Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Powerlifters and Rippetoe fans

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mrkf1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭mrkf1984


    I dont plan on losing any kg anytime soon. there quite valuable. ya, ur right damage limitation is the best u could hope for


  • Options
    #33
    bubbleking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭bubbleking


    kevpants wrote: »
    Losing weight affects your strength. You might be able do damage limitation on your squat and deadlift but lose a few kg and watch your bench go to sh1t.

    Losing weight or losing muscle mass?? Iv lost a load of weight (all excess fat) and my bench is stronger then ever


  • Options
    #34
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    bubbleking wrote: »
    Losing weight or losing muscle mass?? Iv lost a load of weight (all excess fat) and my bench is stronger then ever

    You don't count here.
    Similarly, neither would I.


  • Options
    #35
    Hanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    mrkf1984 wrote: »
    idfpa records

    all 110kg weights are higher than 125kg
    bench, squat and dead.

    dont know how to post links but check out the website and all records are posted there. the total is almost 100kg more

    The fatal flaw in your argument here is the sample size. The IDFPA doesn't have enough lifters for you to use it as conclusive proof of your argument.

    Look at the IPF records, IWF or any other strength fed records with a deep pool of competitors. The heavier weightclasses have higher all time records in 99% of the cases.

    If you got to a high level of strength and then lost weight quickly you'd know Kevpants is right. It effects you in a major way if you try to do it too quickly. Hell if effects you in a major way unless you're a hard ass b@stard. Adn that's speaking from personal experience.


  • Options
    #36
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    Hanley wrote: »
    . It effects you in a major way if you try to do it too quickly. Hell if effects you in a major way unless you're a hard ass b@stard. Adn that's speaking from personal experience.

    I concur.

    i dropped 2 stone and my benching went from a modest 100kg x 7 to a poor 97.5kg x 4.

    deadlift and squat haven't been affected but press and bench are gone through the floor


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    itsallaboutheL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,333 ✭✭✭✭itsallaboutheL


    bubbleking wrote: »
    Losing weight or losing muscle mass?? Iv lost a load of weight (all excess fat) and my bench is stronger then ever

    Define Strong??

    EDIT: and are you saying your bench got stong gradually after you lost the weight?


  • Options
    #38
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    itsallaboutheL wrote: »
    Define Strong??

    yeah, strong for you or strong compared to strong athletes?


  • Options
    #39
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    itsallaboutheL wrote: »
    Define Strong??

    EDIT: and are you saying your bench got stong gradually after you lost the weight?
    Liam Henners257 wrote: »
    yeah, strong for you or strong compared to strong athletes?

    The dude said that his bench is stronger than ever.
    I reckon that you can pretty much assume that means he is moving more weight now than he has previously, i.e. he is setting P.R.'s

    There is no semantic issue here.


  • Options
    #40
    itsallaboutheL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,333 ✭✭✭✭itsallaboutheL


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    The dude said that his bench is stronger than ever.
    I reckon that you can pretty much assume that means he is moving more weight now than he has previously, i.e. he is setting P.R.'s

    There is no semantic issue here.


    10kg overweight... 80kg max

    loses 10kg test max, is now 90kg

    Vs

    10kg overweight 80kg max

    loses 10kg, 4 months later has 90kg max

    = Big Difference

    Also, the loss is strength is very relative to weight and weight lifted.


  • Options
    #41
    Hanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    The dude said that his bench is stronger than ever.
    I reckon that you can pretty much assume that means he is moving more weight now than he has previously, i.e. he is setting P.R.'s

    There is no semantic issue here.

    The weight he's moving is relevant. If it's low he's probably a beginner. It's not hard to lose weight and still make progress at that level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bubbleking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭bubbleking


    Hanley wrote: »
    The weight he's moving is relevant. If it's low he's probably a beginner. It's not hard to lose weight and still make progress at that level.

    yeah there is a lot of truth in that. i used to weigh 88-90kg and could never bench more than 65kg (albeit I wouldnt have been a dedicated lifter). I now weigh 79kg and can bench 73kg - im hoping to improve my bench and drop a few more kilos so im roughly benching my body weight - that would be good enough for me. (im not really big into my lifting at the mo either but try to do it 2/3 times a week


  • Options
    #43
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    Hanley wrote: »
    The weight he's moving is relevant. If it's low he's probably a beginner. It's not hard to lose weight and still make progress at that level.

    Which is largely my point.

    Bubbleking is obviously at the beginner level and a quick look at his log indicates that his gains are probably down to more effective training.
    So his experience doesn't really carry much weight (pun intended) in a conversation between Kev and some other (possible) powerlifter on the effect of weightloss on bench.

    But what odds does how he defines strong or whether or not he compares himself to athletes have to do with all that.
    There is no point is getting into the semantics of what Bubbleking means by stronger. It seems like entrapment, or possibly a little internet sh!ttyness.


  • Options
    #44
    Hanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Which is largely my point.

    Bubbleking is obviously at the beginner level and a quick look at his log indicates that his gains are probably down to more effective training.
    So his experience doesn't really carry much weight (pun intended) in a conversation between Kev and some other (possible) powerlifter on the effect of weightloss on bench.

    But what odds does how he defines strong or whether or not he compares himself to athletes have to do with all that.
    There is no point is getting into the semantics of what Bubbleking means by stronger. It seems like entrapment, or possibly a little internet sh!ttyness.


    Are we going to argue parallel points again??

    The impression I got from his post, and would say Liam and L got too is that he was trying to prove you can get stronger and lose weight by giving himself as an example. In order to understand whether or not he had a legitimate argument or not, we needed to know how much weight he was lifting, which is why he was asked.


  • Options
    #45
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    Hanley wrote: »
    Are we going to argue parallel points again??

    The impression I got from his post, and would say Liam and L got too is that he was trying to prove you can get stronger and lose weight by giving himself as an example. In order to understand whether or not he had a legitimate argument or not, we needed to know how much weight he was lifting, which is why he was asked.

    I'm not saying he is right, hell I got where you guys were going with this first.
    To the best of my knowledge I'm agreeing with you.

    I looked at his log and got the info pretty quick.
    Hence why I posted this in response:
    me wrote:
    You don't count here.
    Similarly, neither would I.

    Its just that "define strong" seems a bit more like someone d!ck measuring than what you are getting at, seeing as he said "stronger than ever".


  • Options
    #46
    itsallaboutheL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,333 ✭✭✭✭itsallaboutheL


    d'Oracle wrote: »


    Its just that "define strong" seems a bit more like someone d!ck measuring

    Metaphorically speaking, i wouldn't consider my "dick" (as you so eloquently put it) anywhere near big enough to measure..

    However I'm Ever so sorry if my overly efficient use of words offended you in any way...

    And as we all know it's not the size of the nail, it's the hammer behind it that counts.:cool:


  • Options
    #47
    Hanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    itsallaboutheL wrote: »

    And as we all know it's not the size of the nail, it's the hammer behind it that counts.:cool:

    I like that.

    I'm also a fan of - it's not size of the boat but the motion in the ocean.


  • Options
    #48
    itsallaboutheL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,333 ✭✭✭✭itsallaboutheL


    Hanley wrote: »
    I like that.

    I'm also a fan of - it's not size of the boat but the motion in the ocean.

    It has double meaning for me, i think i'm gonna try add some decent size... so i'll have a HUUUUUUUGE Hammer :pac:


  • Options
    #49
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    itsallaboutheL wrote: »
    However I'm Ever so sorry if my overly efficient use of words offended you in any way...

    Didn't offend me.
    I'm wasn't having a go or anything.
    I mean you pick up people on the tone of their posts too.


  • Options
    #50
    itsallaboutheL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,333 ✭✭✭✭itsallaboutheL


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Didn't offend me.
    I'm wasn't having a go or anything.
    I mean you pick up people on the tone of their posts too.

    QFFT


  • Options
    #51
    ragg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭ragg


    lads im about to ramble here so sorry in advance,im not sure what it is im actually asking, hopefully one of you will get what im waffling about and be able to answer me..

    Is the strength drop that's experienced when dieting down just down to a lack of fuel, rather then a permanent strength drop? Will your body not get used to running off the alternative fuel sources relatively quickly?
    Obviously if you are specifically training for a comp you will **** your recovery by not eating enough..

    What I'm asking is, is the strength drop not a very temporary thing to do with changing how and where you get your energy from, or do you actually lose something that you have to work back up to...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Hanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    ragg wrote: »
    lads im about to ramble here so sorry in advance,im not sure what it is im actually asking, hopefully one of you will get what im waffling about and be able to answer me..

    Is the strength drop that's experienced when dieting down just down to a lack of fuel, rather then a permanent strength drop? Will your body not get used to running off the alternative fuel sources relatively quickly?
    Obviously if you are specifically training for a comp you will **** your recovery by not eating enough..

    What I'm asking is, is the strength drop not a very temporary thing to do with changing how and where you get your energy from, or do you actually lose something that you have to work back up to...

    Strength drop is caused primarly by reduced leverages. Mass moves mass, the more weight you carry, the more weight you can lift. Provided you're eating a decent enough level of carbs, "energy" won't be a problem.

    The faster you drop the weight, the faster your strength will fall. It's "permanent" insofar as it won't come back over night, you'll have to train it back up. I'm stronger now at 100kg than I was at 110kg. But it's taken the guys of 9 months to pull that off.


  • Options
    #53
    ragg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭ragg


    Got ya, so is it safe to say, if you didn't drop some fat, you'd be stronger now? Or is that too simplistic a view?


  • Options
    #54
    Hanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    ragg wrote: »
    Got ya, so is it safe to say, if you didn't drop some fat, you'd be stronger now? Or is that too simplistic a view?

    Nail... meet head.

    Spot on.


  • Options
    #55
    bubbleking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭bubbleking


    ragg wrote: »
    Got ya, so is it safe to say, if you didn't drop some fat, you'd be stronger now? Or is that too simplistic a view?

    just to point out that I think strength in isolation has no benefit to any kind of sporting activity although I understand that it is related to power which is of course paramount.


  • Options
    #56
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    itsallaboutheL wrote: »
    QFFT

    I have no idea what that stands for, but in the interest of harmony and not being a dick, I'm gonna assume that its something friendly.

    Bubbleking:

    Strength in isolation?
    You really don't think being strong is important to sporting activity?
    I would very much beg to differ, I suspect that your thinking is a bit skewed.


  • Options
    #57
    bubbleking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭bubbleking


    d'Oracle wrote: »

    Strength in isolation?
    You really don't think being strong is important to sporting activity?
    I would very much beg to differ, I suspect that your thinking is a bit skewed.

    Sorry maybe I should have rephrased that to relative strength instead of strength in isolation. If sporting performance was purely based on strength alone then you would see far bigger athletes at world events. Take the javelin or hammer throw for example - yes these guys are big but if they got any bigger their strength might increase but their power would definitely decrease.

    I think the relationship between strength and power is a very fine balance


  • Options
    #58
    BobbyOLeary
    Closed Accounts Posts: 859 ✭✭✭BobbyOLeary


    bubbleking wrote: »
    If sporting performance was purely based on strength alone then you would see far bigger athletes at world events.

    True. But the fact is that nearly everyone who plays sport and isn't a high-level athlete could do with getting stronger in some shape or form. Arguing that olympic athletes use X program so you should as well is flawed. Very few, if any, guys on here would have a detrimental effect on their sporting performance by getting stronger.


  • Options
    #59
    bubbleking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭bubbleking


    BobbyOLeary wrote: »
    True. But the fact is that nearly everyone who plays sport and isn't a high-level athlete could do with getting stronger in some shape or form. Arguing that olympic athletes use X program so you should as well is flawed. Very few, if any, guys on here would have a detrimental effect on their sporting performance by getting stronger.

    that is true no doubt but you can also be at the other end of the scale - im thinking if the polish guys you see in the gym that are very top heavy with unreal strength i.e. can bench unreal weights but this doesnt mean that they will be able to transfer this to sporting performance


  • Options
    #60
    BobbyOLeary
    Closed Accounts Posts: 859 ✭✭✭BobbyOLeary


    bubbleking wrote: »
    that is true no doubt but you can also be at the other end of the scale - im thinking if the polish guys you see in the gym that are very top heavy with unreal strength i.e. can bench unreal weights but this doesnt mean that they will be able to transfer this to sporting performance

    Nice stereotyping. I'd bet serious money though that those same "very top heavy" guys will be better than the skinny kid doing some random olympians program.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    bubbleking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭bubbleking


    BobbyOLeary wrote: »
    Nice stereotyping. I'd bet serious money though that those same "very top heavy" guys will be better than the skinny kid doing some random olympians program.

    ha sorry didnt mean to stereotype. And i was just using olympic sports as an example - you could use any sport activity really - sprinting, jumping for height/distance, distance running to a lesser extent - any sport that requires power


Advertisement