# Functional Strength vs. One-Dimensional Strength



## SenorDingDong

Alright, I'm curious as to what your guys' opinions are on this topic.

Lately (especially in the gym) I've seen some pretty huge guys. The problem is, these huge guys, while able to move large amounts of weights in a pushing or pulling motion, have very little functional strength. 

For instance; the pull up. 

Huge guys use the excuse of, "well I weigh more," to explain why they can only do a few at any given time. 

Now, pound-for-pound strength is something that I've always believed in, and as accordingly, if you weigh 250lbs and I weigh 150lbs, we should be able to do the same amount of pull ups. Why? Because your muscles should have developed strength enough to pull that extra load of weight, as mine have for my smaller size. 

In layman's terms, the amount you weigh should not matter because your body should be, pound-for-pound, as strong as mine. 

But, of course, this isn't the case. Guys I see at the gym can, as I said, push and pull large amounts of weight, but have no "functional" strength, which means beyond moving a couch or a fridge, they are little more than useless. 

I only ask your opinion because I've become more and more curious over time. I am a very small guy at any weight because I'm very lean. I'm not tall, I'm just lean. I've had a lot of large guys at the gym comment on how strong I am for my small size, and in my mind it always comes back to that one thing; functional strength. Sure, I can only bench 160 right now, but I only weigh 135, and I haven't done strength training for over a year now. 

So what are your opinions on functional strength, one-dimensional strength, and pound-for-pound strength?

I've noticed that, especially when I am in a period of weight training, I am pound-for-pound much, much stronger than a lot of the huge muscle-head guys at the gym; I can lift more in proportion to my body weight, I can do more reps at higher intensity, and I can push longer without break. 

Am I wrong in believing that I, at 135lbs currently, shouldn't be able to do more pull ups or push ups than a guy who weighs 235lbs of muscle because his muscles should be developed enough for him to, pound-for-pound, match my strength?


----------



## USMarine75

You should have this conversation with one of the "mucle heads" at the gym... that way you can test their functional strength... personally.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Yeah you're wrong.
I used to be able to do many more pullups when I was lighter even though I'm much stronger now.
When doing pullups at 250 pounds, you are basically having to hold the equivalent of a 125 pound bell in each hand, not to mention the pull part.
Try and see how long you can hold a pair of 125 pound bells. Takes alot of hand strength.


----------



## SirMyghin

While I appreciate what you are calling functional strength, it is definitely a lot easier to do stuff like pull ups when you weigh less. The muscles have to do a lot more work to lift the 250 lb guy.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

One other thing to consider is that when the muscle heads are doing pullups they are often focusing on making the target muscles do all the work as opposed to the novice style which is to just simply get their chin up to the bar and speed through the reps.


----------



## USMarine75

Also, how are you defining functional strength? Using myself as an example (moderate "muscle head" here) I'm 5'10 205 lbs... I do dumbbell curls in sets with 55lbs (and I used to do them with 65's until I strained a tendon). That is somehow fake gym strength? I have no problem snatching something that weighs 50 lbs off the floor with one hand (and without hurting my back). How is that not functional strength?

And not to be a dick (<- people only say this when they're about to be a dick ), but seriously man... Go across the middle and try to catch a pass on me and I'll show you how that gym strength really translates. 









tl;dr


----------



## troyguitar

What is functional strength in today's world? If you can lift 25 or so lbs you can do any decent job (outside of being a pro athlete) with 100% efficiency.


----------



## SenorDingDong

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah you're wrong.
> I used to be able to do many more pullups when I was lighter even though I'm much stronger now.
> When doing pullups at 250 pounds, you are basically having to hold the equivalent of a 125 pound bell in each hand, not to mention the pull part.
> Try and see how long you can hold a pair of 125 pound bells. Takes alot of hand strength.



My point is, if you weigh that much, your body should be adjusted to that weight, meaning your muscles should be as strong at 250lb as they were at 150lb. 

It comes down to pound-for-pound strength; the amount of actual strength you possess in comparison to your weight/muscle size. 

Compare an MMA fighter to a weight lifter and you'll start to see what I'm talking about; the MMA fighter, while no nearly as large, is proportionally stronger, pound for pound; they lift larger weights in proportion to their own body weight, they can perform more reps at higher intensity, et cetera. 


I'm not saying huge guys are weak, only that they seem weak for their size. 

Sure maybe you can bench 300lb, but you weigh 250lb. 
That guy who weighs 180lbs and is benching 250lbs is, pound-for-pound, stronger than you. His muscle quality is better. 



And functional strength is the strength of movement in correlation to everyday movements, including flexibility of movement. 



USMarine75 said:


> Also, how are you defining functional strength? Using myself as an example (moderate "muscle head" here) I'm 5'10 205 lbs... I do dumbbell curls in sets with 55lbs (and I used to do them with 65's until I strained a tendon). That is somehow fake gym strength? I have no problem snatching something that weighs 50 lbs off the floor with one hand (and without hurting my back). How is that not functional strength?
> 
> And not to be a dick (<- people only say this when they're about to be a dick ), but seriously man... Go across the middle and try to catch a pass on me and I'll show you how that gym strength really translates.



Prime example, at 155 I was curling 50's. Pound-for-pound, I was able to lift more than you at far smaller size (even when I weighed 150 I was small for it). And not cheat reps, either; swaying doesn't count, and neither does arching your back or using momentum. 


As for being able to muscle me down, I believe that at my current weight of 135 it would be a disgrace if you couldn't. That being said, I'm also a 4:45 miler and a 2:09 800 meter runner, so it would all come down to catching me in the first place 



But this is neither here nor there; I've been in and out of an assload of sports and workout programs for a long time (I can never stick to one, they get too boring), and from what I've seen and even what you've told me, pound-for-pound the littler guy was stronger than the big guy.

Now I'm not trying to out-man anyone (it would be hard to do, as I'm not really a manly man in the first place) but I've always been pretty physically gifted, and I came to wondering if I was the only one who noticed the pattern between size and strength, or lack thereof.


----------



## Konfyouzd

I think you're mixing up practical and functional... 

And your reasons for going to the gym simply differ from theirs. You "kinda" sound like a hater.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

LOL at competing who can bicep curl more


----------



## SenorDingDong

Konfyouzd said:


> I think you're mixing up practical and functional...
> 
> And your reasons for going to the gym simply differ from theirs. You "kinda" sound like a hater.



I'm not saying any one way is better than any other, I've just noticed a large difference between the strength of a large muscled person and smaller leaner person. Then again, there are big guys like Mariusz Pudzianowski who are extremely well rounded and strong for their actual size, and guys like Ryan Hall who don't have much strength at all. 

I'm pretty sure I'm not mixing up the two: Q: What is functional strength training? - Strength/Resistance Training - Fitness Q & A - American Council On Exercise(ACE)


----------



## SirMyghin

JWGriebel said:


> I'm not saying any one way is better than any other, I've just noticed a large difference between the strength of a large muscled person and smaller leaner person. Then again, there are big guys like Mariusz Pudzianowski who are extremely well rounded and strong for their actual size, and guys like Ryan Hall who don't have much strength at all.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm not mixing up the two: Q: What is functional strength training? - Strength/Resistance Training - Fitness Q & A - American Council On Exercise(ACE)



That is due to inefficiencies with the human body. You should also not confuse strength training with body building as the goals and the results are somewhat different. At the end of the day, the stronger guy is still stronger though, in absolute terms. Getting gains to a certain point is the easy part, everything there after is tooth an nail. Those points differ by exercise, and person. 

While a gymnast may be impressive in strength to weight, they are undoubtedly not stronger, and may not even be as capable. At the end of the day you just get good at what you do. 

At the end of the day absolutes rule the game. If you can't lift it and he can, guess what, he is stronger. No dispute.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Again... You just sound like a hater. I honestly don't see why you care what other ppl do.


----------



## Winspear

My opinion..
Training for different goals!
Size =/= strength. 
Yes lb/lb strength is impressive, but if you're training for size that isn't going to be a priority. 
Simple as that. Do what you want to do and others can do the same


----------



## Winspear

Also, whatever the case they are going to be a hell of a lot stronger than 99% of the population, so what does it matter? Functional strength for what exactly?



troyguitar said:


> What is functional strength in today's world? If you can lift 25 or so lbs you can do any decent job (outside of being a pro athlete) with 100% efficiency.


----------



## USMarine75

Some thoughts here...

Totally agree with WCW above... dont want to get into a dick measuring contest, but since you pulled yours out I might as well... wait where the F am I going with this analogy? OK you know what I mean... moving on...

Strength increase is not proportional or even linear... if I had to guess I would say inverse log or perhaps sigmoidal. Meaning that initial gains are large (e.g. when someone that weighs 150 lbs and only benchs 90 lbs starts lifting), vs someone that has been lifting for years and only sees a moderate gain, and surely tapers off dramatically. 

The human body is very inefficient (mentioned above) when it comes to mechanical work performed (i.e if there is a god he sure built the equivalent of a gremlin or chevette when it came to designing humans). Put another way, you are arguing from a linear point of view.... as an example it is possible for a newbie to double his bench rather quickly from 100 lbs to 200 lbs max. There's no way a salty vet pushing 315 is going up to 630 any time soon, or in his lifetime.

I'm all for different kinds of fitness, but yeah you really sound like you're just hating. To each his own... and you're lumping everyone that lifts into one category. When it comes to the 'muscle heads' there is a huge difference between bodybuilding, strength training, athletic performance training, etc. There are many bodybuilders that are comparatively huge but not nearly as strong as powerlifters that are smaller than them and not 'aesthetically pleasing'. Sometimes you get a Franco Columbu (my fav) who is the best of both worlds:





^ pretty sure he's... ahem... 'functionally strong'


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Something else is that;
It's really not accurate to measure pound for pound strength with any one lift, especially not bench.
If a person was trying to be at their strongest pound for pound on bench, then that's the only lift they'd do because gaining muscle in the calves, thighs or biceps would only lead to diminished pound for pound bench strength.
A great example of this is the olympic lifters who compete in any of the weight classes other than the unrestricted super-heavys. Those guys don't bench or curl because it might move them up in class without an increace in their clean and jerk strenth.

Gaining muscle mass all over your body will most likely reduce your pound for pound percentage as measured by a single lift (even deadlift) vs just concentrating on that one lift only, but it definetly gives you more total funcional strength.


----------



## Bevo

I think its on a curve and after a certain point it get harder to move more weight.

When I was in my 20's and a boiler maker it was all heavy lifting, I could easily bench double my weight with out ever going to a gym.
When I did turn into a muscle head it took me forever to bench 1.5 times my weight, it just never came and it was like I was at the limit of my strength.

Good topic!


----------



## Necris

In my opinion if the strength and endurance you gain from lifting is useful in your day to day activities then it _is_ functional.


----------



## Uncreative123

Came into thread, saw OP weighs 135 lbs, exited thread.





JWGriebel said:


> My point is, if you weigh that much, your body should be adjusted to that weight, *meaning your muscles should be as strong at 250lb as they were at 150lb. *
> 
> It comes down to pound-for-pound strength; the amount of actual strength you possess in comparison to your weight/muscle size.




...But not before a hearty, "LOL". Strength is not directly proportional to size. This is FACT and it is something that can be measured. Imagine an X/Y graph going up at a 45 degree angle. A 150lb weakling doing 10 pullups is not proportional to a 200 lb man doing 10 pullups. It requires a greater energy expenditure at a higher weight- and I don't simply mean " well of course more energy is used moving 200 lbs than 150 lbs" It's not proportional like you think it is. 

Functional strength is a made-up term used by people who aren't strong/big/educated.


----------



## Explorer

OP, you are mistaken.



JWGriebel said:


> Huge guys use the excuse of, "well I weigh more," to explain why they can only do a few at any given time.
> 
> In layman's terms, the amount you weigh should not matter because your body should be, pound-for-pound, as strong as mine.
> 
> *Am I wrong in believing that I, at 135lbs currently, shouldn't be able to do more pull ups or push ups than a guy who weighs 235lbs of muscle because his muscles should be developed enough for him to, pound-for-pound, match my strength?*



Yes, you are wrong, and there is a physical explanation as to why you are wrong.

Smaller creatures can lift more in proportion to their body weight. An ant can lift 50 times its own weight. 

If you want to understand how this works, read the following article.

Strong Ants &#8211; Why Are Ants So Strong? &#8211; How Can Ants Lift Objects 50 Times Their Body Weight?

Smaller a creature is, the easier it is to be stronger in proportion to that creature's weight. 

Of course, you can continue to argue that your uninformed argument is correct and that physics and science are wrong. If so, good luck!

/thread if one is rational


----------



## SenorDingDong

Explorer said:


> Yes, you are wrong, and there is a physical explanation as to why you are wrong.
> 
> Smaller creatures can lift more in proportion to their body weight. An ant can lift 50 times its own weight.
> 
> If you want to understand how this works, read the following article.
> 
> Strong Ants &#8211; Why Are Ants So Strong? &#8211; How Can Ants Lift Objects 50 Times Their Body Weight?
> 
> Smaller a creature is, the easier it is to be stronger in proportion to that creature's weight.



This is more of what I was looking for in ways of an answer, and it actually explains what I was struggling to understand. So, thank you. 

I didn't know there was actual evidence of how the body works in that way. For instance, I was under the impression that your muscles should and always would properly develop in proportion to your size (a thought I came upon using Core Performance, which is all about developing functional strength in that you are not only working larger muscle groups, but the hundreds of tiny ones that support those muscles that, in most cases, are underdeveloped in larger-sized men).

I can totally deal with being wrong, so long as I know why I'm wrong.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Uncreative123 said:


> Came into thread, saw OP weighs 135 lbs, exited thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Functional strength is a made-up term used by people who aren't strong/big/educated.



You know what's even funnier than my weight? Bruce Lee weighed about 125 and was an inspiration for professional body builders and athletes everywhere. 

This thread wasn't made to put people down. I'm a hard gainer, meaning that, when gaining, I have to consume round 5000 calories a day, powerlift, and spend my day feeling like I'm going to puke for months before I can gain a single pound.


----------



## troyguitar

^ wait a few years, that will change! Getting old sucks.


----------



## USMarine75

^  And Franco Columbu was between 5'3 and 5'5 and 185 lbs, had 4% bodyfat, held numerous powerlifting/olympic powerlifting records, did deadlift reps with 700lbs... and was *a real inspiration for bodybuilders and athletes everywhere. *

I don't think you understand that there is a difference between Bruce Lee's type of fitness and Ronnie Coleman. Bruce Lee (or Ronnie) is not better, he is _different_. It's not "one size fits all". And it seems like you're still just hell bent on shitting on 'muscle heads'. 

e.g.

Usain Bolt (200lbs) could outrun us all. He ran a 9.69 100m in 2008, with approx a 1.7 (1st) 10 yd split. But, at 346 lbs Memphis DT Dontari Poe ran a 1.7 10 yd split (and 4.98 40 yd). 




vs




Who's functionally stronger? Well, if they're playing football and trying to stop the run while being doubleteamed by two 300+ lbs o-linemen, then I'll go with Poe. If they're running a race, Bolt is still only the clear cut winner if they run more than 10 yards... Under 10 and nearly any NFL player could match or beat him (Titans RB Chris Johnson ran an official 1.4 10 yd split).

e.g.

With respect to comparative strength it's all in how you measure it and what you find impressive. Clearly your definition is 'multiple of bodyweight' (xBWT)... in that case the record squat is 6.01 xBWT by a guy that weighed 114 lbs and squatted 662 lbs. Comparatively, the overall record is a man that weighed 308 and squatted 1268 lbs for a 4.18 xBWT. So the bigger guy weighs almost 3 times as much, but he squats twice as much. I think both are equally impressive, but to say that the 114lbs guy is somehow functionally stronger (or better) is false. (b/c, regardless of multiple of bodyweight, at the end of the day the bigger guy is still twice as strong)

And sorry but there's no way you're pounding 5000+ C a day and maintaining weight. You're either gaining muscle or fat at that point, unless you're running marathons every day, training with Tiger as a Navy SEAL, or smoking crystal meth. (That's over _twice_ your daily caloric intake recommendation)

I'll go back to my first statement, since you're hell bent on convincing us that you're more fit than us 'muscle heads', go have this conversation with someone at your gym... that way you can test your functional strength theory. Maybe I'm getting bitchy here, but I've spent over 20 years in the gym and I don't like someone taking a dump on my chest without me paying extra for it.


----------



## SenorDingDong

USMarine75 said:


> e.g.
> 
> Usain Bolt (200lbs) could outrun us all. He ran a 9.69 100m in 2008, with approx a 1.7 (1st) 10 yd split. But, at 346 lbs Memphis DT Dontari Poe ran a 1.7 10 yd split (and 4.98 40 yd).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's functionally stronger? Well, if they're playing football and trying to stop the run while being doubleteamed by two 300+ lbs o-linemen, then I'll go with Poe. If they're running a race, Bolt is still only the clear cut winner if they run more than 10 yards... Under 10 and nearly any NFL player could match or beat him (Titans RB Chris Johnson ran an official 1.4 10 yd split).
> 
> e.g.
> 
> With respect to comparative strength it's all in how you measure it and what you find impressive. Clearly your definition is 'multiple of bodyweight' (xBWT)... in that case the record squat is 6.01 xBWT by a guy that weighed 114 lbs and squatted 662 lbs. Comparatively, the overall record is a man that weighed 308 and squatted 1268 lbs for a 4.18 xBWT. So the bigger guy weighs almost 3 times as much, but he squats twice as much. I think both are equally impressive, but to say that the 114lbs guy is somehow functionally stronger (or better) is false. (b/c, regardless of multiple of bodyweight, at the end of the day the bigger guy is still twice as strong)
> 
> And sorry but there's no way you're pounding 5000+ C a day and maintaining weight. You're either gaining muscle or fat at that point, unless you're running marathons every day, training with Tiger as a Navy SEAL, or smoking crystal meth. (That's over _twice_ your daily caloric intake recommendation)
> 
> I'll go back to my first statement, since you're hell bent on convincing us that you're more fit than us 'muscle heads', go have this conversation with someone at your gym... that way you can test your functional strength theory. Maybe I'm getting bitchy here, but I've spent over 20 years in the gym and I don't like someone taking a dump on my chest without me paying extra for it.



I don't mean to come off as saying I'm stronger than anyone or better. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two, and just like you can't see it from my perspective, it's hard for me to see it from yours. 

In my eyes, that 6.01 is stronger than the 4.18. That's simply how I see it, and although I can try, I can't really change my opinion more than saying that yes, the overall weight is more. 

That ant article really helped me see it a bit differently though, showing how that smaller guy was able to lift a larger load in comparison to his body.

As for big guys at the gym, I've had the discussion with quite a few. Some tell me how they can lift larger overall weights and are therefor stronger than smaller guys (I never use myself as the example), others see my point and agree. It isn't really universal, as I've talked to big guys that are able to do just as many A, B, or C as I can, and others who can't. I never said I was better than any of them; I just see a difference in the way our bodies are able to work.

And as for the calories thing, you don't have to believe me, but put it this way; I know guys who can eat a full bag of Doritos in one sitting, then put away a Big Mac and a large fry and coke, and that could just be lunch. Right there, your looking at over half the calories (albeit good ones) that I was taking in. And they wouldn't gain a pound. 

People's bodies are different. Some guys can get huge as hell the natural way, some couldn't gain a pound of they injected bacon fat into their bodies.


----------



## SirMyghin

USMarine75 said:


> And sorry but there's no way you're pounding 5000+ C a day and maintaining weight. You're either gaining muscle or fat at that point, unless you're running marathons every day, training with Tiger as a Navy SEAL, or smoking crystal meth. (That's over _twice_ your daily caloric intake recommendation)



I have actually witnessed that one before when I worked with a guy washing windows. Our job was not too strenuous but he would actually put away 4000 Cal during the day, and still eat at night after going to the gym and the like. He was 145 lbs the entire time. Some ectomorphs can have it pretty rough, until they age some. My comments were constantly how the fuck are you eating so much


----------



## Uncreative123

JWGriebel said:


> You know what's even funnier than my weight? Bruce Lee weighed about 125 and was an inspiration for professional body builders and athletes everywhere.
> 
> This thread wasn't made to put people down. I'm a hard gainer, meaning that, when gaining, I have to consume round 5000 calories a day, powerlift, and spend my day feeling like I'm going to puke for months before I can gain a single pound.



I hear this all the time. Why don't you post your actual diet. I'm pretty sure you're just estimating your cal intake, and I'm also pretty sure it's way off. Especially when you seem to be blown away that people can eat a bag of chips and a combo meal from MuckDonalds and not feel like they're going to die. 

I guarantee you don't eat anywhere near the amount you should to gain weight. 5,000 cal a day of CLEAN calories is an insane amount of food. Shitty cal, still a lot, but no way you wouldn't gain weight. 
Jay Cutler eats from 4k-7k and he's about 12 of you.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Uncreative123 said:


> I hear this all the time. Why don't you post your actual diet. I'm pretty sure you're just estimating your cal intake, and I'm also pretty sure it's way off. Especially when you seem to be blown away that people can eat a bag of chips and a combo meal from MuckDonalds and not feel like they're going to die.
> 
> I guarantee you don't eat anywhere near the amount you should to gain weight. 5,000 cal a day of CLEAN calories is an insane amount of food. Shitty cal, still a lot, but no way you wouldn't gain weight.
> Jay Cutler eats from 4k-7k and he's about 12 of you.




Home made gainer for snack one, and snack two, snack three out of six meals a day:

two scoops of protein (240 cals)
One tbsp olive oil (120 cals)
One tbsp flax oil (120 cals)
One tbsp real peanut butter, the kind you have to stir (150 cals)
Two cups soy milk (300 cals)
4oz Blue Goodness (85 cals)

That alone is 1015 calories, no bullshit in it, and when I was lifting I was drinking three of those a day on top of three large meals consisting of pasta (with olive oil), tofu, spinach, sweet potatoes, among other things, not to mention my post-workout shake made of pea, soy, and hemp protein.


----------



## Explorer

A few years ago, I was surprised at how important one aspect of strength could affect my personal life.

I was dating a woman but had to get up early the next morning, so I had said good night and left, only to be surprised at how clear the stars were that night, and how amazingly visible Orion was. I went back, knocked on the door, and asked her to come outside for a second. "But I don't have shoes on!" "Not a problem." I picked her up in my arms and carried her out, and we watched the stars for a while.

Since then, I've discovered that my personal definition of functional strength is being strong enough to sweep a woman off her feet, and to not tire out while holding her for a while. *laugh* This also allows one to fulfill one of the requirements of the Tao of Steve when first starting out with a woman:

Be desireless.

Be excellent.

Be gone.

Just doing something without it being a display, but a fact of life ("No shoes? I'll carry you.") impresses women.

----

My father was a fire fighter, and we used to talk about strength in the context of his job. There were people who wanted to join the force, but who were not physically capable of running up a flight of steps with the necessary mask, tank, axe, and of carrying another adult person with all that stuff. 

If the average person weighs a certain amount, and if it's important to be able to carry an average person, then it borders on humorous to argue in the middle of a fire that really, although they're going to burn to death because you can't lift them and run, you're really proportionally stronger than the people who got out. 

My dad had a pet name for people who would argue about the absolute requirements of how much one had to be able to carry. That name was "useless deadweight." People like that get you killed when there's actual danger around, which sounds like a good circumstance for which to test functionality.

Sorry, but there are two "R"s, reasons and results. Only one counts. Can you guess which one it is?

----

Sorry to have to go in this direction, but really, you're coming across as having a special definition of strength in order to feel special. Smaller guys can lift more in proportion to their body weight, but are more likely to fold after a decent punch from those who are absolutely stronger, no arguments about "Well, proportionally...!". 

Ants are proportionally the strongest things going, but given how little effort it takes to squish one, it seems like there are limits on how far one can take arguments for proportional strength. 

Glad I've never had to worry about someone arguing about why they couldn't carry someone wounded out of a combat zone, but were functionally stronger. That would suck ass, not to mention raising the risks of friendly fire. *laugh*


----------



## Uncreative123

JWGriebel said:


> Home made gainer for snack one, and snack two, snack three out of six meals a day:
> 
> two scoops of protein (240 cals)
> One tbsp olive oil (120 cals)
> One tbsp flax oil (120 cals)
> One tbsp real peanut butter, the kind you have to stir (150 cals)
> Two cups soy milk (300 cals)
> 4oz Blue Goodness (85 cals)
> 
> That alone is 1015 calories, no bullshit in it, and when I was lifting I was drinking three of those a day on top of three large meals consisting of pasta (with olive oil), tofu, spinach, sweet potatoes, among other things, not to mention my post-workout shake made of pea, soy, and hemp protein.



Well you did pretty much what I anticipated: you didn't list your diet after I asked you to list your diet, which leads me to conclude (again) that you were only estimating the actual calories you were getting, which again I think is off. I don't know what you expect anyone to tell you from this. A "large meal" isn't the same for everyone. And again, I really, really sincerely doubt you were eating three large meals of the quality/quantity you are saying you did. I didn't even eat that much when I weighed 100 lbs. more than you and I didn't have problems gaining. 

A lot of the calories listed in your drink are worthless too. I don't even count calories anymore as macros are far more important. Getting 5,000 cal a day doesn't mean much if it's nothing but cake or olive oil. The pea, soy, and hemp protein is a really poor choice as well.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Uncreative123 said:


> A lot of the calories listed in your drink are worthless too. I don't even count calories anymore as macros are far more important. Getting 5,000 cal a day doesn't mean much if it's nothing but cake or olive oil. The pea, soy, and hemp protein is a really poor choice as well.



I don't think you understand what an ectomorph is, but I'm just curious as to how these calories are useless, and how pea, hemp, and soy are poor choices of protein.

Seeing as size is the only thing that holds any credibility with you, I think you should give this guy some advice if you think vegan supplements are poor and useless:







If you're really curious; two cups of pasta (444), tbsp olive oil (120), two cups of tofu (176), large sweet potato (about 150), cup of spinach (about 10). Three times a day, and I guess my estimate of 5000 was a bit under. Then again, I don't eat the same things the same way every day, and I haven't been on a gaining diet in well over a year. 




Explorer said:


> A few years ago, I was surprised at how important one aspect of strength could affect my personal life.
> 
> I was dating a woman but had to get up early the next morning, so I had said good night and left, only to be surprised at how clear the stars were that night, and how amazingly visible Orion was. I went back, knocked on the door, and asked her to come outside for a second. "But I don't have shoes on!" "Not a problem." I picked her up in my arms and carried her out, and we watched the stars for a while.
> 
> Since then, I've discovered that my personal definition of functional strength is being strong enough to sweep a woman off her feet, and to not tire out while holding her for a while. *laugh* This also allows one to fulfill one of the requirements of the Tao of Steve when first starting out with a woman:
> 
> Be desireless.
> 
> Be excellent.
> 
> Be gone.
> 
> Just doing something without it being a display, but a fact of life ("No shoes? I'll carry you.") impresses women.
> 
> ----
> 
> My father was a fire fighter, and we used to talk about strength in the context of his job. There were people who wanted to join the force, but who were not physically capable of running up a flight of steps with the necessary mask, tank, axe, and of carrying another adult person with all that stuff.
> 
> If the average person weighs a certain amount, and if it's important to be able to carry an average person, then it borders on humorous to argue in the middle of a fire that really, although they're going to burn to death because you can't lift them and run, you're really proportionally stronger than the people who got out.
> 
> My dad had a pet name for people who would argue about the absolute requirements of how much one had to be able to carry. That name was "useless deadweight." People like that get you killed when there's actual danger around, which sounds like a good circumstance for which to test functionality.
> 
> Sorry, but there are two "R"s, reasons and results. Only one counts. Can you guess which one it is?
> 
> ----
> 
> Sorry to have to go in this direction, but really, you're coming across as having a special definition of strength in order to feel special. Smaller guys can lift more in proportion to their body weight, but are more likely to fold after a decent punch from those who are absolutely stronger, no arguments about "Well, proportionally...!".
> 
> Ants are proportionally the strongest things going, but given how little effort it takes to squish one, it seems like there are limits on how far one can take arguments for proportional strength.
> 
> Glad I've never had to worry about someone arguing about why they couldn't carry someone wounded out of a combat zone, but were functionally stronger. That would suck ass, not to mention raising the risks of friendly fire. *laugh*



Maybe we have total different taste, but most women I know find large men disgusting. 

As for the punch comment, obviously you've never watched boxing or MMA or any other sort of fighting sport in your life, because there are weight classes that go below my current weight. 

And in the end, I'm not trying to define special strength to make myself feel better; I'm totally comfortable with being a small guy. I always have been, and I always will be. Again, you seem to be under the impression that all small guys are incapable of carrying loads under pressure? I've seen fire fighters that were small, ropy and lean, and I doubt they are any less functional than the larger guys. 

Same goes with soldiers.


----------



## Explorer

Dude, you talking about what you view as my ignorance came across as total posturing. I can verify that I've never watched an MMA match, but but I'm fairly certain I've studied and taught martial arts longer than you've been alive. *chuckle* (That &#8220;reasons and results&#8221; thing is from Sifu Bakari. I&#8217;ll have to call him. *laugh*)

*You&#8217;ve undermined your entire point, incidentally. Your bringing weight classes into the whole thing acknowledges that on average, a smaller guy doesn&#8217;t have the same functional strength and endurance to take on a larger guy. The bigger guy hits harder, the smaller guy crumples. Reasons of proportional strength don&#8217;t matter as much as the results of having measurably more strength. *

Average smaller guys can&#8217;t carry as much extraneous weight beyond their own bodies as the average larger guy. The strongest big guy will always be measurably stronger than the strongest smaller guy, in the same way even a small elephant will be measurably stronger than the strongest large human. 

*A larger fire fighter can normally carry a larger human out of a fire than a smaller fire fighter. I don't care how scrappy you think the smaller fire fighters are, it's the same reason there's weight classes in fighting.* (Again, thanks for that example, which acknowledges what you don't want to.)

----

*Short version: Dude, you asked if you were wrong, said you were happy to admit it&#8230; but you keep arguing, meaning you don&#8217;t accept it. Science and physics have it wrong according to you, so there&#8217;s no use discussing it when the only way for you to continue arguing is to go the tinfoil hat route. Once someone dismisses the facts, nothing will convince that person, and it's not worth trying... but it is fun to see how far they'll go with their arguments. *laugh**

If it makes you happier, let me congratulate you on making the huge point that an ant is mightier than an elephant. Although even school children might perceive things differently, at least you can bask in being right.


----------



## Uncreative123

JWGriebel said:


> I don't think you understand what an ectomorph is, but I'm just curious as to how these calories are useless, and how pea, hemp, and soy are poor choices of protein.



No, I don't think YOU know what an ectomorph is. If you are even eating half of what you claim and not gaining any weight you have a serious genetic disorder and need to see a physician. It's that simple. 

Soy raises estrogen levels- again, really simple. Probably goes hand in hand with your not gaining weight. You probably have estrogen through the roof (your responses are some what indicative of that too, lol)



> Seeing as size is the only thing that holds any credibility with you, I think you should give this guy some advice if you think vegan supplements are poor and useless



Are steroids vegan? Guess the verdict is still out on that one. You don't know what this guy puts in his body, but that's a moot point anyway. 






> Maybe we have total different taste, but most women I know find large men disgusting.



You probably don't know any women then. See girls like boys, and women like men. Girls say the kind of shit you're talking about and most of them are full of shit. I know first hand and I've seen it many times. It's hilarious. Just like the nerd who says the 10/10 blonde w/ fake tits is really "2/10; elbows too pointy". Yet we all know if they ever got approached they'd blow a load in their pants before they could even get their wallets out to buy her a drink.


----------



## Explorer

Wisdom from another land:

I got an email just now from a friend who lives in Spain. He works out in the gym, runs on the beach every day, and used to work carrying tanks of propane up to people's apartments. (A lot of buildings don't have gas lines, so each unit has its own tank.) He left that job and now delivers wine, including to restaurants on upper floors with no elevator.

He's strong as a bull, and his email reminded me of his complaining about people who work on developing a tiny muscle, but who have never learned to use that strength in the real world, using only the artificial world of machines and free weights. Given that he was carrying around 50k plus the tank weight, and then going up a few floors, I'd argue that he was functionally stronger than some of those who can't combine exercises. 

That still keeps a neat division between functionally strong and proportionally strong. If you can't lift that full tank of propane to your shoulder repeatedly during the day and jog up a few flights, you're not as functionally strong as Jorge Luis. He was able to perform a function, carrying those tanks (and now carrying wine cases) up flights of stairs. 

This still doesn't support the case that proportional strength means someone is stronger, but at least there's a better example of what functional strength really is, instead of the odd but wrong definition proposed earlier.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Explorer, raping the assholes of newbies like always.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Explorer said:


> Dude, you talking about what you view as my ignorance came across as total posturing. I can verify that I've never watched an MMA match, but but I'm fairly certain I've studied and taught martial arts longer than you've been alive. *chuckle* (That reasons and results thing is from Sifu Bakari. Ill have to call him. *laugh*)
> 
> *Youve undermined your entire point, incidentally. Your bringing weight classes into the whole thing acknowledges that on average, a smaller guy doesnt have the same functional strength and endurance to take on a larger guy. The bigger guy hits harder, the smaller guy crumples. Reasons of proportional strength dont matter as much as the results of having measurably more strength. *
> 
> Average smaller guys cant carry as much extraneous weight beyond their own bodies as the average larger guy. The strongest big guy will always be measurably stronger than the strongest smaller guy, in the same way even a small elephant will be measurably stronger than the strongest large human.
> 
> *A larger fire fighter can normally carry a larger human out of a fire than a smaller fire fighter. I don't care how scrappy you think the smaller fire fighters are, it's the same reason there's weight classes in fighting.* (Again, thanks for that example, which acknowledges what you don't want to.)
> 
> ----
> 
> *Short version: Dude, you asked if you were wrong, said you were happy to admit it but you keep arguing, meaning you dont accept it. Science and physics have it wrong according to you, so theres no use discussing it when the only way for you to continue arguing is to go the tinfoil hat route. Once someone dismisses the facts, nothing will convince that person, and it's not worth trying... but it is fun to see how far they'll go with their arguments. *laugh**
> 
> If it makes you happier, let me congratulate you on making the huge point that an ant is mightier than an elephant. Although even school children might perceive things differently, at least you can bask in being right.



I admitted that I was wrong, and when the figures were brought out (the 6.01 vs. the 3.14 or whatever the numbers were) I simply stated that yes, I believed that the 6.01 was stronger. 

Since then the thread has been totally derailed into talk about women and getting punched. 

But, since you seem to be that guy who has a personal experience in every field possible and a story to back it up every time, and since you tend to argue far past the point when you've made it, I will leave my final reply as; yes, you were right, up until women/punching post, you were completely right, and I learned a lot from that article. 

But no, with the martial arts/fighting in general thing, I believe you are as wrong as wrong can be. Case in point, I don't believe you understand what goes behind a punch, because weight is only a small portion of it. It comes down to explosive strength, which again is further from the topic but since you insist on shitting on me for disagreeing, explosive strength is far more to due with speed than it is with weight. As for small guys getting beat up easily, look up Royce Gracie, if you will, and you will see that (when there were no weight classes) you couldn't be more off.


----------



## SirMyghin

JWGriebel said:


> But no, with the martial arts/fighting in general thing, I believe you are as wrong as wrong can be. Case in point, I don't believe you understand what goes behind a punch, because weight is only a small portion of it. It comes down to explosive strength, which again is further from the topic but since you insist on shitting on me for disagreeing, explosive strength is far more to due with speed than it is with weight. As for small guys getting beat up easily, look up Royce Gracie, if you will, and you will see that (when there were no weight classes) you couldn't be more off.



Sorry but 'explosive strength' is also known as impulse, or momentum (depending on which disciplines you belong to) and it is m*v. Mass times velocity. Force is of course rate of change of momentum (F=m*[dv/dt]) (or "F=ma" in laidmans terms of Newtons 2nd law). That aside, larger muscles contract faster. You don't see sprinters with tiny little stick legs, quite the opposite. How fast you hit something is only a portion of the equation, and a spec of dust flying at you regardless of speed won't have the mass to generate an impulse that is worth while. You are over simplifying the physics of the scenario. As I feel you will go back to the whole Bruce Lee punching thing from here, a bigger stronger guy, using all the same techniques, would do even more damage. The biggest factor in that technique is not speed, but directionality. Everything is moving the same way and acting together, in a line, which gives the largest additivity of force (simple vector addition), or just much more linear than a conventional 'punch'.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Yelp, larger muscles contract faster.
That's why even doing a complete whole body program and gaining much upper-body (non jump-assisting) muscle, you can improve your vertical leap greatly by squating and other leg building excersises.

In other words body-weight and vertical leap both going up at the same time.
Of coarse, if one cut out the upper-body specific lifts but continued the leg-work it'd be even greater of a % improvement.

Now I'm not voluntering for this one, but if the muscle (any muscle) were cut off the bone and hooked up to a torque tester, it would have both greater strength and speed after it was developed more (larger).

edit; like most things though, there is a point of diminishing returns. Getting sterodial super-huge like Ronnie Coleman probably goes past that point.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Muscle cut off the bone hooked to a torque tester...


----------



## Infamous Impact

Honestly what should be considered functional strength should be strength that depends on whether you would need it in the next week or so. Also, like the above, bigger muscles do help with strength and power. A perfect example is Kevin Levrone racing Dwain Chambers. He managed to run a really low time, and would've stayed with Chambers if he had better form and and a better start.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Muscle cut off the bone hooked to a torque tester...


 
Well at the very least, even if it didn't prove anything, somebody would be getting a free meal .


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

And again,


----------



## Explorer

Alright, you guys have made me hungry. I'm heating things up to make a steak....


----------



## Aevolve

Explorer said:


> Alright, you guys have made me hungry. I'm heating things up to make a steak....



Hook it up to a car battery and a torque tester before you cook it.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams




----------



## soliloquy

take it this way, a really fat person will have a REALLY easy time losing weight. all he/she has to do is lift a few cookies and they loose tons of calories in doing so. now a skinny guy/girl is to lift a few cookies, and they wont really loose too many calories. 
technically speaking, its the same work done for two different people. so why is it that a fat person looses more? because they are bigger.

muscle wise, i have a friend who weighs as much as me at 180. and hes an inch shorter than me at 5'11. he can do about 20+ pullups, and about 6 single handed pullups. i can only do about 8 pullups and zero single handed pullups. why? his body fat percent is at about 3% while mine is at about 19%. we both work out, and i have been working out for much longer than he has. however, he is naturally stronger than me.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

soliloquy said:


> take it this way, a really fat person will have a REALLY easy time losing weight. all he/she has to do is lift a few cookies and they loose tons of calories in doing so. now a skinny guy/girl is to lift a few cookies, and they wont really loose too many calories.
> technically speaking, its the same work done for two different people. so why is it that a fat person looses more? because they are bigger.
> 
> muscle wise, i have a friend who weighs as much as me at 180. and hes an inch shorter than me at 5'11. he can do about 20+ pullups, and about 6 single handed pullups. i can only do about 8 pullups and zero single handed pullups. why? his body fat percent is at about 3% while mine is at about 19%. we both work out, and i have been working out for much longer than he has. however, he is naturally stronger than me.



I really think you need to read this to see the reality of body fat levels.

In the book "SLICED" (by Bill Reynolds & Negrita Jayde), the states of muscularity are objectified as follows (I'll summarize each):

1. Full house = Over or near 20% bodyfat with no visible muscle definition and only a hint of separation between major muscle groups if those groups are very large. Basically a person in this state could be confused for a football linebacker. If you're higher than this bodyfat percentage, you'd be considered overweight/obese.




2. Hard = Some muscle separation appears between delts and upper arm. Abs are still not visible. Approximately 15% bodyfat.



3. Cut = More muscle separation appears particularly in the chest and back, outline of the abs begins to appear slightly. Approximate bodyfat level = 12%


4. Defined = Muscle separations get deeper in the arms, chest, legs and back, and abs appear when flexed. Approx. bodyfat level = 10%


5. Ripped = Abs are clearly visible all the time, vascularity in arms is prominent, chest and back separation is obvious, and face is starting to appear more angular. Condition can be held indefinitely. Approximate bodyfat level = 7-9%


6. Shredded = Striations appear in large muscle groups when they are flexed. You look small in clothes, but look fantastic when you're not. Vascularity appears in lower abdomen and in the legs. Condition can be held for several days with careful dieting. Competitive bodybuilders often aim for this state for competition day. Approximate bodyfat level = 5-7%



7. Sliced = Muscles and tendons begin to appear in the face when chewing, striations appear everywhere and vascularity appears everywhere. Bodyfat levels are close to 3% and subcutaneous water levels are near 0. Condition can only be held for a few hours at a time. Not a healthy condition to stay in due to lower water level.



Anywho, perhaps you can use this guide to determine how far you're progressing. If/when you decide to cut, make sure you give yourself 12-16 weeks to do it. It won't happen overnight, but the results can be striking when you get into the final 2-3 weeks.

EDIT: have to remove pictures, didn't work.


----------



## ShadyDavey

Interesting thread with some pertinent points- one of the few I've taken the time to read in depth recently. I tend towards "Hard Gaining" but mainly eschew weights as I'm getting old and my shoulders in particular feel the strain if I'm not careful however I did hit them moderately when younger. Now I tend towards bodyweight exercises and running so I would say that my Bodyfat is about 8% or so and I feel absolutely fine......there's no reason to change my methodology - it allows me to fulfil all the tasks I am likely to encounter which is functional enough for me!! 

That's it, I'm not going to weigh in on one side or the other except to say "horses for courses - do whatever works for you"


----------



## USMarine75

FYI... That Sheldon psychological somatotype ("ectomorph") BS is just that... BS. Not recognized by any medical authority and has no supporting literature/clinical veracity. Ahhh wouldn't it be nice if we could just shoehorn human evolutionary biology and morphology into 3 nicely defined categories.


----------



## Murmel

^
From my understanding, when someone calls themselves an ectomorph it's because they have a small frame and are just naturally skinny, not that they're saying that it's some sort of condition. I doubt that a lot of people think that it's some proven medical term.
I'm pretty tall, 189cm, and have always been super skinny with a hard time gaining weight. Right now I'm eating like a horse and working out though, so I'm gaining.


----------



## USMarine75

^ yeah it has been raped from Sheldon's original psychophilosphy usage (he was refering to personality types associated with body type lol). But, I just hate when I hear "oh I'm an ectomorph which _means_ I'm a hardgainer and half to eat 5KCal/day to maintain bodyweight" --> 

Oh, and fuck you Murmel for being tall and skinny


----------



## Murmel

I think it's stupid to hear things like that too, but people will always make excuses.

Yeah I've kinda started to embrace being thin as of late, it looks great when there's a bit of definition going on there too. Too bad I pretty much wasted my early noob gains 6 months ago when I didn't eat anything and barely knew what I was doing. Been trying more seriously the last 3 months. The hardest part is definitely the eating though. I HATE the feeling of being super full, and I don't have time to eat like 9 small meals throughout the day.

I'm a bit limited to what I can do though, my left shoulder starts to hurt during some lifts, like bench. I've tried without weight so many times, and it doesn't matter how I do it, it always hurts my shoulder. DB-bench is fine though.
I should probably go look it up, because being almost 18 with a shoulder that's already about to go to shits doesn't feel too good.


----------



## USMarine75

Just some thoughts from an older guy... but...

Never do shoulder anterior/posterior/medial delt lifts beyond horizontal plane that shifts strain from delt to rotator cuff and can cause potential damage.

There are a lot of excercises that strenthen your rotator cuff. People work out the major muscles but always fail to work the supporting structures. 

And FWIW... unless Sweden is like NJ the ladies usually prefer Brad Pitt to Lou Ferrigno


----------



## Murmel

I think I've had this problem for a while, I noticed it before I even started lifting when I was lifting heavy things with my left arm. Like bags of dog food and what not. Sometimes it felt like it was almost about to dislocate... 

The ladies I've met say they don't really care. And I don't hang out with all them hot party girls anyway. I hang out with the hotter, nerdy and hipster girls


----------



## USMarine75

^ Murmel, Swedish chicks are the Soldanos of women... they go to 11.


----------



## Murmel

^
I know, that's why I'm staying the fuck put here and not going anywhere else


----------



## USMarine75

I believe Lesnar was normally 285 and made the 266 heavyweight limit (?) for prefight weigh ins... whatever thats worth.


----------



## UnderTheSign

visible abs at 30% BF, where on earth did he store the fat then?


----------



## Uncreative123

soliloquy said:


> and i dont think that that is completely accurate. i base that on my old gym teacher. he was about 5'8, fairly broad shouldered(heavy bone mass) and weighed about 285lbs. he was cut with clear ab definition, and even his shoulders has visible cuts, as did his legs etc. however, his body fat % was at about 30%.
> .



lol, you might want to re-think this. Nobody has visible abs at 30% bodyfat. It has nothing to do with body-types or how big a person is. You will not begin to have visbile abs until 15-16% bodyfat regardless of size, amount of muscle, or anything, period.


----------



## soliloquy

Uncreative123 said:


> lol, you might want to re-think this. Nobody has visible abs at 30% bodyfat. It has nothing to do with body-types or how big a person is. You will not begin to have visbile abs until 15-16% bodyfat regardless of size, amount of muscle, or anything, period.



they aren't the most defined, but they are abs none the less:






only difference is that his abs were the wear point and his entire body was more cut.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Uncreative123 said:


> lol, you might want to re-think this. Nobody has visible abs at 30% bodyfat. It has nothing to do with body-types or how big a person is. You will not begin to have visbile abs until 15-16% bodyfat regardless of size, amount of muscle, or anything, period.


 
 Thanks.
This is nice to hear because it means I'm not as fat as I thought I was .

My abs have never in my life totaly disappeared, but at 5'8" 245 they are barely visable even though I train them once or twice a week.

At 220 they were fit looking but not ripped (skinned rabbit).
So maybe I'm around 10-12% when at 220ish?

Need to give up the 6-packs to get the 6-pack .


----------



## Uncreative123

soliloquy said:


> they aren't the most defined, but they are abs none the less:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only difference is that his abs were the wear point and his entire body was more cut.



OK? But that guy isn't 30% bodyfat. I'd say 16-17%. Why on Earth would you think that's 30% bodyfat??


----------



## UnderTheSign

Was gonna say, that doesn't look like 30%.


----------



## ShadyDavey

USMarine75 said:


> Just some thoughts from an older guy... but...
> 
> Never do shoulder anterior/posterior/medial delt lifts beyond horizontal plane that shifts strain from delt to rotator cuff and can cause potential damage.
> 
> There are a lot of excercises that strenthen your rotator cuff. People work out the major muscles but always fail to work the supporting structures.
> 
> And FWIW... unless Sweden is like NJ the ladies usually prefer Brad Pitt to Lou Ferrigno



That is precisely what screwed mine and yes, I am now working on the stabilisation/support structures. Not that _I_ used the term "Ectomorph" (recognising the proper useage)but I do find it hard to gain muscle, I am skinny and relatively tall (6'1"?)......I enjoy a relatively normal diet and have long since resigned myself to acceptance of that fact and enjoy being toned rather than hulking......

No, I make no pretence towards complete clinical and physiological understanding......I just am what I am /Popeye ^^


----------



## The Reverend

So there's no such thing as relative strength versus absolute strength? For instance, if I'm 6'2", 180 pounds, but stronger than other people, doesn't that mean I'm relatively stronger than them? As in I use more muscle fibers or something?


----------



## soliloquy

Uncreative123 said:


> OK? But that guy isn't 30% bodyfat. I'd say 16-17%. Why on Earth would you think that's 30% bodyfat??



i wasn't. sorry, should have clarified, my old gym teacher had similar abs, so more of a definition at 30%


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

soliloquy said:


> i wasn't. sorry, should have clarified, my old gym teacher had similar abs, so more of a definition at 30%



30 % body fat is deep into being obese, unless your gym teacher had abdominal muscle implants or synthol THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY he had 30% body fat


----------



## USMarine75

Is your gym teacher Zydrunas Savickas?






^ there be 30% bodyfat abs.... I'm sure nobody has ever told him he's fat (to his face).


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

USMarine75 said:


> Is your gym teacher Zydrunas Savickas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ there be 30% bodyfat abs.... I'm sure nobody has ever told him he's fat (to his face).



umm... He doesn't have abs,


----------



## SirMyghin

^^

I think that might of been the point.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

SirMyghin said:


> ^^
> 
> I think that might of been the point.



I am fail....


----------



## soliloquy

Wingchunwarrior said:


> 30 % body fat is deep into being obese, unless your gym teacher had abdominal muscle implants or synthol THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY he had 30% body fat



humm...unless the fat reader was off.

its odd how much a difference water, empty stomach and bowels do for the fat reading machines.


----------



## SenorDingDong

The Reverend said:


> So there's no such thing as relative strength versus absolute strength? For instance, if I'm 6'2", 180 pounds, but stronger than other people, doesn't that mean I'm relatively stronger than them? As in I use more muscle fibers or something?



This was my original attempted point (I used the wrong terms, apparently), but I guess it doesn't matter in the end...


Also, the body fat thing; isn't the (average) human with abs somewhere around 10-15%?


I know my sister (college athlete) swears that people on her team have 3% or 2% or some ridiculous amount, but I thought the lowest healthy amount was around 5-6%.


----------



## soliloquy

JWGriebel said:


> This was my original attempted point (I used the wrong terms, apparently), but I guess it doesn't matter in the end...
> 
> 
> Also, the body fat thing; isn't the (average) human with abs somewhere around 10-15%?
> 
> 
> I know my sister (college athlete) swears that people on her team have 3% or 2% or some ridiculous amount, but I thought the lowest healthy amount was around 5-6%.



well....if you work out and keep yourself busy, your immune system will be really really strong. as such, guys like my brother in law have a body fat % that ranges from .5 when hes REALLY killing himself in the gym to about 5%. the only time he ever gets sick is when he gets a headache or something and he turns into a total baby as hes not used to getting sick. i think the last time he was sick was like 5 years ago or something


----------



## Murmel

^
0,5% body fat when killing himself in the gym?

Dude, you're dead as fuck with 0,5%.


----------



## Infamous Impact

soliloquy said:


> well....if you work out and keep yourself busy, your immune system will be really really strong. as such, guys like my brother in law have a body fat % that ranges from .5 when hes REALLY killing himself in the gym to about 5%. the only time he ever gets sick is when he gets a headache or something and he turns into a total baby as hes not used to getting sick. i think the last time he was sick was like 5 years ago or something


You sure that it's 0.5%? Last time I checked going below 5% is dangerous because you'll be dehydrated to the extreme from lack of subcutaneous water, along with the fact that 3% body fat is inside you and is made up of essential fats.
This is 3% body fat.


----------



## Winspear

Yep haha..your numbers are totally wrong. Even pros barely go below 5% afaik and that's for a matter of hours for the show. I think most compete around 7%?

This is apparently 3%, for the record.


----------



## Winspear

Ninjad haha!


----------



## soliloquy

what method are you guys using for checking body fat?
there are several different kinds and each tells a different story. let it be the water/dunk test, or the pinch test, or those machines you either stand on, or hold in your hands.

i always use the electric ones and they each tell me different things :s


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Is that skinny mucsle man holding a bible and praying he won't drop dead any second lol?


----------



## Harry

Well if we're talking IFBB Pros competing at Mr Olympia level, I'd say 4% is what they tend to compete at.
It's often claimed to be 3%, but I doubt it and I would suspect the most accurate ways of testing would show it to be 4%. Still very low, but not as low as the "just about dead" level.
Some people would just about drop dead at a *TRUE* 3% bodyfat. Not everyone, but I doubt it's sustainable for any periods of time for some people.

The hydrostatic body fat testing (the 'drunk testing) and body fat scales are terrible inaccurate. Caliper testing is pretty decent.
DEXA scans are easily the most accurate it seems, short of an actual dissection. 
More info :

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know a few people that have got DEXA scans done and the results seem to be very much in line with what their bodies look like.

All this talk about bodyfat aside, unless you're an IFBB Pro competing for Mr Olympia, there is just really no need to be dropping below about 7%.
I'd say 7% is about the condition you would see male fitness models at for photoshoots and stuff. A lot of guys that don't compete in bodybuilding but just want to look good for some musical festivals where they go shirtless will often drop to that kind of percentage with certain "supplements".

For a totally natural lifter that doesn't plan to compete, there's honestly very little need to drop below 8.5-9% bodyfat. That sort of bodyfat level can also be maintained year round with no negative health effects too


----------



## Uncreative123

JWGriebel said:


> This was my original attempted point (I used the wrong terms, apparently), but I guess it doesn't matter in the end...
> 
> 
> Also, the body fat thing; isn't the (average) human with abs somewhere around 10-15%?
> 
> 
> I know my sister (college athlete) swears that people on her team have 3% or 2% or some ridiculous amount, but I thought the lowest healthy amount was around 5-6%.



Abs begin to become visible around 15%, not defined until 12%, and not popping until 9%. Your sister doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. First of all, as already discussed, 3% bodyfat is professional contest bodyfat level- levels that are only sustainable for very short amounts of time. Secondly, women have higher body-fat percentages than men. A woman at 16% bodyfat is about equivalent to a man with 10-11% bodyfat. Figure/fitness competitors are usually around 12% bodyfat. Therefore a woman at 3% bodyfat would be equivalent to a male at -3%bodyfat. 





soliloquy said:


> well....if you work out and keep yourself busy, your immune system will be really really strong. as such, guys like my brother in law have a body fat % that ranges from .5 when hes REALLY killing himself in the gym to about 5%. the only time he ever gets sick is when he gets a headache or something and he turns into a total baby as hes not used to getting sick. i think the last time he was sick was like 5 years ago or something




lol, dude where are you getting this information from? The only way to get .5% bodyfat would be dead, rotting in the ground for two months. Nobody stays at 5% bodyfat. Those are contest levels. IFBB's are usually around 7-9% in the off-season. Just because somebody says they're "X% bodyfat" doesn't make it true. 
Calipers are the least accurate method of measuring bodyfat. For me they've often given estimates that are too low. Electronic scales work decently (not the bullshit hand-held ones) and the best (and least convenient) method is the under-water testing one.

And let's not overlook the most important factor when it comes to these levels of bodyfat: it takes some serious elite knowledge, planning, and "supplements" to get down to super low level bodyfat.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY

Wingchunwarrior said:


>


that is one thick mother fucker


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

I've been wanting to test my bf% for a while, just to get some clarification haha
Calipers the best way for doing it at home then?


also, on thread title: surely the former helps the latter on principle, and development of the latter in several areas aids the former


----------



## mattofvengeance

Uncreative123 said:


> No, I don't think YOU know what an ectomorph is. If you are even eating half of what you claim and not gaining any weight you have a serious genetic disorder and need to see a physician. It's that simple.



You're my new best friend. If I were to believe in that somatotype bullshit, I'd be more ectomorph than anything, and I've had zero trouble putting on muscle @4k calories/day.


----------



## avenger

You are all wrong...

Functional strength is all about the legs.


----------



## soliloquy

Uncreative123 said:


> *Abs begin to become visible around 15%, not defined until 12%, and not popping until 9%.*



this guy is at 19%





source: T NATION | Dave Tate Project - Part 2


as such, it is possible to have visible abs at a much higher body fat percentage by working out your ab muscles a lot. sure, it will increase your waste and it may take away from the V taper look, and in comparison, it may make your chest look smaller, but it is possible to push your abs out


----------



## TRENCHLORD

avenger said:


> You are all wrong...
> 
> Functional strength is all about the legs.


 
No, we're all wrong. Functional strength is all about the third leg .


----------



## Uncreative123

soliloquy said:


> this guy is at 19%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> source: T NATION | Dave Tate Project - Part 2
> 
> 
> as such, it is possible to have visible abs at a much higher body fat percentage by working out your ab muscles a lot. sure, it will increase your waste and it may take away from the V taper look, and in comparison, it may make your chest look smaller, but it is possible to push your abs out




Haha, do you even know who dave tate is? I guarantee you 100% dude NEVER does direct ab work. It's all from squats and DLs. And I hate to break it to you, but just because one article says that is 19% doesn't make it so. Also- 19% bf is not "A MUCH HIGHER BODY FAT PERCENTAGE" than 15ish. They didn't even mention how they took the test (*as that wasn't even the point of the article*) Which means they did the test with calipers which always gives inaccurate results. Just like the bottom picture where it says he's 12% bodyfat- that is not 12% bodyfat. The one thing you'll eventually learn about T-Nation is that they LOVE to hype themselves. 
I'd say the first picture looks like 15-16% bf and the lower one is about 14%. But that doesn't make for very good reading does it? Especially when you're trying to push a specific program.

I'm sitting at 13% right now and I'm leaner than he is in that after picture, no question.

If you want LOTS of pictures to help prove this, sneak into the "rate my physique" section and look for the people asking for bf% estimates. Not a Tnation article on Tnation about how great Tnation protocol is.


----------



## soliloquy

/\ i'm guessing you're not too familiar with body fat % vs water weight %.

also, if someone is lifting professionally, it is rather silly to believe that the only muscle group the person ever works out is the one he/she focuses on. core muscles and back muscles are super important if you're focusing on dead lifts and squats. sure you can counter that with wearing belts, but thats a temporary solution leading to annoying back pain. 

only focusing on dead lifts and squats would present a reverse johnny bravo. not really the situation here.


----------



## Uncreative123

soliloquy said:


> /\ i'm guessing you're not too familiar with body fat % vs water weight %.
> 
> also, if someone is lifting professionally, it is rather silly to believe that the only muscle group the person ever works out is the one he/she focuses on. core muscles and back muscles are super important if you're focusing on dead lifts and squats. sure you can counter that with wearing belts, but thats a temporary solution leading to annoying back pain.
> 
> only focusing on dead lifts and squats would present a reverse johnny bravo. not really the situation here.



Your post is totally illogical. Body fat percentage and water weight do not directly affect each other. I think it is you who is very confused about how body fat is calculated. I said go to the forums and look at the pictures of other body fat percentages. I don't understand the rest of your post. Tate does no direct ab work. Squats and dls are really all you/he need for abs. Really surprised this comes as news.


----------



## The Reverend

I'm not gonna lie, when I read this thread, it just comes off as a bunch of huge muscleheads getting butthurt.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Reverse Johhny Bravo  
And yeah guys, the original topic of this thread has pretty much been debated enough, i don't think we need to argue.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

The Reverend said:


> I'm not gonna lie, when I read this thread, it just comes off as a bunch of huge muscleheads getting butthurt.



Or skinny guys trying to justify why they're weak and skinny

"but i can lift my self up a million times ZOMG!!!!"


----------



## Maniacal

I wonder what all you guys look like and how much you can really lift. It seems everyone on the Internet is an expert and excels in all aspects of everything in life.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

Just to add to my comment and to answer Maniacal's question, I am weak and skinny.


----------



## Maniacal

Me too!


----------



## Uncreative123

Maniacal said:


> I wonder what all you guys look like and how much you can really lift. It seems everyone on the Internet is an expert and excels in all aspects of everything in life.




Don't worry, I'll have a thread here in a few weeks with pics and everything. Everyone's welcome to come talk shit and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Maniacal

My comment wasn't an attack on you or anyone else. It just seems everybody as answer for everything. I guess guitar playing goes hand in hand with world class physiques!


----------



## UnderTheSign

You don't have to be Mr Olympia to think logically and know your shit, though.


----------



## Explorer

Maniacal said:


> I guess guitar playing goes hand in hand with world class physiques!



Given that my ability to exercise and to hold handlebars declined at the same time as my ability to play, that could well be true. *laugh*

Fortunately, I'm now back in the saddle, riding a bike for at least an hour a day, and slowly bringing up my free weight usage as my hand strength comes back. I'm also a huge fan of my old Bullworker, and of using a conference room at work when it's not occupied, in order to use either my bodyweight or the various bits of furniture as either weights or supports.

Anyway, I currently consider myself to be hugely pudgy. Normally I have an average-looking build in clothes, since I'm small-boned and 5' 10", but the fact that I outweigh some of the larger 6-foot-plus heavyset guys at work just demonstrates how dense I can be... which is probably evident from my posts here.

*laugh*


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

Thread brings the chuckles as of late, in a good way.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Uncreative123 said:


> Don't worry, I'll have a thread here in a few weeks with pics and everything. Everyone's welcome to come talk shit and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.



if you do so, can you please (and im begging ya here) please please please.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

wear a mask like the ones in this video?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Maniacal said:


> I wonder what all you guys look like and how much you can really lift. It seems everyone on the Internet is an expert and excels in all aspects of everything in life.


 
Is this some sort of jedi mind trick aimed at manipulating us to do oiled flexed and shaven poses for your own form of sick entertainment? lol

Well, I won't go quite that far, but I will pledge some training photos (we all look bigger with weight in hand lol) ASAP.
My lady will have to take them and will probably think I'm pulling an Anthony Weiner and sending/emailing them to some hot chick .


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I'll upload pictures tomorrow. That's a promise.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior

Maniacal asks for nudes: everyone posts them


What a player...


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

I lift, but prolly one of the weaker dudes in here. Post pics anyway


----------



## Maniacal

Yes!!! Please put oiled photos up. I want to see how strong your arse muscles are ;-)


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

what if it's hairy


----------



## Bevo

^ You guys!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Sorry guys, pictures tomorrow.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

I'm doing a 2-year progress thread around June, you cant wait till then Maniacal :3


----------

