Other/Mixed So... Lets Debate... For Fun

[Antti]

You probably don't need any advice from me then
Those are strong numbers and anyone who has achieved numbers like that probably knows what works for him/her.

Regarding physique improvements though, I think the squats won't have a big impact anymore. Muscle gains slow down significantly as the lifting years progress***.
You seem to be lifting for several years now and you have achieved big numbers. There probably isn't really much lean mass to be gained naturally anymore. This isn't definite and I don't want to discourage you, but gaining more than 2-3lbs of muscle is very unlikely. Any other weight gain will be fat.
Now we all have different ideal physiques and you may not even care about the added fat, but as a soon-to-be LEO getting leaner is probably a better choice than adding even more weight.
Diet and stripping down the fat will yield much better results.
In no way does that mean you shouldn't squat or try to get stronger with it, but be realistic about the physique improvements you will experience by squatting.

***Lyle McDonald sees the following number as realistic for natural lifters:
1. Year - 20-25lbs
2. Year - 10-12lbs
3. Year - 5-6lbs
4. Year - 2-3lbs
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you fit into the 4+ years category, right?

I don't think it's that clear cut about weight gain and years. I'd say that five years of optimal hypertrophy training can have you close to your limits. But we'd have to review what we call optimal training.

If I'm permitted to make an example of myself, if nothing else a bad one, I had so called trained for ten years before I started barbell lifting. Made some lean weight gains right away, even if my teenage years were 15 years ago.

I've been reading the articles by John McCallum posted in the old days before the steroids entered the picture in any meaningful way. Even back then one should aim at squatting 5*5 at 500lbs for "herculean" gains. And that was for looking like Grimek, Park, Pearl etc. The 5*5 was a less used program, for hypertrophy it was more often recommended to do a single or two sets of 20 reps, even 30. I think at least something like 150% bodyweight was the recommended goal for those sets, but I can't remember exactly now. So I'd say there should definitely be some room for improvement even with the squats.

 

[Kettlebelephant]

@Antti of course those are guidelines, that's why I said it "isn't definite".
My post was just meant to set realistic expectations.
Squats are great, especially if you're weak or like you never touched a barbell before, but they aren't magical. Once you go up to 400lbs or more most gains were already made.

I've been reading the articles by John McCallum posted in the old days before the steroids entered the picture in any meaningful way. Even back then one should aim at squatting 5*5 at 500lbs for "herculean" gains. And that was for looking like Grimek, Park, Pearl etc. The 5*5 was a less used program, for hypertrophy it was more often recommended to do a single or two sets of 20 reps, even 30. I think at least something like 150% bodyweight was the recommended goal for those sets, but I can't remember exactly now. So I'd say there should definitely be some room for improvement even with the squats.

I like the old strongman and lifting stuff, but IMO most of it is blown out of proportion and romanticized.
I know "aim for" doesn't mean that they actually did it, but 5x5 @ 500lbs would mean a 1RM in the 580-600lbs area.
Those numbers would put you right at and even a little bit over the elite level for people of 320+ lbs (Squat Standards ***). That's a level of strength that's not attainable for 99.99% of the population and becomes 99.99999% if we talk about natural lifters.
None of the guys you named reportetly weighed more than 240lbs, which makes it even less likely that they ever lifted that much. Not saying they didn't do it, but even if they did we talk about the best of the best of the best here, who are/were genetically gifted and belong in the 0.00001% category.

***Weightlifting Performance Standards for further explanation

I know we are on the forum dedicated to strength and therefore we hear about some impressive numbers.
Add the fact that you read and hear about enormous lifts by professional powerlifters, oly lifters, strongman and athletes (e.g. football players), which are all made with the help of gear (powerlifters) and/or under the influence of PEDs.
Further add the fact that on the internet most people lie, especially on other forums like bodybuilding.com etc. and we end up with a warped sense of what strong really is.
Scientific Proof: Why So Many People Squat 600lbs on the Internet - This is from a known S&C specialist with professional athletes as clients.
If someone like him has only seen a couple of legit 600lbs squats (and given the surroundings of those lifts it's debatable whether even those were from natural lifters), what do you think how man people in the world can legitimately squat 600lbs without gear and/or PEDs?

I'm not doing this to bash squats, the oldtimers or whatever, but to reiterate my point that one should be realistic about the numbers and the hypertrophy one can achieve naturally and that when you have someone with a 450+lbs squat he's probably very close to his genetic potential for both.

 

[Nathan]

@Kettlebelephant - I like that article, it's rather hilarious. I (think) I still have videos, I don't always keep em. I also have a 515lbs deadlift with an axle (mixed grip tho), and a farmer's walk of about 305lbs per hand (was about 10 paces, but up a slight grade). All this around 230lbs, where currently I am about 240lbs due to being lazy for a while.

Anyhow, I completed day 1 of my squatting saga. Started about 0415 and ended about 0515. I did 20 sets of 5 reps of high-bar style squats over the course of the hour, and paired this with a set of 5 hanging leg raises (so 20 sets total of those also). The load was 205lbs, well under my max, and will increase by 5lbs - 10lbs each day. I will see where I end up at the end, I don't really have any end goals, just squat and add weight. Maybe I will hit my 450 for a few sets of 5, but I doubt it.

I did notice a difference in the way my legs felt after a session like this. The "pump" I felt wasn't a topical skin-busting type pump that you would feel from a session 10 sets of 10. Instead, it seemed more like a deep, dense type pump or fatigue that didn't seem to make my legs swell at all (hard to explain). I think this is what I am looking for...

Lastly, I noticed that the first 5-10 sets weren't too bad, but then 11-20 started to get tough, so this will be interesting as the weight increases.

I will not be posting every workout, just using today's workout for a bit of reflection.

 

[Antti]

@Antti of course those are guidelines, that's why I said it "isn't definite".
My post was just meant to set realistic expectations.
Squats are great, especially if you're weak or like you never touched a barbell before, but they aren't magical. Once you go up to 400lbs or more most gains were already made.


I like the old strongman and lifting stuff, but IMO most of it is blown out of proportion and romanticized.
I know "aim for" doesn't mean that they actually did it, but 5x5 @ 500lbs would mean a 1RM in the 580-600lbs area.
Those numbers would put you right at and even a little bit over the elite level for people of 320+ lbs (Squat Standards ***). That's a level of strength that's not attainable for 99.99% of the population and becomes 99.99999% if we talk about natural lifters.
None of the guys you named reportetly weighed more than 240lbs, which makes it even less likely that they ever lifted that much. Not saying they didn't do it, but even if they did we talk about the best of the best of the best here, who are/were genetically gifted and belong in the 0.00001% category.

***Weightlifting Performance Standards for further explanation

I know we are on the forum dedicated to strength and therefore we hear about some impressive numbers.
Add the fact that you read and hear about enormous lifts by professional powerlifters, oly lifters, strongman and athletes (e.g. football players), which are all made with the help of gear (powerlifters) and/or under the influence of PEDs.
Further add the fact that on the internet most people lie, especially on other forums like bodybuilding.com etc. and we end up with a warped sense of what strong really is.
Scientific Proof: Why So Many People Squat 600lbs on the Internet - This is from a known S&C specialist with professional athletes as clients.
If someone like him has only seen a couple of legit 600lbs squats (and given the surroundings of those lifts it's debatable whether even those were from natural lifters), what do you think how man people in the world can legitimately squat 600lbs without gear and/or PEDs?

I'm not doing this to bash squats, the oldtimers or whatever, but to reiterate my point that one should be realistic about the numbers and the hypertrophy one can achieve naturally and that when you have someone with a 450+lbs squat he's probably very close to his genetic potential for both.

Sorry, @Nathan , but you named the thread "So... Lets Debate... For Fun".

First of all, I definitely think squats are a great trick, if not straightforward magical. If I'm still allowed to refer to the author I mentioned about earlier on, he said: "that squats are THE exercise for gaining. They're so far out in front that second place doesn't even matter." But, I suppose that's not the point. But where on earth you get the idea that 400-450lbs is a lot for a squat, and the limit for natural hypertrophy?

Of course we can't expect everyone to hit 5*5 at 230lbs. Yes, weights like that aren't for everybody. It takes a lot of mass and technique to pull it off, and to be extra clear the lowest weight classes just can't do it. But let's talk about Grimek, since he was the example. He was a competitive weightlifter with a World record. The man was big, participated in the Olympics and had a WR and you doubt his ability to lift that? Why?

Of course he is one in a million. But we're talking about what to he did and what to aim for. Where do we set the line? At a 400 lbs squat? For a big guy, that is peanuts.

When we get to the linked article and how lifts are exaggerated, I don't know. I suppose it depends on who you asked. The article asks how nobody witnesses 400lbs bench presses. I think I've seen about ten lifters lift that or more in about the last six months, in IPF style and apart from maybe one drug free, and I live in a small town without any big competitions. Just today I spotted two training sets with more weight and saw one guy lift more with other people training. What's the big deal? The World Record for an untested raw bench press is about 740 lbs. Why should I think 400lbs is anything special for a heavyweight? Yes, it does take a long time of hard training. Sadly, I think both of those are in short supply when it comes to the gym.

I see no reason to perceive success on the averages of the standard gym bros who bodybuild a year or two. I don't care to be one.

 

[Antti]

@Kettlebelephant - I like that article, it's rather hilarious. I (think) I still have videos, I don't always keep em. I also have a 515lbs deadlift with an axle (mixed grip tho), and a farmer's walk of about 305lbs per hand (was about 10 paces, but up a slight grade). All this around 230lbs, where currently I am about 240lbs due to being lazy for a while.

Anyhow, I completed day 1 of my squatting saga. Started about 0415 and ended about 0515. I did 20 sets of 5 reps of high-bar style squats over the course of the hour, and paired this with a set of 5 hanging leg raises (so 20 sets total of those also). The load was 205lbs, well under my max, and will increase by 5lbs - 10lbs each day. I will see where I end up at the end, I don't really have any end goals, just squat and add weight. Maybe I will hit my 450 for a few sets of 5, but I doubt it.

I did notice a difference in the way my legs felt after a session like this. The "pump" I felt wasn't a topical skin-busting type pump that you would feel from a session 10 sets of 10. Instead, it seemed more like a deep, dense type pump or fatigue that didn't seem to make my legs swell at all (hard to explain). I think this is what I am looking for...

Lastly, I noticed that the first 5-10 sets weren't too bad, but then 11-20 started to get tough, so this will be interesting as the weight increases.

I will not be posting every workout, just using today's workout for a bit of reflection.

@Nathan , great to hear that you started your squatting saga. Sounds like you had a terrific time for an hour. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes for you.

I know you said you won't be posting every workout, but let me suggest that you keep a log of some kind here in the logs section on the forums. I've found it to be a great tool for my own training, and there's plenty of us who think the same.

 

[Nathan]

@Antti - I have been logging my workouts in an Google Sheets document... wonder if I can link that here... probably more trouble than it's worth, but yeah I may just pop in and post an update on occasion maybe. I totally agree that I may not have reached my full potential yet. Honestly, I don't know what that is, and I have really never considered having a limit. I could potentially perform 5*5 at 500lbs, but I may not stick with it long enough to reach it. At my current weight I may be happier getting closer to 600 but would also be happy with dropping my bodyweight to 200lbs and keeping my squat strength around 500lbs (I would prefer this, I need to weigh less).

Overall I am enjoying this thread, lets keep going! Meanwhile I will keep squatting!

 

[Kettlebelephant]

But, I suppose that's not the point. But where on earth you get the idea that 400-450lbs is a lot for a squat, and the limit for natural hypertrophy?

I stated that "those are guidelines and that's why I said it 'isn't definite'", so all of the things I say are for the average guy. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Without further information about @Nathan I have to base my comments on the average guy.

I base my idea on the strength standards I posted. Those are not something someone just pulled out of his a#@, that's why I included the other link with the explanation.
Dr. Lon Kilgore based them "on nearly 70 years of accumulated performance data and they are not predicted or regression derived".
There are not many people who are bigger than 225lbs.
Yes, sadly there are, but most of them are just fat. People with a healthy or at least reasonable bodyfat percentage who are heavier than 225lbs? Not that many.
"The average American man over age 20 weighs 195.7 pounds. The average waist circumference is 40 inches..." (Average Weight for Men: By Age, Height, and More)
For other countrys it's even less, ~175-180lbs. (Human body weight - Wikipedia)
Going back to the strength standards @181-198lbs (which is the average western man) a 450lbs squat puts you almost into the Elite group.
Elite is defined as "An athlete competing in strength sports." That means competitive powerlifters, oly lifters and strongmen.
Also note that because the data is based on actual performances it's not wrong to assume that at least a little percentage of the included performances were made under the influence of PEDs, which slightly inflated the numbers for the standards.
It's reasonable to assume that you won't make much hypertrophy gains (hypertrophy/muscle gains! not just mass) once you hit the Elite level.
Putting it all together it's therefore also reasonable to assume that the average male won't make much hypertrophy gains after 400-450lbs.

Going back to @Nathan . He seems to be a guy that's above the average, so yes his ceiling will be a bit higher, but the fact still remains, that at his weight and strength level it's very hard to add lean mass and although gains are clearly possible, they will be limited to little amounts.

Also note I never said 400-450lbs "is the limit for hypertrophy", but that at that weight most of the gains were already made. There's a big difference between "you've gone most of the way" and "you've hit the definite end of the road".

But where on earth you get the idea that 400-450lbs is a lot for a squat

Again simply based on the strength standards. With a 450lbs squat you belong in the Advance category for all "weight classes" except the 320+ class and there you only need 5 more pounds.
For every class up to the 181lbs class you even belong in the Elite category.

There are 7.58 billion people on this planet. (World Population Clock: 7.6 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers)
1% of this is 75.8 million.
I can't prove that, but does anyone think there are more than ~76 million people on this planet that can squat 400+ lbs.
I doubt that there are even 10 million who can do that, but again that's nothing I can prove.

It's how you define "strong". For an insect lifting 1Kg might be strong. For a bear, gorilla, elephant or whatever lifting 1000lbs might not be very strong.
We are humans and so we need to put a certain feat into the right context and if you can squat more than 99% (probably more like 99.99%) than the rest of the population, than that's by definition a strong squat. Therefore a 400-450lbs squat is strong!

@Antti I know you have ambitions in powerlifting and because of that you compare yourself to those 0.0001% of the population who reach those PL records and big numbers, so for your a 450lbs squat isn't that strong. That's simple because your definition is different.
Here's a thought:
Do you consider someone running a 10.8sec 100m slow, because there are some people that can run a sub-10?
Do you consider someone with an 125 IQ not-intelligent, because there are people with an IQ of 130-180?

Of course we can't expect everyone to hit 5*5 at 230lbs. Yes, weights like that aren't for everybody. It takes a lot of mass and technique to pull it off, and to be extra clear the lowest weight classes just can't do it. But let's talk about Grimek, since he was the example. He was a competitive weightlifter with a World record. The man was big, participated in the Olympics and had a WR and you doubt his ability to lift that? Why?

Of course he is one in a million. But we're talking about what to he did and what to aim for. Where do we set the line? At a 400 lbs squat? For a big guy, that is peanuts.

I clearly said that he might have lifted that much weight, but also said that he belonged to those 0.0001%, so I gave him credit.
Maybe a bit rude of me to doubt his lifts to a cerain degree, you might be right about that.
But you (-> McCallum) still can't base your tips, goals or expectations for other people (-> the average population) on people like him.

You said it yourself he was an Olympian who even put up world records.
I could find some articles about Grimek that actually state the same numbers (John Grimek - Age | Height | Weight | Images | Bio + John Grimek: The Monarch Of Muscledom | Gym-Talk.com), so no doubt about their legitimacy.
His best squat was 700lbs.
So the genetically super gifted, super dedicated, WR-breaking Olympian, who dedicated his whole life to strength, probably even lifted in his dreams (yes I'm exegerating here) had a best squat of 700lbs?
That does more to convince me that a 450lbs squat is strong than it does to convince me otherwise.

When we get to the linked article and how lifts are exaggerated, I don't know. I suppose it depends on who you asked. The article asks how nobody witnesses 400lbs bench presses. I think I've seen about ten lifters lift that or more in about the last six months, in IPF style and apart from maybe one drug free, and I live in a small town without any big competitions. Just today I spotted two training sets with more weight and saw one guy lift more with other people training. What's the big deal? The World Record for an untested raw bench press is about 740 lbs. Why should I think 400lbs is anything special for a heavyweight? Yes, it does take a long time of hard training. Sadly, I think both of those are in short supply when it comes to the gym.

Since I've come to respect you for the things you write on the forum and how you write them I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
On another forum with another person I'd go for the "pic/vid or it didn't happen" argument, because I hope you can at least see how your recount can raise doubts.
I'd put it onto your "I suppose it depends on who you ask" sentence.
I know your finish and you want to participate in powerlifting. Going by your attitude ("450lbs squat is not strong") and your competitve nature can I assume you don't go to a commercial gym, but a dedicated powerlifting club or something like that?
Scandinavian people seem to be naturally stronger than the average. If you walk into a dedicated PL gym with a group of scandivanians I can imagine that you'll see a lot of lifts you'd never see in a normal gym.
Take the Islandic people for example. For that little population they tend to produce a high number of really strong people (e.g. strongmen or the crossfit women). I bet you see crazy stuff and lifts if you just walk into the right gym in Reykjavik.
Walk into Westside Barbell Club and tell them about your 400lbs bench, probably nobody will listen to you.
That's why I chose Cressey's article. He works with people from average Joe to professional MLB players. I think he has a good overview of the whole picture.

Another thought about 400lbs benches.
We talked about Grimek. His best bench is listed at 480lbs. Do you think many people have the potential to bench more than 400lbs naturally when his best was 480?

Regarding the drug-free lifts. You probably spend a good time with the guys and like them, but don't be fooled by the amount of people who take PEDs. People you'd never assumed would do it.

 

[Antti]

@Kettlebelephant I'd quote you and have things more thorough and understandable, but it turns out there's a limit to post length, so I go this way and hope you understand me from this post:

Thanks for the thorough post, it's nice to have a good discussion about things.

I think there's a certain misunderstanding between us. You talk a lot about the average Joe. I seem to consider the average lifter. I am familiar with your numbers, which Rippetoe actually doesn't fancy anymore, and they only tell a certain piece of the truth. I'm talking about a person who's passion is strength, after all, that is why we are here. Like I said, I'm not interested in the bodybuilding gym bro. People like him make up the majority of the statistics you mention. I'm interested in the passionate people who strength train. And they can get much, much further than the bodybuilding gym bros. How can an "advanced" deadlift really be advanced if someone like me can reach it in two months?

When we come to Grimek and the goal of the herculean physique, that is mentioned because that was the typical goal of the day. And to reach that goal, you had to train really, really hard. It was clear from the get-go, there weren't any short-cuts or fancy methods or such. Train your behind out most of the week with heavy weights and you will get close. And that 5*5 at 230kg was the goal. The real goal. The drug free goal. The goal that was actually below what the top lifter did, but which was enough for the look. And when it comes to Grimek and his bench press, he did not train it, he trained the overhead press. The times, you understand.

I admit that I too often do not consider the shorter people training. For them the weights are too much. I tried to make it clear in my earlier post, but maybe I should have been more clear. But when it comes to the topic in hand, I somehow had the idea that @Nathan was a big guy, so to speak, and for him the weights weren't that special.

When it comes to comparing, and the examples you made, I understand that it's a question of viewpoint. On a Mensa forum there would be different ideas of what's strong and what's intelligent. On a strength forum otherwise. I've never really understood why my, or anyone's, capabilities should be compared to the common denominator. We should all strive to excel, in whatever pursuits we deem worthy. And we are on a strength forum.

When it comes to "competing in strength sports", I think that sounds like a lot, but in reality it's not. I've often mentioned my earlier example, when I coached a sedentary middle-aged in-every-way average man with no previous strength training at all to a 2x bdw deadlift in less than three months. What the hell is special about a 2x bdw DL if you're not obese? Yet, it's often talked about like the holy grail, like it's something on one's bucket list. I can not understand it.

When it comes to the PED issue and my sightings, I understand your viewpoint. I only have practical experience from my own, definitely small, circle. It's not the same everywhere in the World. Most of the lifting happened in two local BP competitions. In the other one I was spotting and loading the plates. I personally know some of the people to some extent. And I know how the anti-doping system in Finland works. The PEDs are in general a whole another matter maybe best saved for a thread of it's own.

I train in a small commercial gym. Most of it is in no way anything special. But, we have exceptions in town. So we get both sides. The nearest powerlifting gym is a half an hour away. I don't really have the time so I train alone most of the time.

Lastly, let me get back to competitive powerlifting again. It really is nothing that special, and it really doesn't take that long. Me, myself, am not doing that bad having started barbell lifting in March this year. I'm planning on having my first competition next year, just to get a taste of it, not really caring about how I finish. Last weekend, I talked to an old friend of mine by a couple of beers, and tried to make him better his life starting to train with me. When I mentioned it this time, it dawned on me, that he had just the proportions for powerlifting. I said to him, give me three years and all the effort you can give and you'll be in top five in the nationals. I still stand by it. It's not necessarily a big deal or something that takes a long time. But it does take a lot of effort. I can understand how some people are not willing to give it. Me, I love the thing.

 

[LukeV]

What the average lifter can expect to achieve versus the lifter blessed with superior genetics and a degree in pharmacology is very interesting. My own experience in hanging around suburban gyms and pedestrian comps for 20 years is pretty consistent with what Kettlebelephant posted above. I've haven't seen that many big lifts Raw and those I have witnessed came from the same small group of freaks.

The Kilgore standards have been criticised because some people blow them away. But that's the point of differentiating between Advanced and Elite (and then, within Elite, those entirely separate categories, of competitive, winning and record holding). In my view each of those categories reflects not just a step up in attitude, nutrition and training but completely different people. Your 'average' guy is never going to get to Elite let alone be competitive, win a competition or set a record.

 

[Kettlebelephant]

I think there's a certain misunderstanding between us. You talk a lot about the average Joe. I seem to consider the average lifter. I am familiar with your numbers, which Rippetoe actually doesn't fancy anymore, and they only tell a certain piece of the truth. I'm talking about a person who's passion is strength, after all, that is why we are here. Like I said, I'm not interested in the bodybuilding gym bro. People like him make up the majority of the statistics you mention. I'm interested in the passionate people who strength train. And they can get much, much further than the bodybuilding gym bros. How can an "advanced" deadlift really be advanced if someone like me can reach it in two months?

I get it.
There are people who lift and there are people who lift, if you know what I mean
You talked about the one kind and I was talking about the other (sometimes even including non-lifters).

If you really dedicate yourself to the goal of absolute strength 400-450lbs clearly isn't the end for you.
For dedicated people the Elite level is well within reach. I haven't tested my squat or bench for a long time, but for the press and DL I'm between Advanced and Elite and I didn't follow a pure strength based barbell routine for the 3, 4 or more years to reach that level.
No doubt that with the right programing and dedication I can get to Elite within the next year, but how will that affect the rest of my life (job, family etc.) and other physical capabilities (endurance etc.)?
I just looked over the results of the last 2 TSCs. If you combine the Men's Open and Elite classes there are only 10-15 guys (there are more lifts, but some by the same people) who posted a DL of 550lbs or more**.
Maybe that's because they also need to work on other things than pure strength and because of the pullups can't afford added mass just to help their DL?
You simply can't have big squats and DLs while also having high pullup numbers.

So I correct my earlier statement that most people come close to the upper end of their genetic potential when they get to the 400-450lbs area to "most people come close to their genetic potential @400-450 when they pursue other goals then pure strength (-> not willing to add bodyweight, training for another sport, etc. - that kind of thing)"

I mention this to, again, go back to @Nathan and his goals.
Looking at his numbers, his weight and his profile pic I think he belongs to the "big guys" and can be able to pull of a 600lbs+ squat if he really wants that, but at what cost?
He trains to be a LEO. For the job itself and the fitness test to get into it in the first place you need endurance and proficiency in high rep calisthenics.
Driving up his squat from 450-500lbs to 550lbs+ is very likely counterproductive to that goal.
We debated whether he can even make hypertrophy gains at his level anymore.
For the sake of argument I'm just giving in to your point ("5x5 @230Kg") here and say he can add another 10lbs of pure muscle over the next months by abusing squats to the max.
I think you'll agree that with those 10lbs of muscle there will be another 20-30lbs of fat, because in no way do you add 10lbs of pure muscle at his level of strength and bodyweight without significant fatgain.
So weighing 230-240lbs and adding even more weight is very, very likely counterproductive to the LEO goal, too.
I just saw he admitted basically the same in his last post

Btw @Nathan when you started this thread and talked about your routine I was under the assumption you would use something like a 8RM or in the range of 75-90% of your 1RM for your working sets. That would really take a toll on your recovery, but using 200lbs? That's nothing to think about in your case. Even slowly going up to something like 315lbs and you're still at only 70% of your max (taking 450 1RM, if it's 500 than it's even less percent).

When it comes to the PED issue and my sightings, I understand your viewpoint. I only have practical experience from my own, definitely small, circle. It's not the same everywhere in the World. Most of the lifting happened in two local BP competitions. In the other one I was spotting and loading the plates. I personally know some of the people to some extent. And I know how the anti-doping system in Finland works. The PEDs are in general a whole another matter maybe best saved for a thread of it's own.

Yep, totally agree.
I don't want to add too much to this debate, because it's clearly another very big pic topic on its own, but just wanted to say that comparing your lifts to someone like Grimek is probably better than to any kind of lifter from 1980 till today even the so called "drug-tested lifters".***

I admit that I too often do not consider the shorter people training. For them the weights are too much. I tried to make it clear in my earlier post, but maybe I should have been more clear.

That's an interesting point. People only take into account the weight most of the times and not the heigth. The standards list I posted does the same.
There's a reason why you don't see 5'5 guys breaking world records and why e.g. in strongman it's the 6'-7' guys dominating the sport:
Pudzianowksi - 6'1
Savickas, Ver Magnusson, Hall - 6'3
Shaw - 6'8
Björnsson - 6'9


**Just for the info: In the Fall 2017 TSC only 1 guy in the Elite class DLed more than 600lbs. He also did "only" 9 pullups and stayed under 100 reps for the snatch test (91 reps).
In the Open class there were 2 guys who lifted more than 600lbs (both 675lbs which is over 100lbs more than the 3rd best DLer at 573lbs),
but one of them posted no results for the snatch or pullup and the other guy "only" managed 8 pullups.


***Btw this is offtopic, but looking at this: Men's Raw World Records | Powerlifting Watch
Am I to believe that Jesse Noris squatted 750 at 198lbs, then gained weight to go up to 220lbs and squatted "only" 683lbs, 67lbs less than what he did when he was 22lbs lighter?
And to top it of the lift at 220 was still a record?
And to go even further his 750lbs at 198 is 22lbs more than Ernst Gross' 728lbs record in the 242lbs class?
Sorry but this smells fishy to me.

The Kilgore standards have been criticised because some people blow them away. But that's the point of differentiating between Advanced and Elite (and then, within Elite, those entirely separate categories, of competitive, winning and record holding). In my view each of those categories reflects not just a step up in attitude, nutrition and training but completely different people. Your 'average' guy is never going to get to Elite let alone be competitive, win a competition or set a record.

Good point. The Elite level numbers are just the entry point into that category. There's a difference between competing and finishing last or in the middle of the pack and winning, maybe even breaking records.

I still think the Kilgore list is a good standard, because it's based on actual performances.
It's the average of people who lift and taking into account their lifting career. So as an example taking into account the squats of 220lbs guys over the span of 70 years. After multiple years of training (see the definition of Advanced) the average 220lbs lifter had a squat of 410lbs.
Yes there were and are those guys who blow them away (to quote you ) and reach a 500lbs squat in their first or second year. There are also those who lift for 8 years who are still stuck at 350lbs.
It's still a fact that if you combine all of those guys and then do the math to receive your average you come up with 410lbs.
It's a guideline and shouldn't be taking too seriously.
Are you a 220lbs guy lifting for 4-5 years and you squat significantly less than 410lbs? Either your training or your genetics suck big time or maybe you're just a very tall long distance runner, who's just lifting to help his sport and despite looking like a stick still weighs 220lbs simply because of his 6'8 body.
Are you a 220lbs guy lifting for 4-5 years and you squat significantly more than 410lbs? Good for you, you either have an exceptional routine or great genes.
Are you a 220lbs guy lifting for 4-5 years and you squat around 400-420lbs? You've hit the average for your special demographic (in this case only defined as Male/220lbs/lifting for multiple (~4-5) years) and are, well, simply just that -> Average, nothing special.

Again, averages are just there to compare yourself to them. Look at them, look at yourself and then evaluate. Do you fall out of the average (on either side)? Go and look why that is.
I gave the example of the long distance runner. There's a reason why he specifically is weaker than the average. He probably knows why, it's because of his endurance training that interferes with his lifting.
Another guy started lifting at 60 years old. He has lifted for the past 5 years, but still can't go up to the Advanced level. Why? Because he's in his 60s. Of course he has a much harder time to make gains, but it stilll doesn't mean he's weak.
But if you think you're doing everything right and still turn out as weaker than the average you know you need to find the reason for that. Without something like the standard list you wouldn't know that you need to change something, because in your limited world (e.g. no friends or family who lift) you're still the strongest.

 

[Nathan]

I see I missed a question. Yes I am in the 4+ year category. If you count my days in my basement as a kid, then we're talking 20+ years.

I am loving the philisophical debate here. I can certainly see both angles. Perception plays a huge role when you spend most of your life around strong guys and girls who may view a 400lbs lift as beginners stuff. While this is actually a strong lift for vast majority of people.

Yet, I personally have coached a guy in ONE DAY to pull near double bodyweight in a deadlift. Granted, he was a rather fit U.S. Marine, so whether that helped the learning curve I don't know. So a double bodyweight deadlift may still be a beginners feat. The low percentage of people capable of this may simply be due to different goals, laziness, and an overall disbelief that they are capable (or other unknown reasons). It may be simply that people choose NOT to work towards this goal that so few people actually attain it.

 

[Kettlebelephant]

Yet, I personally have coached a guy in ONE DAY to pull near double bodyweight in a deadlift. Granted, he was a rather fit U.S. Marine, so whether that helped the learning curve I don't know. So a double bodyweight deadlift may still be a beginners feat.

Here's another thread that might interest you: PL 1RM Max Estimates from Calisthenics
@305pelusa squatted 1.8x bodyweight and deadlifted 2.3x bodyweight, basically by training calisthenics.
So yes it might be not that uncommon to reach a 2x BW DL without ever touching a bar as long as you strength trained in some way.
What's uncommen and @Antti also kind of mentioned it in his last posts, is actually training constantly for 5 or more years.

Also this:

What the hell is special about a 2x bdw DL if you're not obese? Yet, it's often talked about like the holy grail, like it's something on one's bucket list. I can not understand it.

Take one of the naturally smaller guys, who's ideal weight (yeah we can debate "ideal" but it's just an example) is 150lbs, but he carries a lot of fat and actually weighs 225.
At his ideal weight a 2x BW DL means 300lbs. Not that impressive in most peoples mind.
At his actual weight that's a 450lbs DL. Something that I've probably only seen 3 or 4 times in a commercial or my old crossfit gym combined.
Sometimes the "times bodyweight" thing isn't a good indicator of strength. Brian Shaw can only deadlift somewhere around 2.5x BW and he has to use straps for that. Kinda weak, right?


Btw all of that stuff from the last posts has absolutely nothing to do with your original question about the weekly volume thing.

 

[Antti]

Looks like we're starting to get on the same page.

We agree, that in total a really small part of humankind will bench 300lbs, squat 400lbs and deadlift 500lbs. A really tiny bit.

However, how big a part of mankind could do it, if they wanted to? That's a massively larger number.

Genetics play a part. It's really hard to to lift those numbers if you're 150cm tall instead of 180cm tall. But, when we get to the average joe, and his height, is it that special? If the average joe of average height decided that he wanted to pursue powerlifting and decided to focus on it for a couple of years, do you think he couldn't lift those numbers? It's only a question of choice, whether it is the goal or not and whether it's kept the goal or not. Oftentimes I see people, to use a proverb, chase two rabbits at once. And we know what then happens, you lose them both. I think we agree on this. But if the cost of lifting those numbers doesn't necessarily take a long time in the gym a week for that long a time, just a singular approach to it, is it that great an achievement or anything special?

I'm a bit ruffled by this discussion because I think too often people dismiss the idea that lifting those weights needs a lot of work and a lot of effort, a lot of time at the gym, a lot of eating and a lot of sleeping. It's not about winning the genetic lottery. It's not about juicing. If someone says that my progress is because of how I'm built and so and so, it can feel like my hard work is just dismissed. To me it speaks of ignorance and a lack of character. This rant is by no means directed at anyone on this forum, this is just a pet peeve of mine and something I'm happy to get off my chest.

The lifts aren't that special. One just has to want to do them, and keep them the goal and other things on the back burner while achieving that goal. Plenty of us can achieve them. Some with less difficulty, some with more. For some it takes longer, others less. All of us have to train hard. Some of us don't like to train hard, and it's harder for them. If we look at the bigger picture at the gym again, most of the people really like to take it easy and never want to do anything uncomfortable or seek their limits. Such a shame.

 

[Nathan]

@Kettlebelephant - Well overall my goal is to (1) lose weight, and (2) get stronger and more conditioned. I'm essentially just creating an experiment to see what will happen if I just do this squatting workout 3 days a week for 12 weeks. Will I drop bodyfat? Gain muscle? Get more conditioned? Get stronger? My hypothesis says yes to it all, but I will get a real answer over the next 12 weeks. I may do slightly bigger weight jumps but at the end of 12 weeks I should be performing this workout with 400lbs, which is a rather impressive feat if I make it that far.

What if, by keeping to 5 rep sets, my muscles instead get denser instead of just bigger? Maybe by adding 10lbs of "density" I in turn burn 20lbs of fat? I net 10lbs of overall weight-loss but possibly gain a ton of unforeseen benefits that will go towards my LEO goal. Who knows? At the moment I am stuck training inside in the winter for about 12 weeks so this is just an entertaining break before I am back on the LEO training horse.

My original question was wondering if I should spread out the volume or essentially do it in 3 big chunks, I think personally 3 days a week is plenty. This thread did, however, transform into something more but it's not a big deal. The discussion here is quite good.

 

[Steve Freides]

FWIW, @Nathan, et al, one of the studies cited in the original Russian Kettlebell Challenge book said that 1/4 of the participants gained weight while 1/4 lost weight and the rest stayed the same. This was in the Soviet military, and the take-away point was that kettlebell ballistics for reps tend to yield a certain body type, which I like to think of as a soldier's body type, the fact that I have never served not withstanding.

Honestly, I think if you did S&S, or did a higher volume program of swings and/or snatches, you'd meet your goal of losing weight while staying strong.

-S-

 

[Nathan]

@Steve Freides - I certainly did give this some serious thought before landing on doing squats. I am wondering if squats like what I am choosing to do will reap similar benefits to doing high rep swings (minus the grip strength bonus). I did do the ETK program once while deployed in Afghanistan, where my variety days were a 3x3 of deadlifts or squats with a 20 minute run, seemed to work pretty well. This may be an alternative option to the TB LEO program when the time arises. Granted, I would get nearly 3 miles during the 20 minute run (it was for as much distance as possible).

Clearly their are tons of options to reach the same goal. I am always worried that I am not doing the most efficient and effective things, and thus I tend to waffle between things and never really make progress. This is my curse, so this squat program is going to hopefully break that curse.

 

[Oscar]

@Nathan, it would be great if you keep a log and then share your results with us.

 

[Bill Been]

20 sets of 5, even at the modest loads you're starting with, will either cause a fairly rapid stall or worse, significantly increased likelihood of injury.

It's just not necessary. If you want to do aerobics, do aerobics. If you want to train for strength, do that. But right now you're creating endurance adaptations with an implement that adds stress and risk that is not required to create endurance adaptations. Keep adding weight and you'll get closer to strength adaptations, but the excessive number of sets you've programmed will quickly have to be pared back or you'll have to add weight far less frequently than desireable if your goal is strength.

Titrate up to a weight that juuuuust barely causes the bar to slow down on the last rep of a set of 5. Do two more sets of 5 with that load. That's Day 1, Monday. Wednesday, come back, warm up, to putting 10 more pounds on the bar, 3 sets of 5. Friday - repeat. Monday - based on how close you came to failure on Friday, use either a 10lb increase or take it down to 5lb. Your call, but decreasing the increment a bit too soon is far preferable to missing a rep because you should've used 5 instead of 10lb. Keep repeating with the 5lb increment. You're already pretty strong despite (I assume) doing the same goofy stuff in the gym most guys do. Meaning you have excellent potential. You should be progressing the other lifts (press, bench, dead) simultaneously and in the same way, but I've already bossed you around enough in this thread.

 

[Bill Been]

Regarding Mr. Cressey's article: as I've found all too common, the research paper he cites doesn't buttress the point he's making in his article at all. He's talking about Gym Bros and keyboard lifters and their tendency to basically make up fish stories about their lifts. That's fine, although that tendency is far from being contained around the subject of lifting. There are an astonishing number of 200 mph Ford Mustangs, badazz MMA fighters, Bugatti-eating Camaros, 1,000 yard bullseye hitters, scratch golfers, military tactics experts, and bona fide whisky connoisseurs......on the internet. It's also nothing new. Remember - Donnie Thompson taking his deadlift from 766 to 832 using only kettlebells? Or Eugen Sandow pressed 270lb with one hand.

But, alas, the actual research paper suggests almost exactly the opposite of what he's advertising. A few 18-25 year olds were tested in this lifting endurance test that basically looks like taking a milk crate from a middle shelf and putting it up on the top shelf, then returning it to the middle. After each rep, the subject's HR is recorded and he's asked to rate the difficulty of the task. Then more weight is added - the weights are disguised so there's no influence of "he just put another 25 on the bar". They're just colored blobs tossed in a basket. Apparently, this test is used in the rehab setting and it also used for developing the all-important governmental guidelines on how much weight is "safe" to lift in the workplace. They asked the study participants to estimate how much of that test they were going to be able to do. Their responses were astonishingly "unbiased". One third basically thought they'd do worse than they did; one third thought they'd do about how they actually did; and one third thought they'd do better than they actually did. I'm not sure how Mr. Cressey is seeing that as supportive of his position, much less as "scientific proof".

I will never understand people who take bloggers at face value when they say "science says _______"

 

[Nathan]

Regarding Mr. Cressey's article: as I've found all too common, the research paper he cites doesn't buttress the point he's making in his article at all. He's talking about Gym Bros and keyboard lifters and their tendency to basically make up fish stories about their lifts. That's fine, although that tendency is far from being contained around the subject of lifting. There are an astonishing number of 200 mph Ford Mustangs, badazz MMA fighters, Bugatti-eating Camaros, 1,000 yard bullseye hitters, scratch golfers, military tactics experts, and bona fide whisky connoisseurs......on the internet. It's also nothing new. Remember - Donnie Thompson taking his deadlift from 766 to 832 using only kettlebells? Or Eugen Sandow pressed 270lb with one hand.

But, alas, the actual research paper suggests almost exactly the opposite of what he's advertising. A few 18-25 year olds were tested in this lifting endurance test that basically looks like taking a milk crate from a middle shelf and putting it up on the top shelf, then returning it to the middle. After each rep, the subject's HR is recorded and he's asked to rate the difficulty of the task. Then more weight is added - the weights are disguised so there's no influence of "he just put another 25 on the bar". They're just colored blobs tossed in a basket. Apparently, this test is used in the rehab setting and it also used for developing the all-important governmental guidelines on how much weight is "safe" to lift in the workplace. They asked the study participants to estimate how much of that test they were going to be able to do. Their responses were astonishingly "unbiased". One third basically thought they'd do worse than they did; one third thought they'd do about how they actually did; and one third thought they'd do better than they actually did. I'm not sure how Mr. Cressey is seeing that as supportive of his position, much less as "scientific proof".

I will never understand people who take bloggers at face value when they say "science says _______"

Well, the goal is to increase the load and simply do sets over a 60 minute period. I was able to perform 20 sets over that period for that particular load. As the weight increases I am certain I will require increasingly more rest between sets and thus the overall volume will start decreasing.

I guess in my mind I am visualizing a pyramid. It has a wide base, and as you go higher the width decreases. Eventually you will hit a peak. You can make the pyramid taller by just stacking more on top of that last stone (which will eventually topple), or instead you can put in the work to widen the base so the end result is a taller pyramid that will last thousands of years. I am looking to widen my base further so when I get back to the top I can go higher.