Low % High Volume

[Hardartery]

Trying to start a conversation, no particularly strong opinion on this coming in just thinkng onit.
I have run across a couple of videos recently with people referencing Brick Layers in particular. The basic argument being that guys doing that sort of labour are strong even though the may not do any lifting. I am a Mason by trade and even ran my own masonry contracting business for a while (I still get several bid requests a week), so this of course stuck in my mind. I don't know that it did or did not give me any particular leg up on strength training, but I did work in the trade from a very young age. My father never lifted weights in his life, but was incredibly good at armwrestling and could do shoulder raises and holds that nobody in the gym was capable of - he would sometimes pick up my DB's and play with them when I was lifting and what I struggled with and trained with was toy weight for him on those movements. I have also seen a couple of recent posts in here on training indicating that some guys are much happier shifting their upper body (Or maybe lower as well) training to higher reps and lower weight.
Getting to the point now, where is the balance? I know that, for example, the mark of a qualified Bricklayer (The union minimum productivity level to gain membership) is 1000 bricks a day. I have seen really good layers lay as many as 2500 bricks in a day. 250 blocks is the standard, and I have seen as many as 500 by one guy in a day. My best was 440 blocks. That is a lot of reps, and add to that it's at least 5 days a week, sometimes 6 or even 7 depending on the job and the deadline. No way is anyone discussing those kind of reps on here, but they are also at a higher % 1RM. What do you guys think?

[MarkKO]

I think there's definitely something to be said about that.

It makes sense that if you do a huge number of reps very, very frequently even if the weight is light you'll get strong at that movement and those closely related to it. So bricklayers get really strong shoulders, biceps, etc. I've noticed the older guys at my work (joinery and cabinetmaking) have really good pinch grip strength from carrying sheets of board and holding workpieces together. I would imagine their forearm strength is pretty good too. I think you see the same with mechanics, because they spend so much time gripping things hard.

I've also noticed people who grew up working on farms seem to have higher overall work capacity than others.

The difficulty in applying that to training as I see it is just the sheer number of reps and time it takes.

[Hardartery]

I think there's definitely something to be said about that.

It makes sense that if you do a huge number of reps very, very frequently even if the weight is light you'll get strong at that movement and those closely related to it. So bricklayers get really strong shoulders, biceps, etc. I've noticed the older guys at my work (joinery and cabinetmaking) have really good pinch grip strength from carrying sheets of board and holding workpieces together. I would imagine their forearm strength is pretty good too. I think you see the same with mechanics, because they spend so much time gripping things hard.

I've also noticed people who grew up working on farms seem to have higher overall work capacity than others.

The difficulty in applying that to training as I see it is just the sheer number of reps and time it takes.

I'm just ruminatng on it and thought that I'd get feedback. Maybe someone is going to post some experience that goes completey against it. Maybe it's just that guys with the capacity gravitate to that kind of work and it isn't that the work has that effect it's the genetics. I grew up doing concrete and masonry. I started working full time in the summers and on other school breaks doing that work in the family business. My dad and I have very similar hands and wrist size, but his fingers are still bigger than mine. My younger brother that did not work with the family business the same, for a variety of reasons, is similar to me in build but he is a thinner boned (Don't know how to exactly say it), basically he is better built for Bodtbuilding and I am better built for Strongman. None of the men in my family are small, the smallest is maybe my nephew whose father is a little guy but even he is around 200 lbs and probably 5'-9 tops with very little bodyfat, but most of them aren't bristling with muscle. My dad is maybe 230 lbs, at about 6'0 (Used to be 6'-2 but had a wicked accident that retired him). I am DOWN to about 280 at 6'-0 and carry a lot more muscle mass than he ever did, but there is no chance of me beating him at armwrestling in his prime when he was 215-220 lbs. His wrists and hands are at least the size of mine, and his are 100% from working with his hands and genetics. A lot of these guys with "Old man strength" are not particularly huge, they simply do not carry the muscle from hypertrophy, but stupid strong. What does that really mean in context to inform training? I know they never took any PEDs or anything, and stuff they don't do for work is not out of the box good - like Bench Press for example. But they can all Deadlift more than a lot of guys you see training religiously at the gym, and without warming up.

[ColonelMoutarde]

It reminds me of Jean-Francois Caron (a pro strongman) who mentioned that people who did manual labor have an advantage over others when competing in strongman. Greg Nuckols also mentioned he felt that performing lumberjack type of work helped him get started with his deadlift.

I also feel that forearms and calves are a bit "special" in the sense that they are mostly built for low intensity/high volumes tasks. So it makes sense that training them with very high volume low intensity would give good results. But then again I also feel that both calves and forearms are very genetics dependent (which is why synthol injection in the calves is common for bodybuilding competitors).

Also, being 200 lbs at 5'9 with low body fat (say 12%) is an FFMI of almost 27 ... This is not a "small guy", this is a high level bodybuilder, and definitely a very impressive physique.

[mettkeks]

I think it comes down to genetics, diet and sleep, just like with training. I know a bunch of dudes that are plenty strong without training and some of them don't work in the trades. I know a lot more guys who work in the trades, drink and go out a lot and are some of the weakest dudes you'll ever see, but they still get as much work done as everyone else. I've spend the second half of my teens in the woods and on construction sites and I don't think I've gotten stronger past the first 6 months.

A friend of mine is called "Obelix" (like in the cartoon). Dude was 9 when he was born. 6'4'', 370lb. His first ever deadlift took me 3 years to get to. Spent his youth being terrible at sports and mostly reading cartoons and playing video games.

It reminds me of Jean-Francois Caron (a pro strongman) who mentioned that people who did manual labor have an advantage over others when competing in strongman. Greg Nuckols also mentioned he felt that performing lumberjack type of work helped him get started with his deadlift.

I also feel that forearms and calves are a bit "special" in the sense that they are mostly built for low intensity/high volumes tasks. So it makes sense that training them with very high volume low intensity would give good results. But then again I also feel that both calves and forearms are very genetics dependent (which is why synthol injection in the calves is common for bodybuilding competitors).

JF Caron and Greg Nuckols are far from the average dude. I'm from the countryside and the farmboys are nothing special.

Size in forearms and calves seems extremely dependent on genetics, and strength doesn't correlate with size in that regard. I have a couple of co-workers with JACKED forearms, but their grip and wrists are so limp it's insane... Like WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE THOSE???

Also, being 200 lbs at 5'9 with low body fat (say 12%) is an FFMI of almost 27 ... This is not a "small guy", this is a high level bodybuilder, and definitely a very impressive physique.

Yeah, to put this in perspective... This is what 5'8'' 195lb ca. 18-20% BF looks like:

SpoilerShow

[ColonelMoutarde]

Absolutely, Caron and Nuckols are genetic freaks !

[Hardartery]

It reminds me of Jean-Francois Caron (a pro strongman) who mentioned that people who did manual labor have an advantage over others when competing in strongman. Greg Nuckols also mentioned he felt that performing lumberjack type of work helped him get started with his deadlift.

I also feel that forearms and calves are a bit "special" in the sense that they are mostly built for low intensity/high volumes tasks. So it makes sense that training them with very high volume low intensity would give good results. But then again I also feel that both calves and forearms are very genetics dependent (which is why synthol injection in the calves is common for bodybuilding competitors).

Also, being 200 lbs at 5'9 with low body fat (say 12%) is an FFMI of almost 27 ... This is not a "small guy", this is a high level bodybuilder, and definitely a very impressive physique.

I am speaking relatively here, and apparently not super clear. My nephew's father is the little guy in the sentence, although my nephew is certainly not small he does appear very big standing next to the rest of us. Much like Cutler looks big until you see him in the midde of a bunch of Pro Strongmen. It doesn't matter how jacked you are if you're giving up 100 lbs and 3 plus inches of height to everyone around you. Hi dad is no taller than him and a lot smaller than he is.
This is exactly what I was looking for though, some conversation and alternative experience. I have worked with a lot of heavy drinkers/alcoholics and stoners. Some of them were stupid strong anyway, in spite of how poorly they treated their own bodies. I assume calves are genetic, I never did anything in particular for mine and they generally track with my biceps measurement. I did a lot of work on ladders when I was young, and recently I have been pulling with bands that I hold down with the balls of my foot, but absolutely nothing in between directly for calves.
So what about shoulders? Other than bone spurs in one, mine grow easily and gain strength easily without injury. I started using a 70 lb DB for raises last year because it was the only thing that I had access to, and rather quickly I am repping with fairly strict form. Is that genetic, or the background in Masonry? I put up some shorts on Youtube using 75's recently while in the US. Form could have been better, but it was the first time touching more than a 50 lb DB in at least 6 months. Do other people's shoulders respond the same way to jumps in stimulus, or do they tear something? What does that mean regarding training shoulders? Are most of us doing it wrong because we don't see people training them like other muscles? What's the difference between 1000 reps of something light and 8 reps of something difficult? Is it frequency, or frequency as dictated by load? Are the eak guys on the site weak because they're lazy or because they just don't tend to gain strength?

[mettkeks]

It reminds me of Jean-Francois Caron (a pro strongman) who mentioned that people who did manual labor have an advantage over others when competing in strongman. Greg Nuckols also mentioned he felt that performing lumberjack type of work helped him get started with his deadlift.

I also feel that forearms and calves are a bit "special" in the sense that they are mostly built for low intensity/high volumes tasks. So it makes sense that training them with very high volume low intensity would give good results. But then again I also feel that both calves and forearms are very genetics dependent (which is why synthol injection in the calves is common for bodybuilding competitors).

Also, being 200 lbs at 5'9 with low body fat (say 12%) is an FFMI of almost 27 ... This is not a "small guy", this is a high level bodybuilder, and definitely a very impressive physique.

I am speaking relatively here, and apparently not super clear. My nephew's father is the little guy in the sentence, although my nephew is certainly not small he does appear very big standing next to the rest of us. Much like Cutler looks big until you see him in the midde of a bunch of Pro Strongmen. It doesn't matter how jacked you are if you're giving up 100 lbs and 3 plus inches of height to everyone around you. Hi dad is no taller than him and a lot smaller than he is.
This is exactly what I was looking for though, some conversation and alternative experience. I have worked with a lot of heavy drinkers/alcoholics and stoners. Some of them were stupid strong anyway, in spite of how poorly they treated their own bodies. I assume calves are genetic, I never did anything in particular for mine and they generally track with my biceps measurement. I did a lot of work on ladders when I was young, and recently I have been pulling with bands that I hold down with the balls of my foot, but absolutely nothing in between directly for calves.
So what about shoulders? Other than bone spurs in one, mine grow easily and gain strength easily without injury. I started using a 70 lb DB for raises last year because it was the only thing that I had access to, and rather quickly I am repping with fairly strict form. Is that genetic, or the background in Masonry? I put up some shorts on Youtube using 75's recently while in the US. Form could have been better, but it was the first time touching more than a 50 lb DB in at least 6 months. Do other people's shoulders respond the same way to jumps in stimulus, or do they tear something? What does that mean regarding training shoulders? Are most of us doing it wrong because we don't see people training them like other muscles? What's the difference between 1000 reps of something light and 8 reps of something difficult? Is it frequency, or frequency as dictated by load? Are the eak guys on the site weak because they're lazy or because they just don't tend to gain strength?

You write a lot of points in a single reply, so it's kind of hard to address them all. (For me at least, but I'm not very bright.)

Regarding your experiences... You're 6' 280, reasonably lean? You don't have to ask if your experiences are typical. They aren't. Not even close. You obviously exceed the average by far. The average guy will be at least pudgy at 6' 220lb at the end of his training career.

What's the difference between 1000 reps of something light and 8 reps of something difficult? Is it frequency, or frequency as dictated by load? Are the eak guys on the site weak because they're lazy or because they just don't tend to gain strength?

Pretty much all studies agree that muscle is built above 30% 1RM. Everything past 30 reps per set is basically cardio. Anything you do for 8-10hrs every day will not build muscle either otherwise pretty much everyone would be jacked. As for the bolded part: If the weak guy does the same job as the jacked guy, but he's still weak... there's your answer. That's just how it is. If you're always picking up the same loads, where is the progressive overload part? It's not like you go to failure all the time on the job.

Like, How many fabricators do I know that look like Jerry Pritchett? 1 that never trained and isn't nearly as jacked as him, and one that is as jacked as him but has taken PED's for the last 30 years. The rest looks like every other guy you see on the street. From tiny and underfed to tall and kinda fat. Same with all the tradies I know.

I've been training for a little over for years now. I'm 6' 180 most of the time. Nothing special, pretty average. Now in the winter, I don't stick out in public at all. In the summer when everyone's wearing t-shirts and you can see arms, shoulders, chest etc. I'm way past average. Yet I fit into dudes who never worked out or even worked a physical job. That's genetics. On the other hand, if these dudes did work out, then these were the guys you'd see on television or magazine covers.

[MarkKO]

The only thing I can think of past anything mentioned already is that people who work manually for a living may simply move better in the sense that their bodies are accustomed to moving and carrying some degree of load. So when they do start to train, it's just a matter of learning a new movement rather than learning how to move period.

That's a very flimsy argument though.

[Hardartery]

You write a lot of points in a single reply, so it's kind of hard to address them all. (For me at least, but I'm not very bright.)

Regarding your experiences... You're 6' 280, reasonably lean? You don't have to ask if your experiences are typical. They aren't. Not even close. You obviously exceed the average by far. The average guy will be at least pudgy at 6' 220lb at the end of his training career.

I am arguably leaner now than when I competed. More than arguably I would say. I am aware of some reason for that at this point in my life that I was unaware of then. I am not saying that I am reasonably lean or not lean, no six-pack is present but I don't think I'm a total slob either. I may be delusional on that point though. I was 165 lbs when I graduated highscholl and shredded, really shredded. Jumping rope 45 mins a night plus lifting, plus masonry and other construction. I got up to 175 right before I got married and had a 29" waist. I am no where near a 29" waist anymore.
Don't sell yourself short regarding brightness, have you met most of the population?

Pretty much all studies agree that muscle is built above 30% 1RM. Everything past 30 reps per set is basically cardio. Anything you do for 8-10hrs every day will not build muscle either otherwise pretty much everyone would be jacked. As for the bolded part: If the weak guy does the same job as the jacked guy, but he's still weak... there's your answer. That's just how it is. If you're always picking up the same loads, where is the progressive overload part? It's not like you go to failure all the time on the job.

Like, How many fabricators do I know that look like Jerry Pritchett? 1 that never trained and isn't nearly as jacked as him, and one that is as jacked as him but has taken PED's for the last 30 years. The rest looks like every other guy you see on the street. From tiny and underfed to tall and kinda fat. Same with all the tradies I know.

I've been training for a little over for years now. I'm 6' 180 most of the time. Nothing special, pretty average. Now in the winter, I don't stick out in public at all. In the summer when everyone's wearing t-shirts and you can see arms, shoulders, chest etc. I'm way past average. Yet I fit into dudes who never worked out or even worked a physical job. That's genetics. On the other hand, if these dudes did work out, then these were the guys you'd see on television or magazine covers.

So you ar estating what virually everyone says, and I myself have said. I am not really discussing being jacked or hypertrophy though. I know what the studies say, but I have also read studies and know the limitations present. Most masons I know are not jacked, they drink a lot of beer and look like it. They are frequently capable of demonstrating deltoid strength that in no way would be suggested by their appearance. For example, my father could hold a 30 lb DB at arm's length in front of him like it was air, and just hold it there until he got bored. He never looked frail, but you wouldn't look at him anf think he had WSM level deltoid strength. So what gets these guys there? Are we completely wrong about training in some respects? I know that some guys bust ass all day on a site, and some very much do not, even though they are supposedly doing the same job. PED's will add mass, depending. That's not really arguable, it just depends on the drug and the individual response how much they are going to get. I also know that different drugs do different things - some add a lot of size, some add little to no size. Some add a lot of strength, some do not. I think there is a lot more at play here.

[MarkKO]

What would be interesting in the cohort of guys who have that deltoid strength and are masons is to see the incidence of occupational injuries. I know many trades have a prevalence of one or two types of injuries (shoulders with plasterers, back with concreters, etc).

My hypothesis, such as it is, is that those masons who have strong shoulders without training are the ones who have had the either no or no significant shoulder injuries throughout their careers.

[mettkeks]

You write a lot of points in a single reply, so it's kind of hard to address them all. (For me at least, but I'm not very bright.)

Regarding your experiences... You're 6' 280, reasonably lean? You don't have to ask if your experiences are typical. They aren't. Not even close. You obviously exceed the average by far. The average guy will be at least pudgy at 6' 220lb at the end of his training career.

Don't sell yourself short regarding brightness, have you met most of the population?

I have a pretty realistic view on the population.

They are frequently capable of demonstrating deltoid strength that in no way would be suggested by their appearance.
For example, my father could hold a 30 lb DB at arm's length in front of him like it was air, and just hold it there until he got bored. He never looked frail, but you wouldn't look at him anf think he had WSM level deltoid strength. So what gets these guys there? Are we completely wrong about training in some respects? I know that some guys bust ass all day on a site, and some very much do not, even though they are supposedly doing the same job.

Perspective. The Medial Deltoid of the average population for example, is about as thick as a pinkyfinger. Takes a lot of work to get it as thick as a thumb. What's ''not much'' for you is probably well past average pop.

As for your question regarding how this could inform training... What would you want to make of it? The only practical takeaway from this would be to train your delts 8hrs 6 days a week to get strong delts in a 10-20 year timeframe.

The only thing I can think of past anything mentioned already is that people who work manually for a living may simply move better in the sense that their bodies are accustomed to moving and carrying some degree of load. So when they do start to train, it's just a matter of learning a new movement rather than learning how to move period.

That's a very flimsy argument though.

That is a BIG part of the whole picture. There's a good chunk of skill to strength. If you don't have strong shoulders (or at least bad leverage) to begin with, you'll work around those shortcomings because you can't perform the same movement the same way as someone with stronger shoulders would.
You'd keep weights closer to your body. You'd move the same weights, but your shoulders wouldn't improve.

[DanCR]

I am arguably leaner now than when I competed. More than arguably I would say. I am aware of some reason for that at this point in my life that I was unaware of then.

What is that reason or reasons?

[DanCR]

As for your question regarding how this could inform training... What would you want to make of it? The only practical takeaway from this would be to train your delts 8hrs 6 days a week to get strong delts in a 10-20 year timeframe.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It may be a case for more volume - particularly for forearms and calves - but not that much. For example, this line of thinking may justify calves 6-7 days a week, as many bodybuilders do.

[Hardartery]

As for your question regarding how this could inform training... What would you want to make of it? The only practical takeaway from this would be to train your delts 8hrs 6 days a week to get strong delts in a 10-20 year timeframe.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It may be a case for more volume - particularly for forearms and calves - but not that much. For example, this line of thinking may justify calves 6-7 days a week, as many bodybuilders do.

One thing I take away from it is that working all day does not give thoses guys large muscles, just strong. Granted, they are probably larger muscles than if they did not do this work, but it does not result in a great deal of hypertrophy for them which implies that it is exactly the wrong thing to do for a BBer.

[Renascent]

As for your question regarding how this could inform training... What would you want to make of it? The only practical takeaway from this would be to train your delts 8hrs 6 days a week to get strong delts in a 10-20 year timeframe.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It may be a case for more volume - particularly for forearms and calves - but not that much. For example, this line of thinking may justify calves 6-7 days a week, as many bodybuilders do.

One thing I take away from it is that working all day does not give thoses guys large muscles, just strong. Granted, they are probably larger muscles than if they did not do this work, but it does not result in a great deal of hypertrophy for them which implies that it is exactly the wrong thing to do for a BBer.

Unless they introduce more calories into their diet?

I'm just spitballing to find the missing piece, here...

[Hardartery]

I am arguably leaner now than when I competed. More than arguably I would say. I am aware of some reason for that at this point in my life that I was unaware of then.

What is that reason or reasons?

One thing is diet, I am eating better now than then. When competing as a heavyweight I ate a lot to train and maintain size. A lot. Like more than 10k cal a day dirty bulk as a lifestyle pushing for 300 lbs. I eat much cleaner now and carry more muscle mass at a similar weight. The biggest factor would be hormaonl though. I had a condition called Parathyroid Hyperplasia - of which I was completely unaware as virtually all people with it are unaware. Usually it kills you or they find it when you're getting a kidney transplant, because you eventually need new kidneys with it. hat was part of it, the other part was low testosterone. I had labs showing my numbers, I just didn't know what they meant back then. Running around with low test makes it a lor harder to keep fat off and build muscle. I got prescribed TRT by an endo when I was trying to figure out the hyperplasia problem. Having mid-range test (Which is what I have by way of injection now) makes a huge difference in that.

[Hardartery]

The only thing I can think of past anything mentioned already is that people who work manually for a living may simply move better in the sense that their bodies are accustomed to moving and carrying some degree of load. So when they do start to train, it's just a matter of learning a new movement rather than learning how to move period.

That's a very flimsy argument though.

That is a BIG part of the whole picture. There's a good chunk of skill to strength. If you don't have strong shoulders (or at least bad leverage) to begin with, you'll work around those shortcomings because you can't perform the same movement the same way as someone with stronger shoulders would.
You'd keep weights closer to your body. You'd move the same weights, but your shoulders wouldn't improve.

I think that in part is the ability to recruit muscle fibres. If you work physically you have mind muscle connection to some extent. It goes to coordination and efficiency of movement and ability to exhibit learned skill. Working a shovel, as lowly a job as it is, requires a lot of actualt skill as well as wrist, hand adn forearm strength if you are going ot be any good at it. That ability to recruit muscle and control it has to carry over to lifting.

[Hardartery]

What would be interesting in the cohort of guys who have that deltoid strength and are masons is to see the incidence of occupational injuries. I know many trades have a prevalence of one or two types of injuries (shoulders with plasterers, back with concreters, etc).

My hypothesis, such as it is, is that those masons who have strong shoulders without training are the ones who have had the either no or no significant shoulder injuries throughout their careers.

This may be an important point. I was very rarely injured, and very rarely get injured. Ican actually tally ALL of my lifetime injuroes in my head and I remeber all of them. It's a short list. My father is similarly rarely injured. He really only got injured twice that I can think of, and both involved falls - one because of a defective scaffold plank that simpy broke under him and dropped him 6 feet or so directly onto his shoulder. That meant taking it easy for about two week if I recall correctly. Most other guys that come to mind never seemed to be injured either, except for the obligatory arthritis later on.

[Hardartery]

As for your question regarding how this could inform training... What would you want to make of it? The only practical takeaway from this would be to train your delts 8hrs 6 days a week to get strong delts in a 10-20 year timeframe.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It may be a case for more volume - particularly for forearms and calves - but not that much. For example, this line of thinking may justify calves 6-7 days a week, as many bodybuilders do.

One thing I take away from it is that working all day does not give thoses guys large muscles, just strong. Granted, they are probably larger muscles than if they did not do this work, but it does not result in a great deal of hypertrophy for them which implies that it is exactly the wrong thing to do for a BBer.

Unless they introduce more calories into their diet?

I'm just spitballing to find the missing piece, here...

I'm thinking, and I could be way off with no evidence, that maybe it's massive tendon strength coupled with well trained slow twitch fibres and a really excellent capacity to utilize a high percentage of the total muscle fibres at will.