all posts post new thread

Barbell Is a mass building phase necessary to keep building strength?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
It appears that for most sports and activities, a bodyfat of about 10% is ideal.

Generalizations

Generalization statementa like this are vague and inaccurate.

The range of Body Fat Measurement varies between sports.

As the saying goes, "The Devil is in the Details".

Body Fat Percentage: What Gets Measured Gets Managed - Sport Fitness Advisor

With that said, this provide more information.

Average Body Fat Percentage of Male and Female Athletes

Color Coded below...Men in Blue, Women in Pink.

Baseball 12-15% 12-18%
Rowing 6-14% 12-18%
Basketball 6-12% 20-27%
Shot Putters 16-20% 20-28%
Body building 5-8% 10-15%
Skiing (X country) 7-12% 16-22%
Cycling 5-15% 15-20%
Sprinters 8-10% 12-20%
Football (Backs) 9-12% No data
Swimming 9-12% 14-24%
Football (Linemen) 15-19% No data
Tennis 12-16% 16-24%
Gymnastics 5-12% 10-16%
Triathlon 5-12% 10-15%
High/long Jumpers 7-12% 10-18%
Volleyball 11-14% 16-25%
Ice/field Hockey 8-15% 12-18%
Weightlifters 9-16% No data
Racquetball 8-13% 15-22%
Wrestlers 5-16% No data

Kenny Croxdale
 
Generalizations

Generalization statementa like this are vague and inaccurate.

The range of Body Fat Measurement varies between sports.

As the saying goes, "The Devil is in the Details".

Kenny, if you take a look at my complete paragraph:

It appears that for most sports and activities, a bodyfat of about 10% is ideal. This is for typical activities, excluding both extremes of the continuum: marathoners and powerlifters (and the such)

You´ll see that I´m excluding the very ends of the spectrum. If you then take a look at the data you put forward, you´ll note it confirms that most activities are averaging near 10%, except for the very lean (bodybuilders), and the very strong and heavy (shot putters and football linemen). Of course its more of a range than an exact figure, but 10% seems to be in the middle of that range for many sports.
 
Bodybuilders aren’t that lean between competitions. They would be too weak to train. A little fat helps with strength.
 
Thank you @kennycro@@aol.com for including women in the discussion. It's all pretty interesting.

Also relevant is that optimal body comp for performance in elite athletes does not equal optimal body for performance + health... if there is such a thing.

But as the thread title goes, is additional muscle mass needed to keep building strength? I'm picturing a graph in my head, with muscle mass on the x axis and strength on the y axis... and a diagonal increasing line on the graph representing the upper limit of strength one can have with any given amount of muscle mass. Under that line, things like skill and neurological gains come into play. Maybe optimizing body comp (including amount of body fat accompanying the muscle mass) along with recovery and other health aspects all have to do with trying to get close to that line - the maximum strength for a given amount of muscle mass.
 
Last edited:
If a person continued to train using the ES principles, and ate appropriately, would the requisite size occur simultaneously, or does an effort need to be made to gain mass?

It seems like a lot of mass building routines build a lot a sarcoplasm, which doesn’t really contribute to strength. In my mind I see the ES contributing to saromeres, which is all about strength.

If I add a mass component to a strength routine am I just inducing the production of sarcoplasm or will I gain in sarcomere?

Probably didn’t phrase that correctly.
 
I'd say 100% at some point more mass will be needed to keep improving strength. For strength endurance it is pretty much mandatory. Some people can continue on a long time making small gains at the same weight but certainly you will hit a limit. This is even more pronounced if you measure a large sample of lifts/exercises vs focusing on just one or two.

@305pelusa back when I was more competitive about the weights I was moving I began topping out on all my lifts. Added heavier backsquats and a lot more calories, put on ten lbs in under two months, all my lifts went up, some dramatically. Eating more is an important part of the equation. If you train any protocol and don't eat more you won't gain size. Depending on your goals it can be a serious anchor.

I would point out a lot of the sarcoplasm/sarcomere studies I have read are generalizations and don't support across the board conclusions. IIRC some of the muscle samples tested showed no difference and some were more definitive. Big jacked folks tend to get that way by moving big weight and eating big. After that you need to specify output at various %RM, you get the adaptations you train for.

Bigger isn't always stronger across the entire population by any means, but take a strong person and make them bigger with lean muscle and they WILL get stronger, whatever protocol was used to put on the mass.
 
Speaking for myself, I've never understood trying to add muscle just to lift more weight. (I've also never understood wanting to look big, or look muscular, or look any particular way other than making sure my clothes were clean, my pants were zipped, and my shirt was tucked in.) To me, it' s a choice of becoming a better version of who I am now through improved skill or becoming something different by adding muscle.

This may be a chicken and egg problem. I'm guessing that you are a classic ectomorph. You've been skinny all your life, never had an issue with weight loss but you've had a difficult time gaining weight, and eating a lot of food is unpleasant and makes you feel bad. As a result, building lots of mass never was nor will it ever be your goal.

I am an endomorph. I was a "husky" kid. I've always had a "weight problem" but I don't live in a van down by the river (extra points for whoever gets the reference). I love to eat. When I started lifting weights in high school I had no problem gaining mass. The football coach kept asking me if I wanted to join the team as a lineman. I was one of the nerds in high school (chess club, math team) but once I began lifting no one messed with me. I thought that was cool and it made me want to keep gaining mass.

You and I are about the same height. If you now weigh 145 then I am literally 100 lbs. heavier than you. The leanest I've been as an adult is 165 which was the day I got married. I worked my a$$ off to get to that weight and lost lots of strength in the process, but once I started grad school it was extremely difficult to maintain. I know I need to lose fat and I am working on it, but a weight that I can maintain is about 185-195. I doubt I could ever get to 165 again without a lot of discomfort and loss of muscle mass. To get to 145 would require a diet of celery and water.
 
@MikeTheBear, yup, you’ve described me pretty well. You, of course, should do whatever is in keeping with your goals. Besides the body type conversation, another one could have is personality type. But not when I’m typing on my phone. :)

-S-
 
Increasing muscle mass is similar as increasing the amount of workers in a factory. More workers means a higher potential for output if they work well together.

However, I'd like onr caveat to discussion. Certain lifts are more susceptible to increase in bodyweight than others. Most lifters experience an increase in their squat and bench aa their body weight increases whereas the deadlift is much less effected.
 
Increasing muscle mass is similar as increasing the amount of workers in a factory. More workers means a higher potential for output if they work well together.

And you have to provide for those workers as well; additional pay, benefits, etc. There is a cost associated with it.
You have to do the effort vs impact analysis to see if it's worth it in any particular situation
 
Certain lifts are more susceptible to increase in bodyweight than others. Most lifters experience an increase in their squat and bench aa their body weight increases whereas the deadlift is much less effected.
This is one reason why the deadlift is often the first choice of athletes who don't want to add mass.

-S-
 
If you then take a look at the data you put forward, you´ll note it confirms that most activities are averaging near 10%, except for the very lean (bodybuilders), and the very strong and heavy (shot putters and football linemen). Of course its more of a range than an exact figure, but 10% seems to be in the middle of that range for many sports.

Body Fat Percentages Per Sport

Oscar, one the points is there is a range of Body Fat Percentages based on the Sport for various reason; another topic for another time.

Anna C

A great reply, "...optimal body comp for performance in elite athletes does not equal optimal body for performance + health... if there is such a thing."

Body composition does not always equate to performance. If that were true, determining the leanest individual would dictate the outcome.

With that said, increasing muscle mass will increase performance providing a well written and executed program is followed.

That means a increase in muscle mass by decreasing body fat, maintaining body fat or even increasing body fat can increase performance; dependent on the sport.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:
Certain lifts are more susceptible to increase in bodyweight than others. Most lifters experience an increase in their squat and bench aa their body weight increases whereas the deadlift is much less effected.

The Center of Gravity Issue

Yes, gaining weight traditionally translates to an increasing in Squat and Bench Press.

One of the prime reason the Deadlift only goes up marginally if at all is the shift in the Center of Gravity.

Weight gain end up extending the Deadlift Bar farther away from the lifter Center of Gravity. This magnifies torque.

An increase in torque essentially means the bar weight becomes heavier than what on the bar. That means you need to produce more force/strength to complete the Deadlift.

Dr Tom McLaughlin's Deadlift Research

McLaughlin reseach one of Jon Kuc's 800 Deadlift determined that he allowed the bar to drift out over two inches in front of him, over two inches away from his Center of Gravity.

McLaughlin determined that amounted to increasing Kuc Deadlift from 800 lbs to 1600 lbs.

Light Vs Heavy Deadlifters

One of the advantages light, lean Deadlifter have is that they are able to keep the bar closer to their Center of Gravity, when pulling correctly.

The disadvantages heavier, thicker Deadlifter have is that the bar is farther away from their Center of Gravity. This increased the torque, which essentially increasing the load on the bar, requiring more force/strength.

That is one of the reason Deadlifter need to pull the weight back on top of them. It ensure you are keeping the load as close to your Center of Gravity as possible.

Kenny Croxdale
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rif
One of the prime reason the Deadlift only goes up marginally if at all is the shift in the Center of Gravity.

Weight gain end up extending the Deadlift Bar farther away from the lifter Center of Gravity. This magnifies torque.

An increase in torque essentially means the bar weight becomes heavier than what on the bar. That means you need to produce more force/strength to complete the Deadlift.

Dr Tom McLaughlin's Deadlift Research

McLaughlin reseach one of Jon Kuc's 800 Deadlift determined that he allowed the bar to drift out over two inches in front of him, over two inches away from his Center of Gravity.

McLaughlin determined that amounted to increasing Kuc Deadlift from 800 lbs to 1600 lbs.

Light Vs Heavy Deadlifters

One of the advantages light, lean Deadlifter have is that they are able to keep the bar closer to their Center of Gravity, when pulling correctly.

The disadvantages heavier, thicker Deadlifter have is that the bar is farther away from their Center of Gravity. This increased the torque, which essentially increasing the load on the bar, requiring more force/strength.

That is one of the reason Deadlifter need to pull the weight back on top of them. It ensure you are keeping the load as close to your Center of Gravity as possible.

Kenny come on man surely you're not implying that "adding BW helps your DL go up marginally". One look at the world records per class divisions, and it is abundantly clear just how much the DL goes up per weight class:
Men's Raw World Records | Powerlifting Watch

In fact, I calculated some slopes and the DL happens to have the biggest slopes (meaning, the most weight added to the max per lb of BW added to your body). And by far. In most cases, a lb added in BW helps your DL as much as it helps your bench and squat combined.
 
Kenny come on man surely you're not implying that "adding BW helps your DL go up marginally". One look at the world records per class divisions, and it is abundantly clear just how much the DL goes up per weight class:
Men's Raw World Records | Powerlifting Watch

In fact, I calculated some slopes and the DL happens to have the biggest slopes (meaning, the most weight added to the max per lb of BW added to your body). And by far. In most cases, a lb added in BW helps your DL as much as it helps your bench and squat combined.

Kenny is right.

Have a look at this:

upload_2018-2-24_18-24-39.png
That is something I made from the IPF classic world records. First you have the weight class, then you have the records, and last you have percentage of the top lift.

If you have some calculations, I'd love to see them. It would be best if you got them from a single federation so the judging is constant. And of course, a federation with a big sample size.
 
Kenny is right.

Have a look at this:

View attachment 5044
That is something I made from the IPF classic world records. First you have the weight class, then you have the records, and last you have percentage of the top lift.

If you have some calculations, I'd love to see them. It would be best if you got them from a single federation so the judging is constant. And of course, a federation with a big sample size.
So the headers are
(Weight class kgs) (Sq) (BP) (DL) correct?

Assuming that's correct, it's very clear just how much the DL improves as the weight classes go up right?

The slope calculation is pretty simple:
((Max of weight class X) - (Max of weight class Y))/((Weight class X) - (Weight class Y))

If you take weight classes 59 and 66 kilos, then:
Squat slope = (250-240)/(66-59) = 10/7 kilos added to the squat for an added kilogram of BW
Bench slope = (189-171)/(66-59) = 18/7 kilos added to the bench for an added kilogram of BW
DL slope = (285-271)/(66-59) = 14/7 kilos added to the DL for an added kilogram of BW

In this case, the BP benefited most, with DL second and squat third.

You can go a bit longer, like 83 vs 59 weight class:
Squat slope = (298-240)/(83-59) = 2.4 kilos added to the squat for an added kilogram of BW
Bench slope = (209-171)/(83-59) = 1.6 kilos added to the bench for an added kilogram of BW
DL slope = (326-271)/(83-59) = 2.3 kilos added to the DL for an added kilogram of BW

This case DL comes at a very close second, with bench far behind.


It occurs to me I might not be understanding at all what you're both saying, but from both data I provided and you provided, it's pretty clear that the DL benefits just as much (if not generally a bit more) from BW gain.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?



EDIT: On an added note, you can plot all of that data onto a regression program like wolframalpha. He will determine the best fit function for the data (which will most definitely be some higher exponential function, or perhaps some logarithmic function). The linearization is just useful for a rough estimate. Once you have that function, you can take its derivative. That will tell you exactly how much added BW will add to your max for every one of the lifts, at each weight class. I am very confident if you did that, the derivative for the DL would be generally the same value as the other two. Meaning, at any given weight class, additions of weight will manifest in max additions very similar to the bench and squat. We can make that rough prediction based on the slopes above we took but you might find other interesting things too.

We can talk more about this later if you want as I understand it might be a little bit complicated but something tells me you'd personally find it pretty interesting ^__^
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom