Squats the Story MkII- Off topic thread

Blacktie.

TiltedBrain wrote:

Make a batch! Takes 5 mins and taste delish. Guessing they're less that 15 - 20 cent each

The boards recipe you mean I assume? Works out at 75c a bar.

Alf Veedersane

So Ray Williams did this...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLoz2QwhGwB/

456kg...so just 18kg on his WR from the worlds in June.

Tea-a-Maria

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Make a batch! Takes 5 mins and taste delish. Guessing they're less that 15 - 20 cent each

I used protein bars as a sub for a chocolate bar when I'm want something sweet. If I made a batch I'd just scarf them all.

Deleted User

Without trying to spam the forum, can anyone here with a better knowledge of the human body cast their eyes over this post I made in my fitness log thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101377572&postcount=76


The gist of it is this (copy/paste)

Deleted User wrote: »

The idea is to just get fitter in general... Weight loss is still the primary element to my general efforts... The weights listed are weights that I have a hard time lifting...

(Exercise: Weight - SetsxReps)
Bench Press: 40kg - 5x5
Bicep Curl: 10kg* - 5x5 (*dumbbells, so 10kg per arm)
Squat: 95kg - 5x5
Deadlift: 95kg - 5x5
Seated Overhead Press: 10kg* - 5x5 (*dumbbells, so 10kg per arm)
Bent Over Barbell Rows 45kg - 5x5
Cable Machine Rows: 50kg - 5x8
Shrugs (Cable Machine): 70kg - 5x8
Tricep Pushdown (Cable Machine): 40kg - 5x5
Cable Crossover: 20kg - 5x8

I know the general aim of weight loss is to have a calorie deficit, and as far as I am lead to believe, you need to have a calorie surplus to build muscle mass, so I'm not sure what way this will work out for me long term.

Am I on the right path in general? As far as I know, less reps with a heavier weight is best for muscle mass/size/hypertrophy (ie 5x5) but less sets of more reps (3x12 etc) is more for strength (and more reps again for endurance)?

But aiming to lose weight means a calorie deficit.. which confuses me as I'm not entirely sure how that works with the above.

Dtp1979

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Without trying to spam the forum, can anyone here with a better knowledge of the human body cast their eyes over this post I made in my fitness log thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101377572&postcount=76


The gist of it is this (copy/paste)





Am I on the right path in general? As far as I know, less reps with a heavier weight is best for muscle mass/size/hypertrophy (ie 5x5) but less sets of more reps (3x12 etc) is more for strength (and more reps again for endurance)?

But aiming to lose weight means a calorie deficit.. which confuses me as I'm not entirely sure how that works with the above.

I'm like yourself but I haven't much weight to lose really. While in a deficit I do more strength based lifting. Then when I get body fat down I'll eat a surplus and do more muscle building excersises

IvoryTower

Less reps 3-6 for strength isn't it, 8-12 to build muscle?

MightyMandarin

IvoryTower wrote: »

Less reps 3-6 for strength isn't it, 8-12 to build muscle?

I think Greg Nuckols wrote an article examining several studies which showed that hypertrophy gains are essentially the same after 1 rep sets.

Alf Veedersane

The studies show that once you train to failure or near failure, then muscle growth is the same across intensities and rep ranges.

G. Nuckols' article stated something along the lines of training at a moderate intensity and rep range allows you do get the most hard sets in over the course or a training week...but that there's no hypertrophy range.

Surely that can't be entirely correct?

So effectively, whether you're lifting 5kg 100 times, or 50kg 10 times, the muscle's hypertrohpic (real word?) response is the same?

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely that can't be entirely correct?

So effectively, whether you're lifting 5kg 100 times, or 50kg 10 times, the muscle's hypertrohpic (real word?) response is the same?

Well no, because that's equal total volume, but not necessarily equal intensity. Key point in Alf's post was failure or near failure. The relationship between max reps and load is non-linear. As you increase the load, you'll hit failure at a lower volume.

As an example, Take 5RM vrs 10RM
If you can do 100kg x 5, you'll probably hit about 85kg x 10. Both are at or near failure, yet the volumes are 500kg and 850kg respectively.



If you consider that very light loads are going to be aerobic, rather than anaerobic. So that probably sets a limit on effective reps.
And with very low reps (1-3), you've situations where you can't get another clean rep, but its also sub max effort. (eg a 96% single)
So excluding the two extremes of rep ranges results in 4 to 12 or maybe 15 reps being effective for size gains when trained close to failure, at high volume.

Training in any rep range will make you stronger, particularly around that range. When we measure strength with singles, it makes sense to focus more on reps close to that end of the spectrum. Say 3-6 reps.

But would I not be correct in saying that you can train for size, without training for strength (even though both will of course have direct links)?

I was always lead to believe (perhaps wrongly, always open to learnig and discussing more) that the body reacts differently to the way it is trained. If you train a heavy load fewer times, the body will react moreso with an increase of size of the muscle as it repairs itself from the stress it's been under, but if you train with a lighter load for more reps, the muscle will react differently and although you'll still gain size, you'll work the actual muscle more for endurance purposes?


I'm not gonna get into the scientific side of it (because frankly I don't know enough about it) but I am reading a book about it. And once I've read a book, naturally I'll be the most intelligent man on the internet.


To put it in aesthetic terms, I would imagine this is low-rep work:

(big, bulky)

http://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1201/brock.lesnar.rare.photos/images/lesnar-pose.jpg


and this is high-rep work

(slim, toned)

https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/98bdb06f7ca59f30489d5fb58799c56490fe0edebaa9332ea34a6fdaeac732b8_facebook



Or is it possible both could be doing identical workouts, but genes and caloric intake come into play (I dont mean those exact two people, i just mean bodytype in general)

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

But would I not be correct in saying that you can train for size, without training for strength (even though both will of course have direct links)?

You can, that's what bodybuilding is basically, but

A) you'll get stronger too, and
it's dependant on more than just the rep range.

I was always lead to believe (perhaps wrongly, always open to learnig and discussing more) that the body reacts differently to the way it is trained. If you train a heavy load fewer times, the body will react moreso with an increase of size of the muscle as it repairs itself from the stress it's been under, but if you train with a lighter load for more reps, the muscle will react differently and although you'll still gain size, you'll work the actual muscle more for endurance purposes?

You didn't mention strength there, but in the previous post you put it between size and endurance. You have size and strength reverse from general consensus. It's usually;

3-6 reps for Strength
8-12 for Size
15+ for Endurance

Or is it possible both could be doing identical workouts, but genes and caloric intake come into play (I dont mean those exact two people, i just mean bodytype in general)

Completely down to genetics and intake not rep range.

But aside from that, you have it the opposite way around.
Bodybuilders training for size would typically do higher reps than an athlete training for strength. But as above, it's not so much about those rep ranges being specific for size and strength in themselves but rather better facilitating other factors like volumes, intensity and neurological adaptions.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But would I not be correct in saying that you can train for size, without training for strength (even though both will of course have direct links)?

I was always lead to believe (perhaps wrongly, always open to learnig and discussing more) that the body reacts differently to the way it is trained. If you train a heavy load fewer times, the body will react moreso with an increase of size of the muscle as it repairs itself from the stress it's been under, but if you train with a lighter load for more reps, the muscle will react differently and although you'll still gain size, you'll work the actual muscle more for endurance purposes?


I'm not gonna get into the scientific side of it (because frankly I don't know enough about it) but I am reading a book about it. And once I've read a book, naturally I'll be the most intelligent man on the internet.


To put it in aesthetic terms, I would imagine this is low-rep work:

(big, bulky)

http://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1201/brock.lesnar.rare.photos/images/lesnar-pose.jpg


and this is high-rep work

(slim, toned)

https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/98bdb06f7ca59f30489d5fb58799c56490fe0edebaa9332ea34a6fdaeac732b8_facebook



Or is it possible both could be doing identical workouts, but genes and caloric intake come into play (I dont mean those exact two people, i just mean bodytype in general)

I would say the difference in physique between those 2 gents is mainly caused by their response to synthetic testosterone .

It's worth pointing out that everything changes when you use steroids. A lot of the pro wrestler or body builder programs are only optimal with the extra recovery roids can give. These high volume programs shouldn't be followed by a natural athlete.

IvoryTower

see the world record squat above, how come when you google squat world record you get a much higher amount? Is it for different weight classes? Cant imagione much bigger than him

Alf Veedersane

IvoryTower wrote: »

see the world record squat above, how come when you google squat world record you get a much higher amount? Is it for different weight classes? Cant imagione much bigger than him

It was done raw, without wraps.

The super-heavyweight with wraps is 480kg by Andrey Malanichev.

I think Zahir Khudatarov and Eric Lilliebridge have probably gone heavier than Ray Williams with wraps as well.

Mr. CooL ICE

IvoryTower wrote: »

see the world record squat above, how come when you google squat world record you get a much higher amount? Is it for different weight classes? Cant imagione much bigger than him

Not really. It's to do with different rules with different organisations. There are records with raw/equipped, raw with/without knee wraps, tested and untested, squat rack vs monolift etc. Ray Williams' squat is raw without knee wraps, tested.

Even for something like the deadlift, strongman rules allow hitching and hand wraps while PL generally doesn't.

Brian?

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Not really. It's to do with different rules with different organisations. There are records with raw/equipped, raw with/without knee wraps, tested and untested, squat rack vs monolift etc. Ray Williams' squat is raw without knee wraps, tested.

Even for something like the deadlift, strongman rules allow hitching and hand wraps while PL generally doesn't.

Some powerlifting federations allow a lot more than wraps, multi ply suits etc. . Some federations see squat depth as an abstract concept as well, I'm looking at you "Southern Powerlifting Federation".

MightyMandarin

Deleted User wrote: »

To put it in aesthetic terms, I would imagine this is low-rep work:

(big, bulky)

http://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1201/brock.lesnar.rare.photos/images/lesnar-pose.jpg


and this is high-rep work

(slim, toned)

https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/98bdb06f7ca59f30489d5fb58799c56490fe0edebaa9332ea34a6fdaeac732b8_facebook



Or is it possible both could be doing identical workouts, but genes and caloric intake come into play (I dont mean those exact two people, i just mean bodytype in general)

The reason they have varying physiques is primarily down to genetics, how much they eat, and as Brian? said, once steroids come into the equation it's hard to predict how the body responds.

I imagine Lesnar and Orton don't train very differently as they're both wrestlers but even with that said, does Rich Froning or some pro-crossfitters look terribly different to some powerlifters? Not really imo, yet their training styles are quite different.

There's plenty of skinny crossfitters and jacked powerlifters, and vice versa. My guess is that it's not about how you train (once it involves some sort of resistance training) but rather how well you eat and what your genetic makeup is.

One thing I do find rather silly is when people insist on taking up MMA for the sole reason of wanting a 'McGregor-like physique' when in reality all they'd need to do would be 6-12 months of bulking and then cutting down to 10% bf, assuming they started from scratch and weren't too fat.

MightyMandarin

Brian? wrote: »

Some powerlifting federations allow a lot more than wraps, multi ply suits etc. . Some federations see squat depth as an abstract concept as well, I'm looking at you "Southern Powerlifting Federation".

Some individual meets can see depth rules go out the window too, like the Lilliebridge's meet last year I think, where everyone went mad since 3 whites were given for Ernie's half-squats.

WizVigilante

Brian? wrote: »

Some powerlifting federations allow a lot more than wraps, multi ply suits etc. . Some federations see squat depth as an abstract concept as well, I'm looking at you "Southern Powerlifting Federation".

I've heard tell of dodgy Feds where they shave the plates just to claim WR breaking lifts.

MightyMandarin

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLt5VmtDIzN/?taken-by=eddie_hall_strong&hl=en

Eddie Hall posted this on the gram. Damn it looks like fun to hang off the bar and get benched.

Zillah

MightyMandarin wrote: »

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLt5VmtDIzN/?taken-by=eddie_hall_strong&hl=en

Eddie Hall posted this on the gram. Damn it looks like fun to hang off the bar and get benched.

God damn.

Mr. CooL ICE

Anybody ordered through strengthshop.ie? How long roughly does it take to get things delivered? I ordered some new toys yesterday, but the website isn't very clear regarding delivery times.

Hanley

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Anybody ordered through strengthshop.ie? How long roughly does it take to get things delivered? I ordered some new toys yesterday, but the website isn't very clear regarding delivery times.

Usually inside a week of despatch.

LollipopJimmy

Just checking... It's ok to cry the day after leg day?

BrokenArrows

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Just checking... It's ok to cry the day after leg day?

Only if its tears of joy because you dont have to do legs again for a while.

LollipopJimmy

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Only if its tears of joy because you dont have to do legs again for a while.

It took me near half an hour to work up the courage to go to the bog!

pumpkin4life

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Just checking... It's ok to cry the day after leg day?

Only if you squat ass to grass :P

Dtp1979

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

It took me near half an hour to work up the courage to go to the bog!

You should have your turf home by now

CM24

MightyMandarin wrote: »

One thing I do find rather silly is when people insist on taking up MMA for the sole reason of wanting a 'McGregor-like physique' when in reality all they'd need to do would be 6-12 months of bulking and then cutting down to 10% bf, assuming they started from scratch and weren't too fat.

I wonder has anyone approached Conor about making a fitness DVD set. Apparently GSP's ''Rushfit'' made an absolute killing. It sold 250k copies in it's first year alone. At roughly $200 a go, that's a lot of money.

I'm sure a lot of folk in Ireland would buy it if they thought it could make them look like Conor. Could see a lot of people getting it for Christmas in anticipation of the New Year's fitness regime.