YB
BannerBanner

Strength, not concerned with size...

Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
Author
studly
Senior Member
  • Total Posts : 107
  • Reward points: 11289
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
  • Location: London United Kingdom
  • Status: offline
2004/01/18 16:19:19 (permalink)
0

Strength, not concerned with size...

.. hi all, im really getting into strength training rather than training for size. I recently bought Dinosaur training (thanks to people on here) although i aint finished it i really like it.
I need functional strength and although i wanna look better im not concerned with looking like Arnold.
Now in Dinosaur training i know some of it is for size but mostly strength, i was wondering if people wanna comment on my routine, i'll be brief with it concentrating on weights

Monday (weights)
Bench Press 5x5
Squats 5x5
Pullups 10x3 (trying something with this set/rep scheme)
Ab work 3x30

Tues(swimming)
Wednes (HIIT Cardio on bike & 2 mile run)

Thurs (weights)
Deadlifts 5x5
Military press 5x5
bb curls 5x5
ab work 3x30

fri/sat or sun i do either swimming or running on one os those days.

Now i wanna gain strength so the training is all out! i need to increase lung capacity (swimming & running) and i wouldnt mind burning some fat.

i done this before but with weight days doing a diff routine, im starting the powerlifting style on monday and seeing how it goes.

Any comments welcome, cheers
#1

28 Replies Related Threads

    USA DEALS
    Rusev
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2033
    • Reward points: 9679
    • Joined: 2003/11/07 19:22:55
    • Location: Royston United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/18 16:33:51 (permalink)
    0
    i train for strength all so (olympic weightlifter) all i have ever done is reps 1-5 so if you want to try even lower reps it does work. you do get the size people think iam into bb. but i have functional strength as you put it

    check my training journal
    #2
    Big-AL
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2134
    • Reward points: 7229
    • Joined: 2002/02/02 16:16:09
    • Location: Ashford, Kent.
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/18 17:03:18 (permalink)
    0
    Looks ok, except the ab work why such high reps.

    And the chinning, but as you say you are trying something with that...

    AL
    #3
    studly
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 107
    • Reward points: 11289
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
    • Location: London United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/18 18:32:00 (permalink)
    0
    the reason why i do high rep ab work is cos when i do anything weighted for low reps with my abs they grow quick and make me look bloated, really strange i know, i think i react better to high reps as i would like to reduce my waist size.

    The pull ups are something i have read, i used to do 4x repmax, which was about 5-6, so my total reps where 20-24, but if i do 10x3 i get more reps in. Im seeing how it goes for a month or 2 and see if it works improving my max.

    oh and cheers Rusev, i'll have a look

    any more comments?
    #4
    Big-AL
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2134
    • Reward points: 7229
    • Joined: 2002/02/02 16:16:09
    • Location: Ashford, Kent.
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/18 18:34:33 (permalink)
    0
    Yes one more comment, i think you should still stick to low rep ab work, if you are interested in strength.

    AL
    #5
    studly
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 107
    • Reward points: 11289
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
    • Location: London United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/18 19:48:37 (permalink)
    0
    how many reps would you suggest?? do a 5x5 like other body parts? or something else?
    do you still think i can get a narrow waist and a flat stomach with low rep weighted ab work?
    #6
    Big-AL
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2134
    • Reward points: 7229
    • Joined: 2002/02/02 16:16:09
    • Location: Ashford, Kent.
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/18 19:55:08 (permalink)
    0
    Yes train them like you would anything else, if you want it to get strong then hit it with heavy weight for low reps.

    You can have a flat stomach if that is your thing, you can gain alot of strength without gaining significant size.

    AL
    #7
    Robert
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2464
    • Reward points: 4532
    • Joined: 2002/06/04 16:08:03
    • Location: Chester - England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/19 09:24:02 (permalink)
    0
    try turkish get ups instead of sit ups with 1 or 2 20kg plates on nyour chest.
    rob
    #8
    Robert
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2464
    • Reward points: 4532
    • Joined: 2002/06/04 16:08:03
    • Location: Chester - England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/19 12:32:11 (permalink)
    0
    that is what i meant, poorly explained. i start with it on my chest and press it off before commencing the get up.
    rob
    #9
    crazyhorse
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 59
    • Reward points: 3632
    • Joined: 2003/08/28 10:56:15
    • Location: Rocklin USA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/20 04:21:47 (permalink)
    0
    studly where did you get you copy of Dinosaur traning
    #10
    DerMalePhonkMann
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1224
    • Reward points: 4448
    • Joined: 2002/07/16 09:57:54
    • Location: Derby
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/20 04:42:35 (permalink)
    0
    crazyhorse, you can order it from www.ironmind.com
    #11
    studly
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 107
    • Reward points: 11289
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
    • Location: London United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/20 21:52:58 (permalink)
    0
    crazyhorse, i ordered it from pullum sports, i think the site was www.pullumsports.com well worth a read.

    With the turkish get ups, do ya do say 10, the swap hands??
    #12
    DerMalePhonkMann
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1224
    • Reward points: 4448
    • Joined: 2002/07/16 09:57:54
    • Location: Derby
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/21 09:49:13 (permalink)
    0
    quote:
    crazyhorse, i ordered it from pullum sports, i think the site was www.pullumsports.co.uk well worth a read.

    crazyhorse is from the USA...
    #13
    Robert
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2464
    • Reward points: 4532
    • Joined: 2002/06/04 16:08:03
    • Location: Chester - England
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/21 14:09:08 (permalink)
    0
    you will need both hands on the plate/DB, start of with about 15-20kg.
    rob
    #14
    studly
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 107
    • Reward points: 11289
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
    • Location: London United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/21 21:21:14 (permalink)
    0
    ahh sorry crazyhorse, didnt realise.

    Cheers Rob,may give them a go
    #15
    Marso70
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 65
    • Reward points: 3366
    • Joined: 2004/01/08 15:10:34
    • Location: Liverpool United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/21 22:51:58 (permalink)
    0
    Studly a couple of questions?
    1. What is functional strength? As how much strength does one require to be functional? This is simply a hip term for being stronger.
    2. Why specifically 5x5? What is so magical about this rep/set scheme? Why not 4 x6? I'm not trying to be funny here I'm merely trying to get you to think.
    One can get stronger and not biggger with low reps as the gains are more of a nuerological adaptation or you become more skilled at lifting heavier and heavier weights.
    If you have any more questions I would be glad to answer them.
    Regards
    Paul.
    #16
    studly
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 107
    • Reward points: 11289
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
    • Location: London United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/22 15:03:35 (permalink)
    0
    i think johnnyfive has answered these very well.

    i consider functional strenth to be something you can actually USE. My situation for example, I am starting a new job in security. Now i noticed when i got bigger before when training purely for size (not concerened about strength at all) I couldnt move as fast and efficiantly. So if i need to restrain someone in my new job i dont want them having the upper hand in any situation, ie,speed,strength etc.
    So what i want is not to be too big and bulky, but solid and strong, hence is why im using this sort of training.

    and the reason i chose 5x5 is because i feel it works best for me. Having tried other methods such as 3x6 etc and like johnnyfive said, you use the lowest reps while reduing the chance of injury and overtraining symptoms.

    Marso70, what would you consider as functional strength and what sort or program would you suggest?? set and rep wise and types of exercises?? as i would like to get as much feedback as possible
    #17
    Marso70
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 65
    • Reward points: 3366
    • Joined: 2004/01/08 15:10:34
    • Location: Liverpool United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/23 20:13:32 (permalink)
    0
    Jonnyfive, to quote you"So for example a routine based on seated isolation exercises would have little or no carryover to someone wishing to improve their shot-put, for very obvious reasons. As much as you HIT fellows wish to believe that superslow and the like has as much carryover as say Olympic lifting, I think you'll find that that is patently wrong. If RFD for example is developed in one exercise, say the snatch, that RFD carries over to all exercises involving explosive hip extension, shot-put being an example of this. Hence the closer you're training is to your event, the more likely it is to have carryover and the more functional it is."

    No-one I know who uses high intensity states that this type of training has a carryover to other areas, in fact those that promote this type of training (which is not trulu defined) are the strongest advocates of the SAID principle and that one's training has to reflect the specifics at hand. Superslow will make you stronger but to become a better shot putter requires one practice the specifics of that sport, to be become better at the snatch requires one to practice the specific skills of such a lift. In essence one cannot mimic in the weight room that which needs to be practised on the field or in one's chosen sport.

    "Obviously myself and most people on this site, all powerlifters, all Olympic lifters and most strongmen, have gained their mass by fairies falling out of the sky and sprinkling magic muscle dust on us"
    ????


    Studly, as I mentioned while I can and do appreciate your enthusiasm for Dinosaur training, I was trying to point out that there is no majic formula in 5x5. 3x3 is another popular one. To become stronger WITHOUT increasing size as you indicated, is possible, although as one gets stronger there is normally a corresponding increase in muscle size, which slows as one reaches their genetic limits. Lower reps such as 5x5 require the use of heavier weights which do tax the muscles, however there is also a great deal of nuerological adapation or skill. Think of powerlifters who continue to get stronger yet stay in the same weight class( by their choice)now compare thier physiques to those of bodybuilders

    Powerlifters become stronger and more skilled at lifting heavier weights while limiting their bodyweight increase.

    Adding muscle mass is a metabolically expensive process for the body to go through and new muscle mass has to be forced through unusual and changing demands. It will normally look for the most efficient manner in which to adapt to this threat, the least expensive way is by making the existing muscle mass more effecient at lifter heavier weights.

    So I can't give you a specific rep scheme, by all means try 5x5 but proceed on the basis that's all it is, a rep scheme. There is no clear cut nor simple answer, all I ask you to do is think objectively about what you are trying to achieve.
    Best of luck with your training.
    Regards
    Paul.
    #18
    studly
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 107
    • Reward points: 11289
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 22:42:34
    • Location: London United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/24 13:47:14 (permalink)
    0
    quoted my Marso70
    quote:
    Studly, as I mentioned while I can and do appreciate your enthusiasm for Dinosaur training, I was trying to point out that there is no majic formula in 5x5. 3x3 is another popular one. To become stronger WITHOUT increasing size as you indicated, is possible, although as one gets stronger there is normally a corresponding increase in muscle size, which slows as one reaches their genetic limits. Lower reps such as 5x5 require the use of heavier weights which do tax the muscles, however there is also a great deal of nuerological adapation or skill. Think of powerlifters who continue to get stronger yet stay in the same weight class( by their choice)now compare thier physiques to those of bodybuilders

    Powerlifters become stronger and more skilled at lifting heavier weights while limiting their bodyweight increase.


    marso, i understand what ya saying as far as there is no magic formula and that i will add some muscle when training for size.
    Are you basically saying train more as a powerlifter and gain more skill as far as the lifts are concerned?
    You say think objectively about what im trying to acheive,well i have read alot about what powerlifters/strongmen do and also going on own experience from my body, therefore i chose 5x5.
    You seem to speak of 5x5(and 3x3) as if you disagree with it totally but yet you dont even suggest a set/rep scheme. Im not asking for a routine from you, but feedback, you have given your views but not really suggested anythingas far as altering things.
    Cheers for feedback though, and the same for Johnnyfive
    #19
    Marso70
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 65
    • Reward points: 3366
    • Joined: 2004/01/08 15:10:34
    • Location: Liverpool United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Strength, not concerned with size... 2004/01/26 11:04:34 (permalink)
    0
    ...Jonny Five, if you want to argue on the issue of the principle of specificity then go ahead. You state that the S.A.I.D principle is not set in stone, I disagree as it clearly states SPECIFIC (meaning in direct relation to that which it applies not a generalisation) ADAPTATION TO IMPOSED DEMANDS. I fail to see how the concept of specific therefore cannot be set. If something is based on the laws of reality then it implies to all and is not subject to change or is indeed set in stone, so as the principle states the body adapts to a SPECFIC demand in a SPECIFIC manner.

    To quote Ken Mannie who is the Strength and Conditioning Coach for the Michigan State University and a high successful American Football coach on the subject:

    “Specificity can be put into proper perspective when it is understood that the more complex the skill, the greater the importance of exactness when practising it. The encoding principle of specificity states that, the closer the influence of practise of the test context characteristics the better the practised movements will be recalled during the test..or the game.”

    It’s obvious you have seen to label me as HIT’er when I clearly mentioned that HIT does not exist as it has never been truly defined. You also assume that I see everything as black and white, far from it. I have an objective mind which has led me to study the principle of specificity amongst others, which has led me to dismiss the idea that the PRACTISING of one exercise has no DIRECT influence on a similar exercise or that, which wishes to mimicked on the sports field. Rather than be entered into a lengthy debate I would refer you to the book System Analysis on the International Association of Resistance Trainers web site, as there is a whole chapter on this issue.

    I pointed out that low reps do have a high aspect of neurological adaptation, therefore it is possible to become a lot stronger without a corresponding increase in muscle mass, I gave an example of how some of the lighter body weight powerlifters illustrate this point. If this were not possible, then this would mean that one would continue to get stronger AND larger regardless of the length of time one has been training. Such is not possible, as all things are finite including strength and size.


    The illustration you give serves no purpose as there are numerous factors that have not and been taken into account and quite frankly does nothing to strengthen your argument. I making this my final post on this topic as it is clear you do not wish to have a intelligent debate about this, instead you feel it fit to revert to put downs or sarcastic remarks. I also have no desire to retract my comments.
    Paul.
    #20
    Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
    Jump to:
    ©2017 All content is copyright of MuscleTalk.co.uk and its use elsewhere is prohibited.
    (posting guidelines | privacy | advertise | earnings disclaimer | contact us | supported by)
    © 2017 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.5