strength level

geotrig · 18-05-2018 08:29AM

Good to know , i knew you could get it from meat etc just wasnt aware that it was that easy to hit RDA ,now to start on my 2nd chop !

Powerhouse · 18-05-2018 08:40PM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Maybe I’m picking this up wrong, but I think powerhouse is saying that some people view protein in a tub as some kind of PED. I would agree. Obviously it’s not a ped but the amount of people that I know that say to me, because I lift, “you must be taking that protein stuff”. They simply do not understand that it’s basic whey. But because it comes in a tub with the picture of a muscular guy on the front, then their view of it is thwarted.

That's pretty much it to be fair. I almost never have a comment made to me about my physique by anyone under 25 anyway that does not involve some reference to protein or perhaps even 'juice'. Some people here are not getting what I am saying and are ultra-defensive about protein supplements as they are obviously taking it themselves.

Powerhouse · 18-05-2018 08:54PM

Mellor wrote: »

PEDs are expensive, hard to source, borderline illegal and often require you to inject yourself.

I can't argue the minutia of this as I have never tried to source PEDs though I have to smile at the notion that they being "borderline illegal" (whatever that means - sure something is either illegal or not?) would have anything to do with anything. Illegals drugs can be sourced within minutes in many places.

But there is a claim on page 6 of this discussion that use of PEDs is "rife" in gyms in this country. Assuming this claim to be made in good faith and to be fair and accurate comment, it seems doubtful that price or sourceability are limiting factors either. Supply usually finds a way to meet demand.

And, finally, I will repeat - though I am being ignored on this - I never said protein shakes were PEDs or even in the "same stratosphere". What I said was that they are taken more in the spirit of PEDs than food i.e. a shortcut to a better outcome. I said that I was not comparing them in substance but that distinction has been ignored and presumably will be again.

Mellor · 19-05-2018 01:30PM

Powerhouse wrote: »

I can't argue the minutia of this as I have never tried to source PEDs

I haven't tried to source PEDs either. But I've been around long enough to know they aren't cheap. I think your lack of knowledge of basics of PEDs is where your misunderstanding comes from.

though I have to smile at the notion that they being "borderline illegal" (whatever that means - sure something is either illegal or not?) would have anything to do with anything. Illegals drugs can be sourced within minutes in many places.

It's not really black and white like that when it comes to drugs with legitimate medical use. There are legal sources. Personal use verses supply, etc.
But none of that is relevant to the discussion.

But there is a claim on page 6 of this discussion that use of PEDs is "rife" in gyms in this country. Assuming this claim to be made in good faith and to be fair and accurate comment, it seems doubtful that price or sourceability are limiting factors either. Supply usually finds a way to meet demand.

Who said they were limiting factors? Re-read the claim that post was responding to.
People are willing to use them because they are extremely effective. If something from Tesco was just as effective, people wouldn't be forking out hundreds of Euro on PEDs.

And, finally, I will repeat - though I am being ignored on this - I never said protein shakes were PEDs or even in the "same stratosphere".

Really?

Powerhouse wrote:

in that sense protein shakes inhabit the same sphere as PEDs for many people

What I said was that they are taken more in the spirit of PEDs than food i.e. a shortcut to a better outcome. I said that I was not comparing them in substance but that distinction has been ignored and presumably will be again.

You aren't being ignored. What you are repeating is just incorrect.
Protein shakes aren't a shortcut. That's at the heart of why you are incorrect. They won't make you get to your goals any quicker than eating chicken breast. They are simply more convient. The "spirit" of protein shakes completely different to PEDs imo

Brian? · 19-05-2018 09:01PM

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's pretty much it to be fair. I almost never have a comment made to me about my physique by anyone under 25 anyway that does not involve some reference to protein or perhaps even 'juice'. Some people here are not getting what I am saying and are ultra-defensive about protein supplements as they are obviously taking it themselves.

Even the nomenclature you're using is misguided IMO. People don't "take" protein supplements, they eat or drink them.

There's a mystique around protein supplements driven by misinformation. They've been equated to PEDs in the media incorrectly. They're a quick way of getting food into you, simple as that.

Dtp1979 · 19-05-2018 10:06PM

Brian? wrote: »

There's a mystique around protein supplements driven by misinformation. They've been equated to PEDs in the media incorrectly.

This is pretty much the point powerhouse is trying get across. Correct me if I’m wrong

Alf Veedersane · 19-05-2018 10:41PM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

This is pretty much the point powerhouse is trying get across. Correct me if I’m wrong

I understand the point he's making. The principle being that people take it for a shortcut to getting to where they want to so its being taken in the same spirit as PEDs because they don't understand it's nutrition 101.

But there is a world of difference. Not as someone who feels a need to defend whey protein because I dont really use it but because even those that take protein because it's protein and taking it = muscles know that there is a world of difference.

Dtp1979 · 19-05-2018 10:56PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I understand the point he's making. The principle being that people take it for a shortcut to getting to where they want to so its being taken in the same spirit as PEDs because they don't understand it's nutrition 101.

But there is a world of difference. Not as someone who feels a need to defend whey protein because I dont really use it but because even those that take protein because it's protein and taking it = muscles know that there is a world of difference.

Yes I’d agree that people who use whey understand it’s not as effective as steroids. Maybe I’m wrong here but the point powerhouse is trying to make is that there are plenty of people who view whey as a magic drug and simply not understand what it does. I don’t think powerhouse was saying protein and PED’s are the same, but that plenty of folk can’t tell the difference, which I would agree with

Alf Veedersane · 19-05-2018 11:01PM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Yes I’d agree that people who use whey understand it’s not as effective as steroids. Maybe I’m wrong here but the point powerhouse is trying to make is that there are plenty of people who view whey as a magic drug and simply not understand what it does. I don’t think powerhouse was saying protein and PED’s are the same, but that plenty of folk can’t tell the difference, which I would agree with

Then we'll agree to disagree.

I appreciate the fact that there are people that eill think they have to have protein and don't know why but that it's powdered muscle.

But there's a world of difference to getting and taking PEDs. Pretty much any of those same bros know that and therein lies the difference.

Dtp1979 · 19-05-2018 11:07PM

I do agree myself that protein and PED’s arent even on the same planet. And those anyway serious about training should know the difference. But there are plenty who don’t.

Alf Veedersane · 19-05-2018 11:25PM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

I do agree myself that protein and PED’s arent even on the same planet. And those anyway serious about training should know the difference. But there are plenty who don’t.

Do you genuinely think that the ones that think protein is muscle powder and are clueless about think it's along the same lines?

They're all shopping for protein and syringes and testosterone at the same time?

They know the difference.

And that's why they know there's a world of difference between protein and PEDs.

Dtp1979 · 19-05-2018 11:45PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do you genuinely think that the ones that think protein is muscle powder and are clueless about think it's along the same lines?

They're all shopping for protein and syringes and testosterone at the same time?

They know the difference.

And that's why they know there's a world of difference between protein and PEDs.

I meant that those who are anyway serious about training understand the difference. But those starting off, or plenty of people that don’t train, aren’t as aware

Mellor · 20-05-2018 01:22AM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

This is pretty much the point powerhouse is trying get across. Correct me if I’m wrong

I don't think that's the case.
Saying people think they are PEDs is fine. People are idiot.
Saying they are actually a shortcut to better results, or help you achieve results you wouldn't otherwise is wrong imo.
Important distinction

Brian? · 20-05-2018 02:53AM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

This is pretty much the point powerhouse is trying get across. Correct me if I’m wrong

Partially. But as Mellor says, Powerhouse is calling them a shortcut to achieve results.

Killgore Trout · 21-05-2018 11:14AM

Unless you’re out hunting /gathering it yourself, all food is a shortcut

LuckyLloyd · 21-05-2018 11:35AM

How many times have interesting discussions on this forum been derailed due to arguing 'protein / creatine is a ped' nonsense?

There are two very interesting strands of conversation in here that got totally outmuscled by a completely inane clarification allowed to way outstay its welcome. What Protein and Creatine are is a matter of fact, it isn't open to interpretation and we shouldn't be wasting time discussing it.

How strong is strong enough?; or how much pure strength work do actual sportspeople do and what can we take from it?

They're interesting conversations. Very annoying tbh.

Mellor · 21-05-2018 12:49PM

Killgore Trout wrote: »

Unless you’re out hunting /gathering it yourself, all food is a shortcut

I know you are joking. But technically, the supermarket is the shortcut. The food is still just food.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How strong is strong enough?; or how much pure strength work do actual sportspeople do and what can we take from it?

In an attempt to get it back on track. I stand by my earlier post.
Strong enough, as a notional strength level, is individual and dependant largely on the persons reasons for training.
A 65kg wrestler needs to be much stronger than a 65kg middle distance runner.
The casual who wants to be strong, probably has a higher target than the guy trying to offset his injury risk.

As for the second question. Elites might do less strength work than we might imagine. Probably >10%.
However, I think blindly matching those breakdowns is pointless. If someone is not as strong, not as well conditioned, and not as technically able as the elites, then their training ratio doesn't apply. That person needs to train for their own shortfalls, and for the great return on "investment".
And after all that you need to consider scheduling factors.

LuckyLloyd · 21-05-2018 02:33PM

Mellor wrote: »

Strong enough, as a notional strength level, is individual and dependent largely on the persons reasons for training.
A 65kg wrestler needs to be much stronger than a 65kg middle distance runner.
The casual who wants to be strong, probably has a higher target than the guy trying to offset his injury risk.

I think we fall into a general trap of using Powerlifting defined strength levels when discussing general trainees. We do it because it's a simple proven framework, it's progressive, and we have first hand experience of it.

Where I struggle is in answering a question about how much strength is required when speaking about sports specific performance. We can reasonably say that young athletes should develop some base of strength, and we can reasonably say that older professional athletes should develop positional strength and manage imbalances to offset injury risk. But I don't have a clue really how you would reach a conclusion on where more is required in either scenario and how to manage it within the mix of overall training generally. This is where coaching and knowledge becomes invaluable I suppose.

So, while I don't disagree with your general points, I think Dom is hinting at the true answer to the question for a competitive athlete being almost beyond the scope of general discussion. It's a relentlessly specific question that is utterly dependent on separate subjective questions: how is actual end performance? Would more strength improve that performance? We can lose sight of that when we're constantly consuming generalist literature on strength and conditioning. The basics are sensible and structured, but they're still basic. And probably bias strength too much these days, possibly because getting under a barbell to get strong disappeared from general fitness culture for a period.

Mellor wrote: »

As for the second question. Elites might do less strength work than we might imagine. Probably >10%.
However, I think blindly matching those breakdowns is pointless. If someone is not as strong, not as well conditioned, and not as technically able as the elites, then their training ratio doesn't apply. That person needs to train for their own shortfalls, and for the great return on "investment".
And after all that you need to consider scheduling factors.

Agree there and it loops in with the above: the correct answer for most people is specific to their situation.

Mellor · 21-05-2018 11:59PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think we fall into a general trap of using Powerlifting defined strength levels when discussing general trainees. We do it because it's a simple proven framework, it's progressive, and we have first hand experience of it.

Agreed, it is a mistake. We use squat/bench/deadlift/press as the benchmarks because they are the main tools we use to prove strength.
Why don't we use clean and jerk or snatch - because they are highly technical. But, the lifts above might not be as technical, but they aren't without their own technique. If I add 10% to my squat over a training period, it doesn't mean I got 10% stronger.

In order to assess strength we need to isolate strength as much as possible. So it makes more sense to me to use tool like the leg extension/curl machine, row machine, etc.

Agree there and it loops in with the above: the correct answer for most people is specific to their situation.

That's essentially the point I made on the first page. It's completely individual and highly variable.
Two people could have the same average strength levels. And one needs to get stronger, and the other needs to work elsewhere.

The only situation that is clear cut are the guys not training to compete in any sport, just training for themselves. For those guys, strong enough is simply as strong as they like.

strength level

Comments