Stepmill = death

[Duality]

Agreed, and like you said, I was more speaking of the general population. After a certain point, one makes the decision to pursue the skill of lifting heavy weights or the art of building up a physique.

word. i think tim would agree to this too, ehh timmy?


take note please braaq, this is how you have a mature resolved conversation.

 

[Ironslave]

Arg, i'm pulling my hair out over this thread now.

... yes, it's possible to bench 405lbs for 10 reps with strict form and have a small chest, size doesn't have anything to do with strength!

 

[Ironslave]

THANK YOU! can you please relay this to blake! he's on his high horse and needs to be brought down a notch or ten.


or are you gonna insult IS too braaq?

 

[theweapon]

Arg, i'm pulling my hair out over this thread now.

... yes, it's possible to bench 405lbs for 10 reps with strict form and have a small chest, size doesn't have anything to do with strength!

to add to your post.

first kid squating 300kgs, my quads are bigger and veiner with more definition than him, no way in hell i can squat what he squats. especially not for 2 reps

then he benches 200kg for 2 reps and he is not big at all.

 

[Ironslave]

Duality/weapon, I was being sarcastic.

Doing a lift for 2 reps, and doing it for 10 reps are completely different. Lots of smaller guys can get very strong in the 1-3 rep range or so.... you don't see many guys with 24 inch quads squatting 500 lbs for 12 reps.

 

[theweapon]

Duality/weapon, I was being sarcastic.

Doing a lift for 2 reps, and doing it for 10 reps are completely different. Lots of smaller guys can get very strong in the 1-3 rep range or so.... you don't see many guys with 24 inch quads squatting 500 lbs for 12 reps.

arggh!!!! now im pulling my hairs!!! the little bit i have left.

 

[Ironslave]

arggh!!!! now im pulling my hairs!!! the little bit i have left.

give me one example. Show me a vid of someone squatting 500 lbs for 12 reps in good form with 24 inch quads.

 

[Duality]

Duality/weapon, I was being sarcastic.

Doing a lift for 2 reps, and doing it for 10 reps are completely different. Lots of smaller guys can get very strong in the 1-3 rep range or so.... you don't see many guys with 24 inch quads squatting 500 lbs for 12 reps.

but still to say that more muscle equals more strengh is not an absolute statement. in general yes the larger guys are stronger, but it's not an absolute. like i mentioned before there's a guy at our gym with what i would say is around 25" quads who puts up 405lb for roughly 8 and weighs about 160lb

 

[theweapon]

give me one example. Show me a vid of someone squatting 500 lbs for 12 reps in good form with 24 inch quads.

sorry to tell you if its 12 reps its not heavy. heavy as in singles. like i said i trained for powerlfiting so i trained alot of singles. and i didnt grow as soon as i went to the 10-12 rep range(obviously not as heavy) i then began to grow.

its only heavy to others who cant do that weight or can only do it for singles.

 

[Duality]

Arg, i'm pulling my hair out over this thread now.

... yes, it's possible to bench 405lbs for 10 reps with strict form and have a small chest, size doesn't have anything to do with strength!

this was sarcasm..............wow

 

[Ironslave]

this was sarcasm..............wow

a statement so blatantly obvious should be

 

[Duality]

a statement so blatantly obvious should be

sigh......no it's really not so blantantly obvious. our two definitions of strength differ here. weapon and i are talking about the exteremly strong as in powerlifters for 1-3 reps, and your talking about heavy weight (heavy only being relative to the general population) used for a set of 10+ reps. the man who can squat 800lb for 1 is stronger than the bodybuilder who squats 455 for sets of 15, but the bber is bigger (see jay cutler). why do tim and yourself think so many things are absolutes? did you read the brief exchange between creator and I? are those not fair statements.


i would like you to address the young man who trains at our gym who is no more than 160ish and puts up weight for monster reps. scientific explanation please? he is about 5'9 with a fairly athletic build. go.

 

[The Creator]

One rep training will build no size...

 

[Ironslave]

sigh......no it's really not so blantantly obvious. our two definitions of strength differ here. weapon and i are talking about the exteremly strong as in powerlifters for 1-3 reps, and your talking about heavy weight (heavy only being relative to the general population) used for a set of 10+ reps. the man who can squat 800lb for 1 is stronger than the bodybuilder who squats 455 for sets of 15, but the bber is bigger (see jay cutler). why do tim and yourself think so many things are absolutes? did you read the brief exchange between creator and I? are those not fair statements.


i would like you to address the young man who trains at our gym who is no more than 160ish and puts up weight for monster reps. scientific explanation please? he is about 5'9 with a fairly athletic build. go.

Duality.... you were the one who agreed it was possible to bench 405 for 12 reps and not have a big chest, that's just silly. Someone is taking some thing in absolutes here, but it's not me...

 

[tim290280]

One rep training will build no size...

Unless you do heaps of sets. The volume is too low to trigger anything other than neurological adaptations. Do more low rep sets and you can get the volume.

 

[Duality]

Duality.... you were the one who agreed it was possible to bench 405 for 12 reps and not have a big chest, that's just silly. Someone is taking some thing in absolutes here, but it's not me...

please don't avoid responding to my post with this. and big is a relative term.



how's this for a prime example, my chest is easily bigger than blake's, but his pressing is easily stronger than my own. our training styles are identical. explanation please.

 

[theweapon]

One rep training will build no size...

one rep=heavy weight.

if you do 12-15 reps it isnt heavy.

 

[Ironslave]

please don't avoid responding to my post with this. and big is a relative term.



how's this for a prime example, my chest is easily bigger than blake's, but his pressing is easily stronger than my own. explanation please.

genetics/biomechanics/anabolics? I'm sure neither of you have a "small" chest.

 

[Duality]

one rep=heavy weight.

if you do 12-15 reps it isnt heavy.

weapon "heavy" is a relative term. someone squatting 500lbs for 10 is still using heavy weight.

 

[Duality]

genetics/biomechanics/anabolics? I'm sure neither of you have a "small" chest.

the kid is natural and as i said has a fairly non descript build in terms of size (athletic looking and lean), but nonetheless, my point being, bigger muscles does not always equal a stronger than the smaller guy type deal. bigger muscles do equal a stronger person relative to themselves, but not always compared to others. this is where you would chalk it up to genetics. are we on the same page now?



edit: i'm referring to the other kid i was speaking of earlier. no blake's isn't small, but based off your theory his chest should be bigger. and my chest was this way prior to me using.