Things I believe but can't prove...

[Zak]

I think most people who cannot say without a doubt that they are highly advanced lifters, (i.e., very near their genetic ceiling for strength,) should take a basic 5/3/1 program or similar that requires no thought or decision-making on their part and attack that for at least half a year. The BBB thread above motivated this line of thinking. I don't love the idea of 5x10 deadlifts at this point (I have done the BBB training extensively in my past,) but still I think that program or something very like it is 1000000 times better than what most people are doing.

Most people as in most people on this forum or most people in a commercial gym ? Now i'm kind of curious about what you think about my program ...

Will have a look at your log and drop thoughts in there.

[KyleSchuant]

instead of trying to mold the training to your unique physiology and psychology as is so in vogue these days, you mold yourself to the ridiculous demands of the program and thereby actually check the out-of-the-gym boxes that matter.

There's truth in that. But there's also the fact that a lot of people will just get burned out and quit. So the results you see from any programme are going to have a lot of survivorship bias in them.

Back on the SS forums I used to say, "I'd rather have 100 guys squat 100kg than 3 guys squat 200kg and 97 burn out and quit and lift 0kg." And the response was, "But you could have 100 guys squat 200kg." And when I asked which coach had 100 guys squat 200kg, they got vague and abusive. Now, to be fair there's a legitimate place for the 3 guys with 200kg and 97 guys quitting, if you're trying to produce great lifters for competition, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and all that. But if your focus is on improving people's health, then the programme getting 100 guys to squat 100kg is better.

Ridiculous programmes - let's call them Commie Method programmes ("Fulfill the quota, Stakhanov!" - do indeed get results - but most people just quit. Less ridiculous programmes - let's call them Normal Method, after the statistical distribution - still have people quit, but a lot more make it through.

[Hanley]

Back on the SS forums I used to say, "I'd rather have 100 guys squat 100kg than 3 guys squat 200kg and 97 burn out and quit and lift 0kg." And the response was, "But you could have 100 guys squat 200kg."

I'm confident I I would have pointed out the ridiculousness of justifying an approach to training that referenced such silly false dichotomies.

[coolniceman]

Great Thread

1. Dips and chins chunked into easy sets sprinkled throughout the day are better for upper body hypertrophy than most gym-based assistance-type work.

Second this. I've switched from doing 3-4 AMRAP sets of pull ups/chins to doing weighted sets of 2 supersetted between almost every non-back exercise. I go from getting about 20 bodyweight reps in 3-4 sets, to getting 20 weighted reps throughout an entire workout. My upper back already feels stronger.

6. Most people who low bar squat would be better off taking the majority of their competition-style squat volume and shifting it to quad-focused work, e.g., high bar pause squats, ssb squats, pendulum squats, etc.

My knees are sensitive to the absolute load during squats. I get quad tendonitis if I do too many sets during a single session, or If I do too many sets total per week. Even paused squats with a lighter load can still trigger it. I took a break during my last training block and just programmed front squats for ~3 months, and my knees felt great. I also added barbell split squats which feel really good.

So this next block, I wanted to add back squats again, but I'm only doing some working sets with reps of 4, and then the final set is an an AMRAP - 1 with front squats to get some extra volume. I think, from now on, I'm doling all of my quad-volume through Split Squats and Front Squats, back squats will be just for Heavy/Low-volume stimulus.

14. The maximum recoverable volume for arms is + infinity.

I've gotten some good short term results for curls by just taking 10/15lbs dumbells, setting 10 minutes on a timer and just doing as many reps as possible in 10 minutes. Goal is to beat the shit out of my biceps until it physically hurts.

[KyleSchuant]

I'm confident I I would have pointed out the ridiculousness of justifying an approach to training that referenced such silly false dichotomies.

Apparently not enough people did so, or neither of us would be here, we'd still be on the SS forums.

[dbp]

This might not be particularly controversial, but mine is that a good physique is like 95% genetic. There are lots of people who go to the gym, stay consistent, hit decent numbers, and still don't look particularly impressive. Little in the way of visible muscle separation, no 3d look, nothing popping out. They just look a bit thicker and sturdier. Where as you have naturally athletic folks looking much better doing a few pushups and jumping jacks. Respectable strength seems like a much attainable goal for most.

I'm not sure exactly what it is. Bodyfat is a big part of it but even that doesn't quite explain it. And I've seen this with numbers you'd think would make people look jacked. 300+ benches. 500/600 squats and deadlifts. It's bizarre. Tho definitely less common to see a big bench and a DYEL body.

Could also be certain more visible muscles (arms, traps, forearms, delts) are lacking in a lot of people.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

This might not be particularly controversial, but mine is that a good physique is like 95% genetic. There are lots of people who go to the gym, stay consistent, hit decent numbers, and still don't look particularly impressive. Little in the way of visible muscle separation, no 3d look, nothing popping out. They just look a bit thicker and sturdier. Where as you have naturally athletic folks looking much better doing a few pushups and jumping jacks. Respectable strength seems like a much attainable goal for most.

I'm not sure exactly what it is. Bodyfat is a big part of it but even that doesn't quite explain it. And I've seen this with numbers you'd think would make people look jacked. 300+ benches. 500/600 squats and deadlifts. It's bizarre. Tho definitely less common to see a big bench and a DYEL body.

Could also be certain more visible muscles (arms, traps, forearms, delts) are lacking in a lot of people.

Please post a photo of those 600 lbs raw squatters who look like they do not even lift. I'm curious what you consider "jacked".

[AlanMackey]

Please post a photo of those 600 lbs raw squatters who look like they do not even lift. I'm curious what you consider "jacked".

A few names come to mind...

Matt Vena: 670/405/700x5 @ 205lbs



There are more, but I can't remember their names.

[DCR]

Max Aita

[AlanMackey]

Max Aita

And, maybe, Cailer Woolam.

[TimK]

I think it’s partly genetic (height, bone structure, muscle insertions, etc) but not 95%. A lot of it is probably due to not training specifically for hypertrophy, especially for the muscles that make the most difference physique-wise (side delts, arms). And of course not being particularly lean, not being skilled at posing, and not having an instagram feed composed entirely of photos with perfect lighting and camera angles.

[dbp]

I know he's a meme but Jason Blaha is in there too. Legit 600 dead, 5 or 600 squat, 365 bench. in clothes looks very normal.

[DCR]

I'm not sure exactly what it is. Bodyfat is a big part of it but even that doesn't quite explain it. And I've seen this with numbers you'd think would make people look jacked. 300+ benches. 500/600 squats and deadlifts. It's bizarre. Tho definitely less common to see a big bench and a DYEL body.

Nodding to @aurelius's point, earlier in this very thread I believe, the answer is steroids. With, of course, some gifted exceptions, one is not going to look like someone on steroids - which nearly everyone we think of as "jacked" is - without them. As you said, folks will get a thicker, sturdier look, but that's a far cry from the look of a bodybuilder or even a classic physique contestant on gear. Natural bodybuilders in my experience mostly are depressingly small. (Meaning, not that there are few of them, but that they are not big dudes.) The best one generally can hope for is the look of a professional athlete with bigger biceps.

[janoycresva]

This might not be particularly controversial, but mine is that a good physique is like 95% genetic. There are lots of people who go to the gym, stay consistent, hit decent numbers, and still don't look particularly impressive. Little in the way of visible muscle separation, no 3d look, nothing popping out. They just look a bit thicker and sturdier. Where as you have naturally athletic folks looking much better doing a few pushups and jumping jacks. Respectable strength seems like a much attainable goal for most.

I'm not sure exactly what it is. Bodyfat is a big part of it but even that doesn't quite explain it. And I've seen this with numbers you'd think would make people look jacked. 300+ benches. 500/600 squats and deadlifts. It's bizarre. Tho definitely less common to see a big bench and a DYEL body.

Could also be certain more visible muscles (arms, traps, forearms, delts) are lacking in a lot of people.

or, maybe, chasing strength on the big lifts isn’t actually that useful for developing your physique? crazy, I know

if you want to look good you should imitate the training of other people that look good, and that’s very rarely going to resemble strength training

[janoycresva]

I think it’s partly genetic (height, bone structure, muscle insertions, etc) but not 95%. A lot of it is probably due to not training specifically for hypertrophy, especially for the muscles that make the most difference physique-wise (side delts, arms). And of course not being particularly lean, not being skilled at posing, and not having an instagram feed composed entirely of photos with perfect lighting and camera angles.

exactly this

getting to a 500lb squat or a 600lb will do almost nothing for many of the muscle groups that impact your aesthetics the most

[DCR]

I think it’s partly genetic (height, bone structure, muscle insertions, etc) but not 95%. A lot of it is probably due to not training specifically for hypertrophy, especially for the muscles that make the most difference physique-wise (side delts, arms). And of course not being particularly lean, not being skilled at posing, and not having an instagram feed composed entirely of photos with perfect lighting and camera angles.

exactly this

getting to a 500lb squat or a 600lb will do almost nothing for many of the muscle groups that impact your aesthetics the most

My comments above about gear aside, yes also all of this. Adding, the powerlifts and their variations aren’t by any means useless for hypertrophy, but they sure are when done for singles, doubles, and triples, and with zero or nearly zero eccentric portion.

[Shaun]

Max Aita

And, maybe, Cailer Woolam.

I Googled Cailer Woolam and he looked pretty jacked to me. I think people who achieve very respectable lifts but don't look like they lift are very much outliers (providing their bodyfat is also kept relatively low). This is at least partially because to get significantly stronger you're going to have to increase the size of the muscles doing the moving - e.g. pecs, quads, triceps, front delts - and are also likely to work your back for stability reasons, or whatever (and this is ignoring the deadlift's hypertrophy potential for the back muscles). Maybe it's more common for people from an Olympic weightlifting background than a powerlifting or "general strength" one to not look like they lift given their sport does not have any upper body concentric strength requirements, and also have much less focus on upper body movements with an eccentric phase.

Of course I should state that I do absolutely agree that if you want to look like someone who the lifting community deems has a good physique you're going to have to train specifically for hypertrophy. Maximum strength on the big lifts won't be relevant, and any increases in it will be incidental.

[plaguewielder]

Taner Sagir?

[AlanMackey]

Max Aita

And, maybe, Cailer Woolam.

I Googled Cailer Woolam and he looked pretty jacked to me. I think people who achieve very respectable lifts but don't look like they lift are very much outliers (providing their bodyfat is also kept relatively low). This is at least partially because to get significantly stronger you're going to have to increase the size of the muscles doing the moving - e.g. pecs, quads, triceps, front delts - and are also likely to work your back for stability reasons, or whatever (and this is ignoring the deadlift's hypertrophy potential for the back muscles). Maybe it's more common for people from an Olympic weightlifting background than a powerlifting or "general strength" one to not look like they lift given their sport does not have any upper body concentric strength requirements, and also have much less focus on upper body movements with an eccentric phase.

Of course I should state that I do absolutely agree that if you want to look like someone who the lifting community deems has a good physique you're going to have to train specifically for hypertrophy. Maximum strength on the big lifts won't be relevant, and any increases in it will be incidental.

He is an outlier, no doubt.

But I have trouble picturing this guy pulling well over 900 lbs.





One would expect a massive fucking monster, instead we see this mostly average looking guy.

[platypus]

I think there is an issue of perception here: the bigger and stronger you get, the higher your standards for big and strong become.

When I first started lifting, I was inspired partly by people I knew whose physiques impressed me. When I see them now or look back at old photos of us, they look scrawny and weak. The only difference is my altered perception.