Tier Three Tactical, also Average 2 savage

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

[MarkKO]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

It's not the worst idea. It's slow but also means you're much less likely to gain much fat.

[dw]

I'm curious about what bulk:cut time ratios other people have achieved in practice.

I think I've gotten to the point where 6:2 (weeks in my case) maintains my bf% over time. Someone on Reddit said they do 4:1. I could probably get there by bulking a little slower but I'm not sure if that would lead to faster or slower progress over time.

[MarkKO]

I'm curious about what bulk:cut time ratios other people have achieved in practice.

I think I've gotten to the point where 6:2 (weeks in my case) maintains my bf% over time. Someone on Reddit said they do 4:1. I could probably get there by bulking a little slower but I'm not sure if that would lead to faster or slower progress over time.

I've typically been at the other end of the time spectrum going in terms of months. That said, previously I've gone from mid 200s to mid 230s over maybe nine months; then down from mid 230s to mid 180s over a year or so; then from there all the way up to low 260s, but that took around two years IIRC; then back town to mid 210s or so over something like nine to 12 months.

All that wasn't any deliberate cut, bulk, cut bulk cycle but what I felt at the time was conducive to achieving what I wanted to achieve.

Then more recently I had a definite plan to add mass until my body composition reached a certain point which took me from the mid 210s to around 220. That took around 18 months, with not a huge amount of change in body composition and it was deliberately very slow. It seemed to work well though. Currently I'm moving back down somewhat more aggressively and my timeline is capped at a maximum of 15 weeks. That'll get me to around 200, and I'll spend another 12 to 18 months working back up to 220 or so.

[xuerebx]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

[MarkKO]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

That was me, although I think someone else may have too.

In the context of people who lift weights, 75 kilos at 5'8" (around 176-177 cm if I understand the conversion correctly) is quite small. For the general population, you are absolutely correct it is a normal size.

Broadly speaking, for a male to have a definitely muscular appearance weighing 75 kilos he will usually need to be no taller than around 165 cm or so (which I think is around five feet six inches), and reasonably lean as well.

I can say from my own experience as a guy who is between five feet eight and nine inches even weighing in around 185 lbs with relatively little bodyfat (maybe around 20 lbs off stage weight) I looked lean, maybe a little athletic but definitely not muscular.

It's one of those things you realise after a few years if you aren't particularly genetically favoured: you need to weigh a LOT more at a MUCH lower bodyfat than you thought initially to look like you lift. It's absolutely achievable, but it takes quite some time.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

I mean I would consider 100-200 kcal a small surplus, where you'd be gaining 0.5-1kg a month. The only problem is that when you're looking at a 100 kcal surplus, essentially things come down to measurement errors. Think about it, who can track their caloric intake with an accuracy of 3% (100 kcal is about 3% of 3000 kcal)? Probably no one. And that would be assuming that you also control your physical activity very tightly. You can spend 100 kcal by walking about 15 minutes, which is nothing.

The reason why I don't like Lyle's routine is because he does not even lift, and I think it's a bad habit to take "expert" lifting advice from people who are not successful at lifting weights. I know that some people think this is a meathead mentality but still. There's hundreds of highly successful lifters to take advice from: Nuckols, Israetel, Tuscherer, Feigenraki, etc.

75 kgs is (in my country) the average weight for men. If you lift weights and is very muscular (unless you are very lean), you can reasonably expect to be much heavier than that unless you are very small or very lean. Now once again being "big" or "small" in absolute terms is unimportant, it's all about your personal goals, genetics, and what you enjoy. For instance I enjoy being big (I don't care much about being lean), some people are all about being lean etc. Shoot for a body that makes you happy, that's all.



Now, if you're currently doing well, don't change anything. Lifting is experimental. If it works it works and don't listen to idiots on the internet like me.

[Robster]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

Did u get good results with SBS Hypertrophy? And r u seeing good results with Lyles?

[ChasingCurls69]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

I mean I would consider 100-200 kcal a small surplus, where you'd be gaining 0.5-1kg a month. The only problem is that when you're looking at a 100 kcal surplus, essentially things come down to measurement errors. Think about it, who can track their caloric intake with an accuracy of 3% (100 kcal is about 3% of 3000 kcal)? Probably no one. And that would be assuming that you also control your physical activity very tightly. You can spend 100 kcal by walking about 15 minutes, which is nothing.

The reason why I don't like Lyle's routine is because he does not even lift, and I think it's a bad habit to take "expert" lifting advice from people who are not successful at lifting weights. I know that some people think this is a meathead mentality but still. There's hundreds of highly successful lifters to take advice from: Nuckols, Israetel, Tuscherer, Feigenraki, etc.

75 kgs is (in my country) the average weight for men. If you lift weights and is very muscular (unless you are very lean), you can reasonably expect to be much heavier than that unless you are very small or very lean. Now once again being "big" or "small" in absolute terms is unimportant, it's all about your personal goals, genetics, and what you enjoy. For instance I enjoy being big (I don't care much about being lean), some people are all about being lean etc. Shoot for a body that makes you happy, that's all.



Now, if you're currently doing well, don't change anything. Lifting is experimental. If it works it works and don't listen to idiots on the internet like me.

Small surpluses are what MacroFactor gives for that exact rate of gain; it works pretty well since switching over, and getting other people to use MacroFactor. Training in that small surplus goes just as well as a 500kcal surplus, and not gaining as much fat/not feeling as full all the time feels way better for day-to-day life and sustainability.

Activity calories aren't accurate to the degree that walking an extra 15 minutes would undo your surplus, and individual days matter less than consistency over a longer time period does even if you did undo it with a 15 minute walk. It may be more difficult if you are trying to raw doge it, but I still find it preferable to the classic 500kcal surplus.

[xuerebx]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

That was me, although I think someone else may have too.

In the context of people who lift weights, 75 kilos at 5'8" (around 176-177 cm if I understand the conversion correctly) is quite small. For the general population, you are absolutely correct it is a normal size.

Broadly speaking, for a male to have a definitely muscular appearance weighing 75 kilos he will usually need to be no taller than around 165 cm or so (which I think is around five feet six inches), and reasonably lean as well.

I can say from my own experience as a guy who is between five feet eight and nine inches even weighing in around 185 lbs with relatively little bodyfat (maybe around 20 lbs off stage weight) I looked lean, maybe a little athletic but definitely not muscular.

It's one of those things you realise after a few years if you aren't particularly genetically favoured: you need to weigh a LOT more at a MUCH lower bodyfat than you thought initially to look like you lift. It's absolutely achievable, but it takes quite some time.

All fair points. I know I'm never going to look big with a shirt on, that would require me to put on 15kg of muscle and I didn't put up 1/3rd of that in my newbie gains phase. I'd be content being 75kg @ around 12% bf. Although same weight as the average, body composition wise the difference would be obvious with a shirt off. With a shirt on probably not (well unless you buy them 2 sizes smaller ).

[xuerebx]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

I mean I would consider 100-200 kcal a small surplus, where you'd be gaining 0.5-1kg a month. The only problem is that when you're looking at a 100 kcal surplus, essentially things come down to measurement errors. Think about it, who can track their caloric intake with an accuracy of 3% (100 kcal is about 3% of 3000 kcal)? Probably no one. And that would be assuming that you also control your physical activity very tightly. You can spend 100 kcal by walking about 15 minutes, which is nothing.

The reason why I don't like Lyle's routine is because he does not even lift, and I think it's a bad habit to take "expert" lifting advice from people who are not successful at lifting weights. I know that some people think this is a meathead mentality but still. There's hundreds of highly successful lifters to take advice from: Nuckols, Israetel, Tuscherer, Feigenraki, etc.

75 kgs is (in my country) the average weight for men. If you lift weights and is very muscular (unless you are very lean), you can reasonably expect to be much heavier than that unless you are very small or very lean. Now once again being "big" or "small" in absolute terms is unimportant, it's all about your personal goals, genetics, and what you enjoy. For instance I enjoy being big (I don't care much about being lean), some people are all about being lean etc. Shoot for a body that makes you happy, that's all.



Now, if you're currently doing well, don't change anything. Lifting is experimental. If it works it works and don't listen to idiots on the internet like me.

I also use Macrofactor to track the 100kcal surplus but it's going surprisingly well - in the sense overall the weight is trending up + the weights. I'm looking at a longer time span of 1.5 years bulking slowly rather than my usual failed 6 month bulks.

As for your comments on Lyle - fair enough. To me it doesn't matter if he lifts or not in the same manner that there are many great coaches who weren't good athletes. I've come to like his no BS approach, he has nothing to lose so his advice posts on his FB group feel honest and trustworthy. In any case, the methodology he advocates is pretty standard. I'd be wary if it wasn't.

[xuerebx]

@perman isn't gaining 0.5% of bodyweight a bit slow for a bulk ? Assuming that you weight around 100 kgs, that's 500 grams of bodyweight gained a month, which is 110 kcal of surplus, which at this point is more or less like being at maintenance.

Now i think the point you make about thinking about bulking and cutting in terms of math is great. The way that I think about it is: for each week of cutting, you earn two weeks of bulking. Providing you bulk with a +250 kcal surplus and you cut with a -500 kcal deficit (both of those are relatively reasonable I think).

FWIW, Eric Trexxler (and by extension the SBS guys) advocate low bulk rates. Eric has said that as time goes by, he's advocating for this more and more as additional surplus seems to just go to fat. For me I'm seeing my "best" progress finally adhering to this approach (plus when I do over indulge in the weekends it's not an additional surplus over an already largish surplus).

And I know you told the OP not to go for Lyle's Generic Bulking Routine - but essentially it's a very simple approach - just making sure you beat the weight or reps from the previous week over an 8 week cycle, deload and repeat. Although the SBS hypertrophy template was also really good. On the other hand I didn't really like the RP approach of ramping volume, plus I tend to lose focus on high rep sets but that's just me.

@OP: I feel you man. Progress is really slow and I'm sure I'm a low responder, but I've been getting better results with a small surplus (and I'm doing Lyle's at the moment, but have also done SBS Hypertrophy and RP Male Physique Templates in the past).

Also, someone said that 75kg is small? I mean for most people that's a normal weight (at least in my country where the average height is 5'8", and I'm bang on the average).

Did u get good results with SBS Hypertrophy? And r u seeing good results with Lyles?

I had ok results with SBS and better results with Lyle's, but it's very dependent on what you find motivating. For example, I've set up the GBR rep ranges between 6 to 10 reps depending on the exercise, as it's a rep range that I can remain focused during the workout. So my point is your mileage may vary. Also I think really and truly it's a bit difficult to gauge efficacy in the short term on a hypertrophy program...

[Hardartery]

The reason why I don't like Lyle's routine is because he does not even lift, and I think it's a bad habit to take "expert" lifting advice from people who are not successful at lifting weights. I know that some people think this is a meathead mentality but still. There's hundreds of highly successful lifters to take advice from: Nuckols, Israetel, Tuscherer, Feigenraki, etc.

Tangent question here. Since when does Lyle not lift? I feel certain that he used to, way back in the day. He used to post to Strength List (Deepsquatter.com related thing from the days of GoHeavy forum) and I feel pretty sure he was lifting then. That is going back to before Mel Siff died and Chris Thibodeaux was actually writing stuff worth reading...

[xuerebx]

From his FB group he does lift at least occasionally. And he coaches as well.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@xuerebx @Hardartery I think my post was worded poorly. What I meant by "does not even lift" was that he was never successful in lifting weights. He was never big or strong (as far as I know). I hope this does not come off as being mean spirited, but once again my belief is that getting big or getting strong is a journey, and in order to guide people in their journey you need to have taken yourself through that journey.

It is not a theoretical pursuit, it is something very practical, and without the first hand, practical experience of success, you can't guide others to success and whatever you have to contribute is not interesting.

You want to write a bodybuilding program ? Sure, but step on stage first. You want to write a bulking program to get bigger ? No problem, but get big first. You want to write a strength program ? Put up some big weights and then we'll talk about it.

Being a mediocre lifter is fine (I am very mediocre at lifting), lifting is a hobby, but if you are mediocre you should not be a coach, you can just be a lifter. And you should certainly not be getting paid for it. This is one of the reasons why the signal to noise ratio is atrocious in fitness.

[MarkKO]

@xuerebx @Hardartery I think my post was worded poorly. What I meant by "does not even lift" was that he was never successful in lifting weights. He was never big or strong (as far as I know). I hope this does not come off as being mean spirited, but once again my belief is that getting big or getting strong is a journey, and in order to guide people in their journey you need to have taken yourself through that journey.

It is not a theoretical pursuit, it is something very practical, and without the first hand, practical experience of success, you can't guide others to success and whatever you have to contribute is not interesting.

You want to write a bodybuilding program ? Sure, but step on stage first. You want to write a bulking program to get bigger ? No problem, but get big first. You want to write a strength program ? Put up some big weights and then we'll talk about it.

Being a mediocre lifter is fine (I am very mediocre at lifting), lifting is a hobby, but if you are mediocre you should not be a coach, you can just be a lifter. And you should certainly not be getting paid for it. This is one of the reasons why the signal to noise ratio is atrocious in fitness.

This reminded me of something I hadn't thought of in a while. I forgot who said/wrote it; I'm not sure if it was someone I was talking to, or if I read it in an article or what. Nonetheless I think it makes a great deal of sense.

When looking at a coach, one very useful indication of whether or not they are good at what they do is not necessarily that they have achieved success in the sport they are coaching; this can be helpful, but is no sure-fire indicator of a good coach. There are a great many very good powerlifters who are not good coaches at all.

What does indicate coaching ability is how many people the coach has made much better than when they started. Whether or not these people are particularly successful is less important, because that depends more on the individual's top end capacity in respect of genetics. What is important is that this hypothetical coach has made everyone they have coached significantly better performers than when they started.

Why? Because that means this coach does not need an individual to be genetically predisposed to the sport. Instead, they are able to take whatever package the individual presents and maximise the performance possible *with that package*.

For example, taking someone whose first total was 1700 lbs to a 2000 lbs total over five years is great, but that person was always, ALWAYS going to be good and will probably end up with a 2200 total eventually. They would probably have gotten to that 2000 lbs over five years anyway, or at least close.

Taking someone whose first total was 1000 lbs and in five or even seven or so years getting them to a 1500 lbs total? That's pretty huge because that person is not gifted at powerlifting. Someone who has coached multiple people like that to multiple totals like that is a VERY good coach indeed. It isn't a particularly good total in many cases, but it also isn't something everyone can get to.

Ideally of course you have a coach who ticks both boxes: someone who has achieved great success in their sport AND is a very good coach as well.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@MarkKO I agree with everything you said. In particular the fact that the idea coach should tick both boxes. Also about the fact that a good coach should demonstrate his ability on various populations: beginners, advanced, genetic freaks, people with terrible genetics, men, women, etc.

Success as a lifter is in my opinion just an initial filter in order to decide who might be worth your attention.

[MarkKO]

@MarkKO I agree with everything you said. In particular the fact that the idea coach should tick both boxes. Also about the fact that a good coach should demonstrate his ability on various populations: beginners, advanced, genetic freaks, people with terrible genetics, men, women, etc.

Success as a lifter is in my opinion just an initial filter in order to decide who might be worth your attention.

Absolutely. There's an article by Dave Tate somewhere that lists some criteria on how to assess whether a coach is likely or not to be good, and their own success is one of them.

[janoycresva]

Taking someone whose first total was 1000 lbs and in five or even seven or so years getting them to a 1500 lbs total? That's pretty huge because that person is not gifted at powerlifting.

i agree with your premise generally, but i doubt there is any coach in the world that can take someone who isn't at least somewhat gifted for strength to a 1500lb total

[Hardartery]

@xuerebx @Hardartery I think my post was worded poorly. What I meant by "does not even lift" was that he was never successful in lifting weights. He was never big or strong (as far as I know). I hope this does not come off as being mean spirited, but once again my belief is that getting big or getting strong is a journey, and in order to guide people in their journey you need to have taken yourself through that journey.

It is not a theoretical pursuit, it is something very practical, and without the first hand, practical experience of success, you can't guide others to success and whatever you have to contribute is not interesting.

You want to write a bodybuilding program ? Sure, but step on stage first. You want to write a bulking program to get bigger ? No problem, but get big first. You want to write a strength program ? Put up some big weights and then we'll talk about it.

Being a mediocre lifter is fine (I am very mediocre at lifting), lifting is a hobby, but if you are mediocre you should not be a coach, you can just be a lifter. And you should certainly not be getting paid for it. This is one of the reasons why the signal to noise ratio is atrocious in fitness.

You voice a common opinion, but it is invalidated by reality. There are virtually no top level coaches of top level athletes in the realm of lifting that even look like they ever lifted. The coach of Novikov and Wide Pavlo from Ukraine is a middle aged dad-bod, he has a bit of a gut and no signs of muscle at all. The guys coaching the top IFBB guys, for the most part, don't look like anything (Especially suspicious given that I believe most of them do actually lift). I can think of very few coaches that had any level of success on their own merits that currently coach anyone of note.
As to coaching success at all levels, that also is not realistic. Most coaches are somewhat niche, and Dave Tate is an example of that. He coaches top level lifters only, and rather openly says that. Coaching Joe Dadbod or Jane Soccermom is an entirely different universe than coaching Novikov or Haack or Bumstead. It is the rare person that can coach all levels or cross disciplines effectively. Louie Simmons was a great PL coach and had some success (Somewhat more quietly) with Olympic throwers and football players. His ideas regarding Weightlifting don't really hold much water though, in spite of the fact that his entire system is lifted directly from Soviet Weightlifting programs plus box squats (From the original Westside Gym guys).
Even a mediocre coach can meet with you one on one and improve you in some way. The thing that makes a difference is that the coach has the ability to analyze data and adapt to make application. The guy that was personally successful usually sucks at that, he just did what he did and it worked because genetics and/or lucky drug selection. You can tell in 5 minutes of one on one conversation if said coach actually is that guy the analyzes and interprets things in a useful way, and that conversation is unrelated to his lifting history or his coaching history. Some guys get fame when in reality all they did was get lucky with clients.