Posting Lifting Stats in relation to muscle growth and supplement program

[Vegking]

Why do so many of you who have a goal of muscle growth or cosmetic enhancement focus on the amount of wt lifted and list your lifting stats or how much pounds your lifts are going up in response to your supplement program? If your goal is to get stronger then yes that stuff is relevent. But I think most people in here are focused on muscle growth which is completely independent of getting stronger. In one the focus should be training the muscle and the other the focus should be lifting the wt. For a much better and informative explanation check out Scott Abel's blog from June and July or is it May and June? Anyway I just think it is silly to post those stats because depending on your goals, they are meaningless and misleading.

 

[TheOne310]

:gives:

 

[wedlund6]

i get your point i do not care how much i lift. i think some use as a way to check there progress.measuring a muscle is hard and changes often. my arm size can change 1/4 in. in 3 days with no problem.but from a bodybuilding stand point i get a much better chest workout benching at 270 then at 370

 

[MongoSS]

I think there is a middle ground. Bodybuilders need to lift enough to grow new muscle so tracking lifting stats isnt completely useless. There are many factors such as time under tension, intensification techniques like forced reps, forced negatives, burn outs, rest pause etc. However if a person is gaining muscle lifting at a certain weight it stands to reason eventually the body will compensate and the muscle will no longer grow sufficiently with the same training stimulus. Thus necessitating an increase in mechanical load.

 

[gamer2be08]

Why do so many of you who have a goal of muscle growth or cosmetic enhancement focus on the amount of wt lifted and list your lifting stats or how much pounds your lifts are going up in response to your supplement program? If your goal is to get stronger then yes that stuff is relevent. But I think most people in here are focused on muscle growth which is completely independent of getting stronger. In one the focus should be training the muscle and the other the focus should be lifting the wt. For a much better and informative explanation check out Scott Abel's blog from June and July or is it May and June? Anyway I just think it is silly to post those stats because depending on your goals, they are meaningless and misleading.

Wow... Usually when you get big strength increases, that correlates to increased lean mass..

Supplements do not make you stronger..
Diet, training and increased lean mass makes you stronger..

 

[Vegking]

Wow... Usually when you get big strength increases, that correlates to increased lean mass..

Supplements do not make you stronger..
Diet, training and increased lean mass makes you stronger..

Did you read his blog? I'm not the expert, He is. His competitors make amazing gains in muscle. He has been coaching for 30 years and those blogs were extremely eye opening and informative. Really cuts through the crap. In short wt or load does not equal size.

 

[gamer2be08]

Did you read his blog? I'm not the expert, He is. His competitors make amazing gains in muscle. He has been coaching for 30 years and those blogs were extremely eye opening and informative. Really cuts through the crap. In short wt or load does not equal size.

So, if someones bench goes up from 225-315 on cycle over the course of 8 weeks. Are you saying that he has gained no mass.. Or saying the mass he gained during those 8 weeks has nothing to do with the weight he now pushes and vice versa?

 

[Rodja]

Did you read his blog? I'm not the expert, He is. His competitors make amazing gains in muscle. He has been coaching for 30 years and those blogs were extremely eye opening and informative. Really cuts through the crap. In short wt or load does not equal size.

This part is very misleading and not nearly that simple. There are a myriad of factors that play into hypertrophy and load is just one of them.

 

[fadi]

Did you read his blog? I'm not the expert, He is. His competitors make amazing gains in muscle. He has been coaching for 30 years and those blogs were extremely eye opening and informative. Really cuts through the crap. In short wt or load does not equal size.

Vegking, you will see different coaches give you different advice and methodology.

You're not going to gain 20" arms curling 20lbs. You may start with 20lbs, but with time your lifts will go up because the muscle fiber has grown in girth and can now do more work.

This doesn't mean every person who bench 300 will have the same chest size of course, but relative to their progress, their increase in strength can be measures against their gains.

Another thing to keep in mind is that strength can come months before size. You can become stronger in all your lifts yet not notice an increase in measurements and few months later, all of a sudden you notice your arms grew for example.

One argument can be made that powerlifters are stronger than bodybuilders, but may have less size (probably more of less definition). That too is possible. You can train different ways for different results.

However, in general if you want to increase your size you need to increase your strength. And yes there are many other factors, diet workout program etc.

Now why do people mention their stats? two reasons.. ego, and as a reference point with some ego

 

[Vegking]

Guys, I would provide a link if I knew how, I get what everyone is saying and yes it is not a good idea to broad brush something like this, but I would appreciate if someone would read Scott Abel's blog before responding. I mean hear him out first and then respond.

Gamertobe08, you put the words "on cycle" in your post. That obviously changes things.

 

[EasyEJL]

Guys, I would provide a link if I knew how, I get what everyone is saying and yes it is not a good idea to broad brush something like this, but I would appreciate if someone would read Scott Abel's blog before responding. I mean hear him out first and then respond.

Gamertobe08, you put the words "on cycle" in your post. That obviously changes things.

Theres no need to "hear him out" on a topic he's wrong on. Strength does not directly correlate with size, but they are related. At a certain point, weight starts having to increase to get additional hypertrophy. That is factual, not theoretical. In doing forced reps and high rep ranges you start getting into lactic acid buildup, which is contrary to building mass. Size comes along with strength, strength comes along with size. Now it is VERY individual, where a given individual may only be able to bench 200 and be a decent size, but for him to get bigger over time the weight will eventually come up. There may be another guy the exact same size as him benching 300lbs, and over time his weight lifted will have to come up for size to go up.

 

[fadi]

I think you're not fully communicating his points (blog) correctly. He is not saying heavier is not needed, he is talking about specific way of training or how some interpret it. Here is his blog posts from June and July

http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html
http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html

 

[fadi]

Sorry had a meeting so could not comment beyond posting the link.

Scott's point was not that you can make the same gains if you lift lighter. His article made few valid points:

1. At the beginning, you need to do higher rep counts to get the form right.
2. Going heavy on the expense of form, is not benefitial or better than going lighter and getting the form right with higher rep
3. Intensity is more important than just going through the motion, which again goes back to form and concentration
4. If your intensity is not right, then you will not make the best gains
5. He is not saying lifting light weight for higher reps is better. He is mainly attacking the 1-3 reps for strength increase before addressing the intensity aspect of working out. He prefers higher rep range to get the form and intensity right to maximize the gains

All these valid points, and well taken by the majority. There is no argument there.

 

[fadi]

Ok i read his July post and I have to say, he lost all credibility in one sentence. The guy is simply trying to establish himself as an expert to sell his DVDs nothing more.

These two main sports are Powerlifting and Weightlifting. As the “assistance” of lifting gear (lifting shirts, lifting suits, etc.) became more advanced the lifters get a tremendous boost through most of the entire range of motion; especially for say bench press. As the lift continues to lock out position, the lifting gear is less involved. The powerlifter then has to focus on advancing limit strength in a very narrow range of motion. (For example, the lock phase of the bench press.) Hence, the use of boards, floor presses, etc., was born. And for Powerlifting, this is indeed relevant for the modern assisted lifter. However, for bodybuilding or physique enhancement this is a complete waste of gym time. It is well established that the strength gained from such limited ranges of motion with using partials, is gained only at that exact point of execution and focus. While this is essential for a powerlifter or weightlifter in executing a max lift, it is irrelevant for someone seeking cosmetic physique advancement.

First of all, floor presses were used way before benches were invented. Bodybuilders had no way to train their chest properly and they used to use floor presses. It wasn't till later that benches came in the picture and you started seeing better chest phesique. This is in the history of the sport. He had no business making such stupid comment.

Also, board presses do contribute to strength increases and they are well practiced by powerlifters. But again, not because of the assisted shirts...etc.

 

[Rodja]

Ok i read his July post and I have to say, he lost all credibility in one sentence. The guy is simply trying to establish himself as an expert to sell his DVDs nothing more.



First of all, floor presses were used way before benches were invented. Bodybuilders had no way to train their chest properly and they used to use floor presses. It wasn't till later that benches came in the picture and you started seeing better chest phesique. This is in the history of the sport. He had no business making such stupid comment.

Also, board presses do contribute to strength increases and they are well practiced by powerlifters. But again, not because of the assisted shirts...etc.

Furthermore, you show me a dude with a big floor press and you'll see a dude with huge triceps an anterior delts.

 

[Vegking]

Ok i read his July post and I have to say, he lost all credibility in one sentence. The guy is simply trying to establish himself as an expert to sell his DVDs nothing more.



First of all, floor presses were used way before benches were invented. Bodybuilders had no way to train their chest properly and they used to use floor presses. It wasn't till later that benches came in the picture and you started seeing better chest phesique. This is in the history of the sport. He had no business making such stupid comment.

Also, board presses do contribute to strength increases and they are well practiced by powerlifters. But again, not because of the assisted shirts...etc.

Wow! How does a guy who is coaching for a long time have to establish credibility? Scott is genuine. Go ahead and disagree or point out of fact that may be off, but to call him out like that? I mean hang on one comment? So many internet coaches have stolen or repackaged his ideas and training methods. I'd say that is credibility right there. Goodness.

 

[EasyEJL]

Wow! How does a guy who is coaching for a long time have to establish credibility? Scott is genuine. Go ahead and disagree or point out of fact that may be off, but to call him out like that? I mean hang on one comment? So many internet coaches have stolen or repackaged his ideas and training methods. I'd say that is credibility right there. Goodness.

Just because you do something for a long time doesn't mean you are doing it the best way.

 

[Rodja]

Just because you do something for a long time doesn't mean you are doing it the best way.

Also, the S&C field is so dynamic that you cannot be confined to one philosophy of training. The best programs are an amalgam of ideas, theories, and techniques.

 

[fadi]

Wow! How does a guy who is coaching for a long time have to establish credibility? Scott is genuine. Go ahead and disagree or point out of fact that may be off, but to call him out like that? I mean hang on one comment? So many internet coaches have stolen or repackaged his ideas and training methods. I'd say that is credibility right there. Goodness.

I don't know why you're taking it so personal and defending him so much. He is probably great coach because of his personal experience.

But I'm not sure what is magical or special about him. If your diet in check, and have solid training program, then you will make the gains. Solid nutritionist with solid BB background would probably optimize your results and see enough change in a year than you would from any training program alone in 5 years.

For me, and it is a personal opinion, he lost credibility and here is why:

1. If he fabricates stories or facts to prove his point, then how would I assume his point is valid? other than having pure faith in him?

2. He presents research as if it is conclusive evidence, however he just mentions research was done but doesn't even analyze the research. If you do follow the research he cited you will find trumendous gaps as well as contradicting results. But taking him at face value makes his technique looks science backed (textbook marketing credibility building technique)

3. He is not presenting new ideas. He is repackaging some of the pre-existing practices and writing about it in such conviction. He is not alone in his stance, and there are other counter stances as well. If you want to consider his training as the golden standard then so be it. But you would be discounting the teachings of other greater BBers, Mentzer for example or strenght trainers such as Bill Starr and the list goes on and on.

4. I can smell the marketing techniques tought by Dan Kennedy and other marketing gurus from 10 miles away. Establish yourself as an expert by explaining what you know, knowing that what you know is more than the average person, even if by a bit. Establish a "cult" of followers who will believe everything you say and buy anything you will sell (There is a book also on how to do it, I would need to look it up).
I know because I have studied all Dan Kennedy's material and teachings. He is following it to the "T" except the fabrication of facts and science to prove a point of view. Feel free to join Bill Myers' website to learn how to establish yourself as a guru online to sell products, it is $10/month membership and you will see the exact same pattern.

If you want to follow his method, go for it. I didn't say he sucks as a coach, I said for me he lost credibility to read what he has to say or invest in his material he is selling.

If you're diet is in check, and you train within the rep range that produce hypertrophy then you will see results. You can credit him for it too. I am 100% sure he still does max or near max load within the standard rep range used by the majority. He seem to be old school BBer.

Again, don't take it personally. I've just saw the pattern I am accustomed to and noticed the blatant discrepencies for me not to buy into him that is all.

 

[morry]

Well said, but your original post wanted to know why we, us, me, or "people" post thier stats?
It's a forum with pictures, stats help us compare and track. Honestly, I'm one of those guys that looks small in the gym, but I am strong as f*** compared to guys 1.5x my size. So my bench looks great, but I'm 9% BF and 199 lbs, not huge. Plus, bench is about leverage as well (as are many staple BB exercises), so guys with longer arms will bench less, and guys with shorter legs will squat more (leverage and location of muscle bellies), but all in all, unless I run into you where I work out (I do so in a basement alone, which is preferred for me bc I superset and don't like waiting on a machine), then I won't be able to compare stuff, but if I see a guy on here around my same stats doing something I'm not too sure about, I'll ask.
Let's me know what they got to say might apply to my body type and routine.

Im definetly no expert and I'm not going to quote a single thing or link anything, but I will say, muscle growth and strength are not completly independent. That's just not possible. Now they may not be 1:1 correlated, but they are related and not independent. I didn't need an article to tell me that either, just 11 years of lifting and taking care of myself.

I'm not bashing you, just seems like a pointless post. But then again that would make this a pointless reply, eh?

Good luck getting stronger and not bigger or vice versa, I'd be interested in you posting your measurements before and after a significant strength increase. Maybe that will help ya understand?

 

[MongoSS]

You can argue all day about the correlation between heavy lifting and muscle gain. But the point about motor unit recruitment in mr. abels article is total B.S. you cannot develop higher motor unit recruitment without pushing the nervous system and that requires heavy weight.. period. As a powerlifter myself, I can tell you that we lift maximum weight to help train the nervous system. The nervous system will only adapt to the stimulus placed upon it. The higher you get towards 100% of max the more motor units are required. One reason that many powerlifters are stronger than bodybuilders of similar size is that their nervous systems are more well trained. They can recruit more motor units at one time and as a result the produce more force, and lift more weight. The central focus of bodybuilding is to develop muscle tissue, not top end motor recruitment. If that were the case bodybuilders would be the strongest athletes.

 

[Vegking]

MongoSS I think you are backing Abel's point aren't you? It looks like it anyway from your last sentence.

Good discussion. Thanks for the responses. Fadi, the irony is Scott often writes about that very thing. Marketing BS. I guess the difference in the way I feel about it and the way you feel about it is I have more exposure and ramp up time with his stuff. It looks like so far you may have only read one blog(did you read both parts 1 and 2) and you formed a conclusion on the guy based on that alone. Believe me, I know what you are talking about when it comes to BS in this industry. I have been trained by 3 pretty well known of the internet trainer/coaches myself. As far as the size vs strength issue, not all bodybuilders have the same level of strength, but a lot have the same size. So if getting stronger equals getting bigger then how come guys of the same physical size have huge disparities in strength? How come so many guys who are not as strong as other guys are so much bigger than the strong guys? I know a lot of guys that are very strong lifting wise, but do not have big muscles. Again his contention is if your goal is cosmetic enhancement then throw away the log book. Focusing on Numbers or load is the wrong tool in the tool box or the wrong application for that goal. It your goal is strength, then the log book or the numbers and measurements is more important. As Einstein once said "not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts".

 

[EasyEJL]

You just don't get it still. Comparing individual A's strength and size to individual B's strength and size is irrelevant yes. But for either of them to continue getting bigger, the weights they lift will have to go up. you will not be able to continue generating max intensity at the same weight.

 

[Vegking]

Hi EasyEJL. Okay, yes your first sentence is right. There is to many variables involved. However, I think you are the one not getting it. The weights do not have to go up. Accepting that the wts. have to go up for cosmetic enhancement or muscle growth is buying into paradigm blindness. There is a new paradigm, or actually it is old but just not really bought into much these days so in a sense it is new. So you can open your mind and look into further or not. No big deal.

 

[EasyEJL]

You are seriously telling me that you believe a guy who is a scrawny 150lbs today, can go to a big muscular 200lbs without ever increasing his weights lifted? You are delusional if you think that.

 

[fadi]

Sorry Vegking, but I still disagree.

If you are squatting 150lbs Today for example for 10 hard reps. Few months down the road, this 150lbs for 10 reps will be an easy workout. Do you continue to squat 150 for 10 easy reps? do you just endlessly add reps as the reps become easier? do you increase the weight and keep the reps?

You surely understand that as you train, the reps become easier. What do you do when they do to maintain the intensity? Are you telling me Scott himself is squatting what he was squatting during his first year of training? or did he increase the weight?

Again, you are not getting what is Scott is saying, or he is feeding people BS. There is really no other explanation to it.