutritional advice, bad weight gain targets and inflated appearance of strength results here. I also find his programming woefully imbalanced (and in ways that are easily fixable, so there's not much excuse for it); a lot of his technique/coaching points leave much to be desired (apparently glute drive is taught through knee extension in response to molestation); and his dogmatic approach to exercise selection (which seems to be a tactic used purely to market SS) is cringe-worthy. Maybe in private he's not so bad, but in public he seems to be more of a cult leader in the guise of a strength coach than just a plain old strength coach trying to help people.

 

[bozodos]

In all seriousness, you should debate these things on the Starting Strength forum, if you don't already, the quality of discussion there from what I've seen is fairly high, BTW the 3rd edition is the current one (and the one which I have). He admits that there was a lot of incomplete and wrong information.

When I read the book, I agreed with most of the sentiment in it (which I had read very similar stuff from people like Markos in his newsletters), the program itself, direct diet advice, and squat technique not so much. The guy even went to the trouble of proving his theory on lean body mass gains with Zach Evetts, one of his trainees, in a very public spat with Lyle McDonald and other detractors. Disagree if you like, but IMO the book is solid. He also states that while it's stupid to try and shoot for <10% bodyfat, being above 20% is counter productive as well.

IIRC GOMAD is part of the 6000 cal a day diet for the skinny trainee to put on weight, but only until they hit the 20% bodyfat or so.

The book also has great detail on assistance exercises such as how to curl properly, things like 20rep squats and even diagrams to build your own power rack. At least you've read it in some form though - most of the hate I see on Rip or the book is along the lines of "hurrr GOMAD and squats = shit aesthetics".

 

[Darkoz]

Fuck I hate that word 'aesthetic'
Just aim to be lean and muscular for fucks sake

 

[Fadi]

I really don't see how people canthink you can get strong without muscles, or get muscles withoutstrength...aren't we all just doing both at the same time?

It’s all relative to what your sport requires of you to do and focus your training on. It’s not as black and white as you may think.

But getting bigger and stronger is thesame fucking thing jesus christ

No it’s not according to my information and experience, and thank God it’s not or we would really be in trouble here. I may want to focus my training (and I did in my weightlifting years) on strength dominance over muscle hypertrophy dominance. And just as well there is a way to accentuate one aspect over another, i.e. strength over muscle size or vice versa.

Perchance I've misunderstood the gist of your points above gentlemen, I'd be more than happy to expand on my own view point in future posts...



Fadi.

 

[rino60]

It’s all relative to what your sport requires of you to do and focus your training on. It’s not as black and white as you may think.

No it’s not according to my information and experience, and thank God it’s not or we would really be in trouble here. I may want to focus my training (and I did in my weightlifting years) on strength dominance over muscle hypertrophy dominance. And just as well there is a way to accentuate one aspect over another, i.e. strength over muscle size or vice versa.

Perchance I've misunderstood the gist of your points above gentlemen, I'd be more than happy to expand on my own view point in future posts...



Fadi.

Fadi has spoken

/thread

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

 

[0ni]

It’s all relative to what your sport requires of you to do and focus your training on. It’s not as black and white as you may think.

No it’s not according to my information and experience, and thank God it’s not or we would really be in trouble here. I may want to focus my training (and I did in my weightlifting years) on strength dominance over muscle hypertrophy dominance. And just as well there is a way to accentuate one aspect over another, i.e. strength over muscle size or vice versa.

Perchance I've misunderstood the gist of your points above gentlemen, I'd be more than happy to expand on my own view point in future posts...



Fadi.

Post a picture of your quads from when you competed in Weightlifting

 

[Goosey]

It’s all relative to what your sport requires of you to do and focus your training on. It’s not as black and white as you may think.

No it’s not according to my information and experience, and thank God it’s not or we would really be in trouble here. I may want to focus my training (and I did in my weightlifting years) on strength dominance over muscle hypertrophy dominance. And just as well there is a way to accentuate one aspect over another, i.e. strength over muscle size or vice versa.

Perchance I've misunderstood the gist of your points above gentlemen, I'd be more than happy to expand on my own view point in future posts...



Fadi.

Fadi

Hi, I don't think Dicko for one minute believes it's black and white.

but I think (and I think dicko means the same) there is a differance between a "workout" and a training session.

i like to keep things simple...

A workout is designed to grow muscle tissue, which then allows strength, one seems to follow the other.

if one takes the time to measure the size of their muscles (cold) then you'll see that, done right, a good workout over time will increase the muscle, but not strength, (straight away) in most cases, but strength follows, followed by increased muscle size, sort of like step by step, it's the best way I can describe it

Along with the many benefits of a good hard safe workout using higher reps are; increased tendon strength, bone strength, fat reduction and joint health, none of which can be safely achieved doing exclusively 3 reps and under I believe.

if one is interested in weightlifting sports, one needs to workout to build and get real good at it first, pay your dues.

 

[Goosey]

As I also stated many time previous, both power lifters and bodybuilders need to "workout" in the same manner.

a healthy joint is a strong joint and there is no muscle imbalance around it.

 

[D1cko]

Yes silverback that's correct. I did say I only disagreed one point because I believe that you can structure a training session, or a week, month, 12 weeks...to achieve a certain result. You can structure the same exercises differently to achieve a slightly different goal.
I was always told by my gym mates that I would never build muscle training the way I do, but just over 2 years in, everybody is coming to me for advice now...
Powerlifting/bodybuilding...who cares...just lift and stuff will happen.

 

[steveP]

This is a topic I've seen on the forum plenty of times, where people go in circles and never really come to a conclusion.

I think the terms 'building muscle' and 'strength' are subjective. Saying lifting weights will get you strong and build muscle is a blanket statement, but for most gym goers, it's true. But most gym goers achieve mediocre results and never really focus towards a goal.

There are always exceptions of people with fantastic genetics who can compete in powerlifting and body building. These are exceptions and shouldn't be brought into the argument based on the average person who casually trains.

The key factor with anything that requires training is this: if you train and practice something, you'll get better at it. So obviously if you train for powerlifting, you'll get stronger, but building muscle is secondary and a side effect. The inverse is the same; if you train to build muscle, you'll get stronger. If you want to get really good at one or the other, you need to focus your training accordingly. Just because some people lift weight and are good at both doesn't mean all people can do the same.

So what actually is different between the training of a powerlifter and body builder? The powerlifter wants to lift the most weight in a single lift or very low reps. This requires coordination and activation of maximum muscle fibers in a short bust. Of course bigger muscles will help, but technique is most important.

A body builder wants to fatigue their muscles based on either high weight, high intensity, high reps or high volume. They all work when incorporated together. Of course all of this requires strength, but it's a different type of strength. Again, if you don't train for your 1RM, no matter your training style, if you don't practice it, you won't get good at it.