Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
I don't think that's fair to bigger people - muscles that are able to exert a lot of force are good, regardless of their size.
+1let form follow function
One thing I realized when training with a lot of bodybuilder types (and training for that myself) is the concept of the mass not generating power not true. In the gym there were also competitive powerlifters, and while they could move more weight per pound of body weight they could not keep up with the bodybuilders in terms of total pounds moved in a given time frame, even among individuals of comparable mass. It is far from being ineffective bulk.I think it's important to approach strength from both angles. I think it's important to practice engaging the muscle you have as well as adding new muscle (or replacing lost muscle). Alternating weeks with heavy triples and moderate ochos. Also, pumping up a muscle to store more water and glycogen to have better stamina I find important for performing many manual labor tasks.
Yes, I think that's right, and I think there's some math to explain it - basically a powerlifter might, e.g., do 100 lifts per week with 100 pounds, but a bodybuilder might do 200 lifts per week with 70 lbs. We know that volume is a key determinant of strength - lower the weight, as a bodybuilder will do in comparison to a powerlifter, and you'll move away from the sweet range where limit strength is improved, but as you observe, there will be other benefits from the greater overall load.One thing I realized when training with a lot of bodybuilder types (and training for that myself) is the concept of the mass not generating power not true. In the gym there were also competitive powerlifters, and while they could move more weight per pound of body weight they could not keep up with the bodybuilders in terms of total pounds moved in a given time frame, even among individuals of comparable mass. It is far from being ineffective bulk.
Exactly my understanding. It is a continuous function of three variables, frequency, volume and intensity, that are not independent, e.g. intensity and volume should be inversely proportional. Manipulate with variables to get desired response.... this is a continuum, so you can move a little towards hypertrophy and away from limit strength and still accomplish a great deal towards your limit strength while accomplishing more in the way of hypertrophy.
I'm sure Rif will be able to answer this one more in depth (he was after all a professional gymnast, I was just an amateur), but here's my view on how we trained when I was doing gymnastics.However, I do not know too much about gymnastics training: specific training ? assistance + specific training ?
+1.Do big muscles mean strong muscles and vice versa. Hey we've all seen this, but to think body builders are not strong would be a HUGE mistake.
And Dan John recommends to spend a lot of time with the typical hypertrophy rep ranges (8-12) as you get older...In the book 'Barbell Prescription', authors Andy Baker and Dr. Jonathon Sullivan advise 'masters athletes' (the 40 plus crowd) to avoid sarcoplasmic hypertrophy training and instead, to focus on myofibrillar hypertrophy training- as the high volume of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy training will create unneeded stress on older bodies. They discuss focusing on the big lifts- bench, squat, deadlift (and chins), keeping to 6 reps max in your sets. Both of these fellas have huge experience in the 'gym' environment so would appear to know their stuff- certainly when it comes to programming strength training with barbells. Their conditioning advice is dated, but that fitness component is not their speciality. Given that 2B muscle fibers are what we lose as we grow older (without training)- their advice seems solid. The lower volume applies to barbell, I don't think it applies to Kettlebell.
My takeaway as well. While I have used the Intermediate Master format to decent effect my experience more closely reflects that of North Coast Miller and the Dan John advice that Kettlebelephant referenced. I do not believe that training so close to the 1RM is sustainable for me.This is an area where Barbell Prescription is flawed- the book advises continuously training at the high end of one's 1RM.
This is very true!That's why 'Tactical Barbell' is loved by so many folk. The author espouses the whole 'staying fresh' theory, sub-maximal lifting etc. Lots of kettlebell work as well. There is an excellent book called 'The Ageless Athlete' that was written following the 2 strength and condition books of 'Tactical Barbell'- the author takes the teachings of Tactical Barbell and applies them to the older crowd.