I couldnt do your circut im sure. But, I could put you through a deadlift session which was mostly isometric work for you
LMFAO!!!
No doubt. And let's be honest: COMPLETELY isometric. Do you have pink and purple plates for me to use?
I'll have to try a max one of these days. But I won't be posting it anytime publicly. I have my pride. I can't post a max weight that's less than many folks' warm up weights.
Frank, it's not the comment per se about how much weight. No jealousies here. It's the qualifiers about comparison/context. I respect everyone here for just their trying and consistency to improve. The weight or progress is irrelevant on many levels.
Whenever I mention any number on here, these kind of replies get made, I guess by now I expect it.
I think the reason you get these replies so often is that you take for granted two things: 1)Your youth 2) your genetic gift that allows you to pull these numbers so easily.
I have NO DOUBT that you work hard in the gym...that's obvious to me and to everyone here. It's just that there are others that work as hard as you do, but may never pull that kind of weight. Let's look at it this way:
Frank: genetic gift + hard work = easy deadlifts
RedLefty: genetic gift + hard work = easily hit a baseball 500 ft
Chris C. : genetic gift + hard work = easily breaks stuff
Does that make any sense? I wasn't trying to make fun of your ability, I just wanted to show you that it's different for everyone.
There is nothing particularly special about breaking stuff, nor about performing many martial arts techniques. Anyone can just practice and, over time, learn them. Granted, certain people -- stronger, faster, more coordinated or graceful -- can do more amazing things. So, the more impressive things probably do occur because of some natural gifts in many cases.
Feats of strength? You statement stands. And, some folks without gifts make some amazing progress. But gifts aside, is a 405 deadlift as impressive for a 6-0, 220 pound guy as for a 5-5, 150 pound guy? Those numbers are thrown about as if they apply equally to everyone, regardless of their current size, training history, age, or starting point.
I most admire someone who has made the most progress, taking what they have, where they started, and developing from their. So, a chubby soccer mom gets my great admiration for the progress she's made over the course of 3 years of practice, more than a fit 18 year old who has coasted on his abilities.
All that said, Ross is absolutely crazy fit. Crazy fit. He inspires me!
There is nothing particularly special about breaking stuff, nor about performing many martial arts techniques. Anyone can just practice and, over time, learn them. Granted, certain people -- stronger, faster, more coordinated or graceful -- can do more amazing things. So, the more impressive things probably do occur because of some natural gifts in many cases.
Feats of strength? You statement stands. And, some folks without gifts make some amazing progress. But gifts aside, is a 405 deadlift as impressive for a 6-0, 220 pound guy as for a 5-5, 150 pound guy? Those numbers are thrown about as if they apply equally to everyone, regardless of their current size, training history, or starting point.
I most admire someone who has made the most progress, taking what they have, where they started, and developing from their. So, a chubby soccer mom gets my great admiration for the progress she's made over the course of 3 years of practice, more than a fit 18 year old who has coasted on his abilities.
I think the reason you get these replies so often is that you take for granted two things: 1)Your youth 2) your genetic gift that allows you to pull these numbers so easily.
I have NO DOUBT that you work hard in the gym...that's obvious to me and to everyone here. It's just that there are others that work as hard as you do, but may never pull that kind of weight. Let's look at it this way:
Frank: genetic gift + hard work = easy deadlifts
RedLefty: genetic gift + hard work = easily hit a baseball 500 ft
Chris C. : genetic gift + hard work = easily breaks stuff
Does that make any sense? I wasn't trying to make fun of your ability, I just wanted to show you that it's different for everyone.
Ive not taken any offense, sorry if i came off that way.
Ill leave it at that because i dont want to get into 'genetic gifts'.
Feats of strength? You statement stands. And, some folks without gifts make some amazing progress. But gifts aside, is a 405 deadlift as impressive for a 6-0, 220 pound guy as for a 5-5, 150 pound guy? Those numbers are thrown about as if they apply equally to everyone, regardless of their current size, training history, age, or starting point.
9 times out of 10 my money would be on the 5'5 guy look at coan, 900+lbs deadlift at 220.. very short guy.
9 times out of 10 my money would be on the 5'5 guy look at coan, 900+lbs deadlift at 220.. very short guy.
I realized how much less I have to squat/bend than a taller guy. So, I'll have to only do DLs on a box, I guess. But when i do that, the bar is touching my insteps! What a range!
I think, for the deadlift, being tall is beneficial. Better leverage. For bench press, dips, etc it is worse because longer levers mean more work to move an equal amount of weigt as a shorter guy.
Still, I thought deadlift is a great overall exercise for most people. I was shocked when I read that Ross has only deadlifted a handful of times. I thought a deadlift was good for athletic performance, too. Guess not?
Thanks. These guys were beginning to sound like t-maggers doing their one-upsmanship. Good on you if you can pull 405 first time out, but it's not as easy as you seem to think it is. Take a look at the Deadlift chart on this forum. The first five big pulls are by professionals in the industry. The average guy who trains, even religiously, would consider a 405 as not being too shabby an accomplishment and I am one of them.
I apologize if that's how I sounded. I didn't mean it to sound cocky. I don't think Frank did either. We all have our areas where we are stronger or weaker. Like if I went out and ran a mile without training I would be lucky if I could do it in under 8 minutes. Meanwhile someone who's more gifted for endurance could not run for a long time and probably beat that easily. My point was that all of us know Ross trains a lot and he does pay quite a bit of attention to strength training so it shouldn't be hard for that guy who was calling him out to believe he could deadlift 405.
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
Long arms on a short frame would be ideal. The best deadlifters are a range of people, usually around 6 feet tall for conventional pullers, less for sumo pullers.
I dont know so much about that levers stuff. im sure it has some merit, but 95% of people I would guess have pretty average levers. I found that 'thicker' people can deadlift more... but.. they are probally 'thicker' because they can deadlift more
Another thing to look at when it comes to leverage, is the link between deadlift and squat numbers. If the numbers are close, usually the person either good at the squat, or shitty at the deadlift. My squat used to have 80+lbs on my deadlift! Ive gotten them pretty equal now.
Just because one guy doesn't like deadlifts for athletic performance, doesn't mean that its always bad. Look at defranco or others, they do heavy deads / rack pulls / etc for their athletes. Deadlifts are especially great when an athelte is undersized for their sport and need to put on big amount of LBM. Bring up your deadlift 100lbs, if you eat for it, youll be sure to gain LBM.
I apologize if that's how I sounded. I didn't mean it to sound cocky. I don't think Frank did either. We all have our areas where we are stronger or weaker. Like if I went out and ran a mile without training I would be lucky if I could do it in under 8 minutes. Meanwhile someone who's more gifted for endurance could not run for a long time and probably beat that easily. My point was that all of us know Ross trains a lot and he does pay quite a bit of attention to strength training so it shouldn't be hard for that guy who was calling him out to believe he could deadlift 405.
Still, I thought deadlift is a great overall exercise for most people. I was shocked when I read that Ross has only deadlifted a handful of times. I thought a deadlift was good for athletic performance, too. Guess not?
having good posterior chain strength is good for athletic performance, but you can get that a lot of ways. DLs, olympic lifting, db cleans/snatches, box jumps, jump squats, etc.
Deadlifts are a popular means to that end. Ross just took another route.
He's also written a bit about how maximum strength and lifting very heavy loads doesn't correlate directly to the power output that a fighter wants to have. The two can work hand in hand, but at some point, he says that too much heavy work in deference to explosive work can make a fighter less powerful. Or, perhaps less powerful than he might be had he shifted focus from heavy to more explosive training.
Ya. The benefits of heavy strength training fall prey to diminishing returns after a certain point.
Good to have built a strength foundation, but continually working to drive up maximal strength on the big lifts (ie, specialization for strength in those lifts, aka powerlifting) will eventually reach a point of neutral or even negative carryover when it comes to explosiveness and other such things. You literally devote so much time and training to improve the lifts that 1) you can't work on anything else and 2) the adaptation itself is counterproductive.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
He's also written a bit about how maximum strength and lifting very heavy loads doesn't correlate directly to the power output that a fighter wants to have. The two can work hand in hand, but at some point, he says that too much heavy work in deference to explosive work can make a fighter less powerful. Or, perhaps less powerful than he might be had he shifted focus from heavy to more explosive training.
Bingo. Of course, it depends, but I think that's generally true. Some of the most explosive people I know don't necessarily have great absolute strength.
Some of the most explosive people I know don't necessarily have great absolute strength.
Why thanks! I think...
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
I don't think they're worried about getting too strong so much as spending time training something that they aren't going to see as good of return on VS. something else when using the exact same training time.
If I'm going to spend X amount of time doing something in a week in X amount of time I want to see an improvement in "what ever my sport\event is". I don't give a fuck if I'm benching 1000lbs or have a 4.6 40m or my hips are looser or if I have super sexy abs I want to be better at what I'm trying to be better at. Get me there...as soon as possible. Have the end result be the training goal\focus.
Ya exactly, it becomes a factor of marginal and diminishing returns.
As an example, start a raw beginner out with a 200 lb squat then build that to 400 over a couple of years. He'll probably be better off for it.
Now say it takes X more years to bring the squat from 400 to 600. Well, that's not necessarily gonna be so easy, and it will most certainly involve very intensive training oriented towards making it happen versus just getting to 400 in the first place. On top of that, the second 200 lb gain won't necessarily net the same performance gains as the first 200 lb gain did. This is all relative, of course, both to the individual and the sport, so you can't just lay out blanket numbers. If somebody's a natural at squatting, they may damn well get to a 600 squat with little trouble.
The point here is what you're emphasizing and focusing the training on.
I'm the first one that's talking maximal strength when it comes to being primary goal for athletic development, but to a point. Once the foundation is built, it tends to be more of a maintenance role rather than a pure developmental quality.
This isn't to say you'd drop or neglect training in that way, you can and should certainly still use it. Just not in the linear gain X in squat = gain Y in running/throwing/kicking fashion that occurs earlier on.
Ie, if somebody happens to come upon a stupid-high lift as a product of the training, great. But I'm not of the mindset that you should "force" a stupid-high lift (with all the training and such that would go into that) in the hopes that it will yield improved performances, when time could be better spent.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I apologize if that's how I sounded. I didn't mean it to sound cocky. I don't think Frank did either. We all have our areas where we are stronger or weaker. Like if I went out and ran a mile without training I would be lucky if I could do it in under 8 minutes. Meanwhile someone who's more gifted for endurance could not run for a long time and probably beat that easily. My point was that all of us know Ross trains a lot and he does pay quite a bit of attention to strength training so it shouldn't be hard for that guy who was calling him out to believe he could deadlift 405.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank.S
"Hey, I bet dave tate cant bench 225lbs"
Holy crap. Not looking for an apology here. Just found it funny the way the thread was going. You guys do some damn good lifts. Just don't make it sound so frigging easy.
__________________ In Fitness & Friendship, MAHLER
______________________________ __________________________ There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You carry the light with you.
Ya exactly, it becomes a factor of marginal and diminishing returns.
As an example, start a raw beginner out with a 200 lb squat then build that to 400 over a couple of years. He'll probably be better off for it.
Now say it takes X more years to bring the squat from 400 to 600. Well, that's not necessarily gonna be so easy, and it will most certainly involve very intensive training oriented towards making it happen versus just getting to 400 in the first place. On top of that, the second 200 lb gain won't necessarily net the same performance gains as the first 200 lb gain did. This is all relative, of course, both to the individual and the sport, so you can't just lay out blanket numbers. If somebody's a natural at squatting, they may damn well get to a 600 squat with little trouble.
The point here is what you're emphasizing and focusing the training on.
I'm the first one that's talking maximal strength when it comes to being primary goal for athletic development, but to a point. Once the foundation is built, it tends to be more of a maintenance role rather than a pure developmental quality.
This isn't to say you'd drop or neglect training in that way, you can and should certainly still use it. Just not in the linear gain X in squat = gain Y in running/throwing/kicking fashion that occurs earlier on.
Ie, if somebody happens to come upon a stupid-high lift as a product of the training, great. But I'm not of the mindset that you should "force" a stupid-high lift (with all the training and such that would go into that) in the hopes that it will yield improved performances, when time could be better spent.
Powerman thank you! I have tried to tell alot of guys that I have lifted with that do it just to look decent nekkid that at some point to continue to keep adding on weight is just going to get you injured at some point. The way you put it is exactly how I have thought about it for years now.
My max DL is at 455 and I haven't and probably won't ever try to go past that I don't think there is a need to unless your talking about getting into some form of competitions.
I have always believed that for an average Joe lifter if you could Squat 315 ATG, DL 405, and bench 275 you are a pretty damn strong guy. Not comparing to anyone doing power lifting but strong compared to the rest of the population and definitely safer for your long term health goals.
__________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
That's the irony we're talking about -- my lifting numbers are up about 200% since my college days, and I've put on 50 pounds of mostly muscle, but I doubt it did much of anything for my bat speed.
As a college freshman I was 6'2", 145 pounds. I was by far the weakest member of the team in the weight room -- it wasn't even close. We never DL'd but I would put my max at the time around 120 pounds. I was quarter-squatting 115. Yet I had more hitting power than everyone else on the team -- it wasn't even close. I was the only guy who could clear the centerfield fence (415 ft. away and 20 ft. high) and the only guy who could clear the pine trees behind the outfield fence.
I guess I'm wondering how the physics work, and the relationship between strength and power applied in different ways. Swinging a bat is a full-body skill with lots of rotational components, and I seem to be inherently advantaged there (politically correct term for "genetic gift" ). But I'm pretty feeble in powerlifting. OK, I'll be honest, I'm very feeble.
Yet I can drive a golf ball well over 350 yards, which is about the same as what I did in college. Adding another 150 pounds to my deadlift didn't increase my rotational power. That's what gobbla's talking about with doing work you "get a return" on.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
Neural skill is (or can be) very specific and comes down to a lot of subtle components, not all of which are inherently trainable. This is the source of "talent".
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Digging down into my physics memory. . . I'm not checking this, so I could be wrong . . .
Power=Work/Time
Work=Force X Displacement X Angle between the force and displacement (that vector stuff)
Force=Mass X Acceleration.
What does any of this mean for hitting home runs or for brick breaking?
Move faster!! Move more mass -- a bat, a hand -- faster!
The questions becomes, what type of training help one to move faster?
There is where my knowledge of anatomy and physiology break down. Training low reps for absolute strength focuses on fast twitch fibers, no? Same goes for explosive lifts/oly lifts, and even plyometrics, no? So, what becomes the difference? I know I've read about, say, powerlifting training leading to slower movement. Somebody explain more?
Linear Mode
