Strength and not bulk

I'm wondering if there is a certain way you lift or any other kind of workout to do if you want to build strength and get as little bulk as possible. I want to be strong but not gain as much muscle mass anymore. Thanks

well its simple, bulking workouts have a small number of repetitions (between 8 and 12 reps) and using 8-12RM weights. For strength training you need to do 20+ repetitions with a weight that is 30-35% of your bodyweight.
In case of bodyweight training the best way is this: do a max repetition set and then calculate the 70% of the max set and do 3-5 sets at 70%.

What are 8-12RM weights? When I use dumbells should I just use 20's or 25's? And also, how many sets should I do of the 20+ repetitions. Thanks for the help, much appreciated.

What exercises you wanna do? What you wanna get strong in? I started lifting SERIOUSLY June 1st, I went from a 185 bench to 225, and I started out deadlifting 280 and the highest weight I hit was 170, it all depends on your diet/activities.

I can give you some good exercises and a good bench program, with my bench program I go up 5-7 pounds every week.

Stephan:

I understand what you are getting at, because I became musclebound in the shoulder area from power lifting and it interfered with my weapons training.

Definitely using the smaller weight/higher rep technique will help.

One method I switched to for strength is body-weight exercises, which would include your basic pullups and pushups, or using resistance bands. You can build strength that way without a lot of bulk.

Kathryn

Powerlifting will *not* make anyone 'musclebound'. That comes from poor training form, sorry. High reps over long time (even body weight stuff) can cause over-training injuries which are painful and permanent - trust me on this.

As to the OP, strength training will cause muscle growth, no way around it. The amount can vary by genes, diet, and training type and amount. You would need to be much more specific about for what purpose you are trying to gain strength.

If you are trying to limit muscular hypertrophy and increase strength, then you are best off doing a low rep, low volume, high weight workout. The thing is, if you are starting weight training for the first time, then it is simply not a good idea to start off with such a workout.

When you start lifting, muscle growth is pretty unavoidable, and simple workouts are probably just as effective (if not more so) than complicated or specific ones. If you are looking to get stronger but not put on weight, then you probably are setting out with a wrong-headed notion of what more muscle means.

As Matt said, getting more muscular does not mean you should get slower, less flexible or anything of the sort. If that was the case, how could olympic gymnasts do what they do, since many of them are definitely muscle-bound. The point is, weight training just like any other sport requires you to work simultaneously on your flexibility (particularly your joint mobility), and your quickness. If you play football then you stretch properly, and you should do the same when lifting. If you don't then evidently you are going to do yourself damage in the long term.

If you want to weight train, and I highly recommend it for people looking to get better at their sport, then you should seek appropriate instructors and knowledgeable people who you can trust. I would also recommend you try to train at a gym, and not at home, where you can get advice and guidance on proper form, and maybe even meet others who have similar goals and will push you to do better.

I had a shoulder injury from Oly weightlifting days. I never really stretched at all.

I eased of the lifting after a leg injury. Took up yoga and both injuries cleared up. Started back in to lifting and kept the yoga up, and have been injury free for the past year.

I am shifting simialr weight now but have a far greater range of motion and overall flexibiity than I've had since well, I was crawling round in nappies (diapers, if you will).

Pilates coach and author Daniel Lyons credits Pilates for clearing up long standing BJJ and Powerlifting injuries he carried.

Just as the guys have said stretching properly is essential if you are going to do strength training.

20 reps or ore will not make you very strong. It has benefits and done right will not, in my experience anyway, cause any real overuse injuries but strength isn't something you'll get that way. 8-12 reps to failure for 3-4 sets and over a couple exercises per workout per uscle group usually puts on size fastest but that has more to do with genes and diet. Low resps (3-5), not to failure and for many sets will give you more raw strength with as little bulk as possible. But as several have said here bulk will happen somewhat at least.
And like others have said muscle DOES NOT have to make you inflexible though it can (and for me it has but that's an issue of not stretching enough).
an 8-12 RM means whatever weight you can do for no more than 8-12 reps (i.e 8, 10, 12, or whatever you're concerned with) without stopping using a maximum effort (to failure).
And as has also been stated, DEFINITELY get some classes or at least books on the subject before you hit the iron pile. Injuries are the biggest problem with young athletes who use weights. I've seen guys tear pecs before (in high school), it's not pretty.

Sure, I'd like to know your bench workout

Warm up set of 15-20 reps
8-10, 5-6, 3-4, 1-2. Sometimes I'll drop a few plates and grind out 10 or so.
After than I move to machine flies and do 3 or 4 sets of 10.

everyones opinions are hilariously different.

to gain pure strength without so much muscle growth, do 4-5 sets of 1-5 reps. a good one is 5x5, 5 sets of 5 reps. do reps fast and with good form. long breaks in between sets (few mins) and your set. also, focus on doing compound exercises, (eg, big exercises using lots of muscles) such as squats deadlifts bench press shoulder press. thats the fastest way to improve.

also, dont do 20+ reps. that will do almost nothing

Actually, that leads me to a question. I personally agree but have anecdotal experience that contradicts this as well.

I am among other things, a swimmer. One of my favorite swims is pulling, if your not familiar this is when you put a buoy between your legs to float them, then use large paddles on your hands to increase the amount of water you can "grab" which increases resistance.

As a result of years of swimming I developed quite large shoulders, back and chest muscle (my jacket is a 52L, up from a 42L in my early 20's).

Now some of that is natural growth through aging, but a large part has to be from years of swimming. Yet, I am doing far more than 20 reps, I average 14-18 reps a lap, and on any given day might go 80 laps or more.

So, how does that work?

Well, lets evaluate the above information on a split system of goal and efficiency.

1. Your goal was not to increase musculature, it was to become a strong swimmer. As you applied yourself to that task, your body adapted on an anatomical and physiological level, to help you achieve this. (did you know that in many long time high level swimmers, the actual shape of the heart itself changes due to the weight bearing horizontal position in swimming?). So through a regular volume of swimming, your back and shoulders developed to handle the workload asked of them.

2. Efficiency: The changes you experienced, came about through reps or 'pulls' in the 15-20 range per lap, and 80 laps per session. To equate this to weight training, this is a 1600 rep workout.
So, if someone wants to improve their power, and/or develop their muscularity, would it be more efficient to recommend 80 sets of 20 reps of a given exercise, or 5 sets of 5 reps for similar results?

Tour cyclists travel 120 miles per stage, effectively completing tens of thousands of 'reps' of leg press to do so, but that is the activity to which they apply their power and endurance. When it comes to gym work to complement and prepare for their activity, the volume is low, and does not seek to emulate the activity itself.

Efficiency is the key to good training - if you can achieve in 5 reps what you can achieve in 20, then go with the 5, and use the energy you saved to recover, adapt, and improve.

This is the only thing I disagree on. Just because that many reps won't accomplish your goals doesn't mean it does nothing. That approach simply developes different types of muscle fibers and works the CNS in a very different way.

But it has been shown that even strength-endurance is more effectively trained by improving recovery time and raising lactic threshold, not burning out at higher reps with traditional isolated weight training movements.

The old 'high rep, lighter weight, high volume for stamina' is just that. Old. We know better know, and with that, it would be wise to use that knowledge.

So you're saying that muscle stamina is built through low reps/high weight with proper diet and recovery? Not buying it.
SSimply because I know when I spent a decent portion of my training utilizing 15-20 reps or more on say weighted pushups or bench presses I don't lose my pushup ability. When I just do the powerlifting style of training even with great recovery I only maintain the ability to do about 45-50 pushups. When I add in higher reps I can manage in the 70's.
Now SOMETHING has to be changing to go from 50 to 70 push ups.
I don't care to be able to do 3 super heavy bench presses but nnot even come close to that for higher reps. When you have to do a couple hundred ready ups (moving the rifle from pointing at the floor to the target, shooting, and moving it back down) in a row you find out hwich style of training plays in most. That's why Special Forces and Rangers (who completely ignore standard Army regulation on basically everything) still include a lot of high volume, high rep training. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for me.

And I do some isolation work but that's not a real big part of my training. I spend more time doing military presses, bent rows/seated rows, barbell bench presses, barbell curls, dips, pull ups (often with weight), etc. Don't take my word for this though find one ofr your SAS guys and ask them how they train. That stuff is harder than most sports.

My suggestion is to seek the advice of a strength and conditioning professional. He/she will determine your fitness level then develop a program based on your current status and goals. Many of the suggestions make sense, but they may not apply to you. All these suggestions sounds like anecdotal evidence, but resistance training has/is becoming a science nowadays. The best advice anyone can give you is seek professional advice.

Where do I say that storm?

What I am saying is that use of HIIT, Tabata, barbell complexes, tyre flips, farmers walk, bear crawls, carry and drag drills, maximal reaction drills and a host of other exercises/training structures develop more strength endurance and stamina than f*cking about with high rep traditional lifts, even compound one's when structured in a traditional pattern.

Stamina is dependant on not incurring an unpayable oxygen debt, and having a conditioned recuperative facility. Thats why Tabata, HIIT etc work so well to develop stamina. SEAL's now use things like stair carries straight into decision making/combat tasks, so that they get used to operating effectively and thinking clearly at point of exhaustion. Its a damn site better than spending all day doing push ups. Oohah.

I agree with that. Also, have you tried doing a high volume of big compound lifts? I once had a workout with 4 sets of 12 deadlifts in it. After a couple of workouts I had to cut it out, it's horrific!

The most important thing to bear in mind with deciding a workout is the busy busy lives that most of us lead. We want to get the most out of our workouts, especially when we are doing them as a COMPLIMENT to our real hobby- martial arts. In most cases, high rep, high volume workouts are not only less effective at gaining strength, but also take longer, and make it more difficult to practice martial arts. I don't know about you guys, but I find it pretty difficult to have a good judo class with a sore back!

Seemed like you were somewhat implying it. I'm all for that stuff, and I know we include a lot of that in the Army. But there is a reason the Army and Marine Corps still uses the traditional stuff as a major portion.
When Iwas in infantry school about half of our hour and a half of muscle conditioning (on non run days) was spent on traditional stuff while half was spent on buddy carries, walking with 5 gallon water jugs, wheel barrow races up hills, rope lcimbing, kipping pull ups, buddy assisted resistance exercises, etc. I think it wasn't that bad at all. I saw the traditional stuff radically transform the bodies of out of shape guys in only a matter of weeks. It's easy to teach, lessl ikely to injure new guys, and can really do a lot of good, especially for guys out of shape.
In my opinion, the larger someone is the more useful things like pushups, crunches, leg raises and dead hang pull ups are.
One workout we would do would consist of 30 seconds of push ups, 30 seconds of pull ups, 30 seconds dips, 30 seconds crunches, 30 seconds jumping jacks, 30 seconds of military presses, and a couple others, running station to station and I thought that was one of the more useful workouts we did. Felt like it anyway. The Army (and more so the Marine Corps) has transitioned into a traditional/combat focused aprroach to fitness (sort of like crossfit) and it's extremely effective. Of our 3 days or so of running a week in infantry school, 1 or 2 (it would trade off long distance or HIIT) would be HIIT workouts. Even crossfit uses high rep calisthenic workouts at times. I think the fact that these things are still incorporated in most athletic and miltiary training is a testament to the efficacy of that approach. I'm not a fan of making it the major portion of training but to me it should be included in a complete fitness program. You really know a lot about a lot though (mentioning seal training).
It depends what you're training for though if you're a powerlifter then it's worthless to do that stuff. And my statement that 20 rep plus training develops different muscle fibers is scientifically accurate even if that's not necessairly the best way to develope those fibers.

OK. But why advocate anything but the best. I mean, you can walk up a flight of stairs in a handstand. It is slower, more difficult, and more exhausting than doing it standing on your feet, but it can be done. Why recommend it to people though?

The military have always relied upon bodyweight exercise, and will continue to do so regardless of research showing better options for reasons that can never change due to the nature of the organisations:

1. Recruitment training must be cheap as possible, leaving maximum funds available for military capability.

2. They are dealing with people en masse, so require comparatively easy, 'familiar' exercises that require little instruction, and no 1-2-1 tuition.

3. The conditioning culture must be portable, and achievable in any environment, including fitness maintenance for those deployed at short notice to areas where the infrstructure and amenities either do not exist, or are not available to them.

So your 'optimal' training is actually a cheap compromise based on what can be maintained within the limitations of the job.

If that were not the case, then why would every static base offer gym facilities? They wouldnt be needed, or more to the point, wanted, if the job specific physical training was complete and optimal.

For those not limited by miltary structure, there is no need to compromise in training methodology.

I never said that high rep bodyweight exercises should be a staple, just a piece of the training. I understand about the cost and cnvienence of it and you would be largely correct, but I know a lot of real tough, fit soldiers and fighters who strongly advocate the inclusion of that sort of thing. These are guys who love strength training, love crossfit (big in the miltiary now), they've almsot all tried p90x and most have college experience and they feel that the traditional stuff is still important as do I. To each their own but I think there is a place. In infantry school we had DS's even including pilates type core exercises so I think there is a palce for this sort of thing. I noticed some benefits in my own conditioning.
I'm not really sure how else you would actually build muscle endurance in the upper body without that sort of thing (whether it's high reps with weights or bodyweight). Like I said, I would hate to be a powerlifter and be told to do 200 ready-ups with my rifle and body armor on.

You trust in what you have been taught, and what you have done based on that teaching. Raise a child in a laboratory teaching it that the world is flat, and you will have a hell of a job convincing him otherwise when letting him out into the world.



and yet none of them demonstrate elite performance in any sport, where pro athletes use other training methods and do.



Pilates is a completely different ethos and practice to push ups.




How many push ups or 20 rep arm curls do you think a middle distance swimmer does in their preparation?



and I would hate to be an average soldier stuck under a bar and told to bench 500lbs, whats your point? I was not talking about using strength training to generate stamina, if anything you were

You have said yourself that, in your own experience, military physical training is expanding, they are incorporating pilates, and functional work ('strongman' type drills, crossfit circuits etc). If 20 rep sets of traditional weight lifts, or endless push/pull/sit ups were enough, then why would they be searching elsewhere?

With crossfit, gym jones, any and all other kind of work, if you look at the plethora of footage available of people doing it, what you see is rep obsession killing technique and biomechanical integrity. Hundreds of thousands of people screwing up their CNS by getting an extra 5 reps when they should just stop, and let the reps come over time. There can be limited adaption when the overload is not tatgetted or specific. If you can do 'x' reps properly, but continue to do 'y' reps like a sack of sh1t, you are not improving muscle endurance, you are kidding yourself and risking injury and unnecessary joint wear.

Then there are the 'classic' 20 rep circuits used by Rich Franklin - a series of gym stations done in succession, using weight a 10 year old could work with. Why? Its empty training.

Stamina is more and more being judged by recovery rate. It always was tested by both workload and recovery rate, as all clinical V02 max tests include a monitored recovery phase, but now the emphasis is becoming even more centred around recovery rate.

In military application, this is possibly most relevant, as, if you have to run a hard 200 meters to cover with full pack, not only should your fitness levels get you there, but your CV system should be conditioned to allow you to communicate, function, and even repeat the run in minimal time.

20 rep weight training simply doesn't give the body those tools. Sports science research knows it, the military are beginning to acknowledge it, and what you do is up to you.

It's best not to state something that you don't have facts to back up. One of these guys I served with was a high school and wrestling champion and freestyle champion who beat several state and national champions (including his brother who was state champion this year). He also was a varsity football player in highschool. Unfortuntly he got injured and then went to work and joined the Army.
Another was an all-asia champion in high school (grew up in the phillipines) his senior year then competed very successfully through college with all-american titles.
One is a champion runner. I knew a guy in high school who beat other guy who ended up placing 1st and 2nd in state one year (he got kicked off the team for grades before the state tournement) and trained that way. Why weren't you an elite athlete despite practicing what you preach and using all these high speed scientific methods?
20 rep arm curls for a swimmer? I don't know I'm not one. Ask me what wrestlers do because I did that. Either way I imagine swimmers do a lot of push ups. I gurantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that high rep bodyweight exercises are a part of nearly every olympic wrestlers training.
Boxers from decades ago made that trainign a staple and were arguably better than many of today's greats.
It's like the new "advanced scientifically developed supplements" that were never needed 50 years ago.

Ready-ups in combat and bench pressing in any situation other than a gym or powerlifting meet? The former is slightly more likely to be necessary. Ask guys who fought in Fallujah.
That comparison is a huge logical fallacy (faulty analogy).

My point with that statement was that high reps of things like pushups or lateral raises effectively builds the strength to do this repeatedly better than powerlifting or something similar. I'm likely to need to do those repeatedly. Therefore the training is better.

Then you say this " military physical training is expanding, they are incorporating pilates, and functional work ('strongman' type drills, crossfit circuits etc). If 20 rep sets of traditional weight lifts, or endless push/pull/sit ups were enough, then why would they be searching elsewhere?"

Why do you keep thinking I beleive that high rep calisthenics or weight training traditional style is enough or all yo need? I keep saying otherwise. All tht other stuff the Army is moving to is important but the traditional stuff is still useful and has a place. Now you have made a black-and-white fallacy. Why do we have to choose one approach or the other or why is only one approach useful?

(oh yeah and back to the elite athletes thing-your statements beg the question-DO they compleely reject traditional rep training?).

And then you talk about sacrificing form. You can do 20, 30, 40 reps, etc. in good form. Who says we need to sacrifice form if we use high reps? You may be righ or wrong and you probably know much more than I do, idk but watch the wording you take, there are a lot of glaring fallacies in your posts.

One other thing on military training. 15-20 mile ruck marches really tear down the body but it's something we have to be able to do so we train for it and that requires lots of rucking with a hevy pack for miles and miles. Just because it hurts the body in some ways doesn't mean we shouln't do it. Sometimes the job calls for that sort of thing bro.

That traditional training approach is as god or better for certain activities, maybe not activities you do but for some of us it's useful. A powerlifter doesn't need uscle endurance-I do though.

By the way, I hope I'm not coming across as rude or overly agressive. I enjoy these discussions.

Matt, I will have to respecfully disagree with you on that, because I am known for proper form. But it could be that we are thinking of two different things. I certainly wasn't injured or malformed in the upper body region (as my boyfriend would attest .)

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn. For clarity's sake, when I hear the term "musclebound", I think of stiffness and lack of dexterity. Proper weightlifting form will not cause this, so if you have experienced that as a result of weightlifting, your form was probably not as good as you think. I have lifted weights for 26+ years, and practiced martial arts for 25+ years, and never had an issue with being musclebound.

Luckily, even in the case of relatively poor form (limited range of motion, say), a gentle stretching program will solve any "musclebound' issues.

The world is full of people achieving great things despite their training. Ussain Bolt is a prime example - ask any sprint coach and they will tell you his running form is horrible. Now should he content himself with being as good as he is despite his faults, or should he attempt to become even better by fixing them?

As to me, well, frankly I was at a high level. Varsity, county(state), level rugby union, and 2 weeks before national trials I ruptured cervical vertebrae in a scrum collapse and never played again. Cest la vie. I was also doing all of this while training like a prat - overtraining high volume ,non specific gym work. I got smart too late, but at least I did indeed, get smart.



Imagination takes you far from reality.



and there is a specificity in that plane of motion for the sport. How much time to you spend 'wrestling' with the enemy in a fully armed war zone?



Now who is whistling in the wind on this thread?



Its really not. I am not talking about new, or 'wonder' discoveries. Its not reinventing the wheel, it is about understanding what stimuli works best for the desired effect, using existing exercises in synergy with optimal human function.



Its an analogy that you made and I responded to. Dont blame me for that!!??



Once again, for the 3rd time, i am not advocating, nor have I ever stated on this thread, that power training replaces strength endurance training if that is your goal. Never. Not once. What I have said, is that there are better ways of creating strength-endurance than f*cking push ups and high rep weight training. I said that because its true. The Military can't move away from compromised methods completely because they have to have something that works with no equipment, and is easy to implement and monitor across a large number of people. Its a compromise, and it could be better.



I have plainly stated, several times, why the military hang on to what they do. I can't be any clearer.



Those that have access to proper conditioning coaches do.



I would ask you again to read what I posted regarding this, then go find me crossfit footage of someone doing high volume bodyweight work with good strict form. I have found none, but am prepared to be amazed.



All the more reason that your conditioning regime be efficient, joint friendly, and designed in consideration of the high volume activity required of in your job.

You said "and yet none of them demonstrate elite performance in any sport, where pro athletes use other training methods and do." then
"The world is full of people achieving great things despite their training. Ussain Bolt is a prime example - ask any sprint coach and they will tell you his running form is horrible. Now should he content himself with being as good as he is despite his faults, or should he attempt to become even better by fixing them?"
So elite athletes that use the training methods you support count as evidence for your argument but elite athletes that take the approach I support don't count as evidence for my argument? Frankly I call BS on that.

"So your 'optimal' training is actually a cheap compromise based on what can be maintained within the limitations of the job."

You stated similar stuff through the whole discussion while I continually told you I didnt think it was the most important part of training.

Then you keep saying how the military hangs on because of convienance and money. That's only true in basic training. When you get to your unit that is no longer an issue yet they still continue incorporating traditional workouts into their overall approach. Why would that be? They have access to gym facilities and modern training methods and have the time when not deployed so why use high rep calisthenics still?
I think I have a little better idea of how the military works (in America anyway) than you do. You seem to think the military is all basic training stuff because that's the ONLY time when you don't have time and access to well equiped gym facilities.

And I don't understand how you've never seen someone do more than 20 perfect pushups or situps. I see that all the time. It's no uncommon. Even after an hour workout. I do it all the time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rICgEMAzc2w crossfit or not, doesn't matter. You can do a workout using sets of 20 reps or more with good form on all of them. You stop when your form gets worse.

I just don't get why elite athlete training methods are only evidence for your point bu not mine if they use the methods I think are valid. I think people in your neck of the woods would sa that that is bollocks.

OK. Here goes. Elite, professional athletes, all have a genetic advantage that practically predetermines their success to a point in their sport. It would be wrong to say that with any training system, you can take someone without these genetic advantages and make them world beaters. Life is not like that.
But there are more and more athletes who are finding that by training with biomechanics and kinesiology as the focus, not their muscles per se, that they are breaking plateaus, and reducing injury. In short, they are improving with smart training, not just hard training - and there is a difference.
Strength-endurance athletes across the board are replacing volume with specificity. Why should this not make sense to you?



But you have stated that it is part of your idea of optimal training. I am saying that if that nature of your job didnt involve the possibility of having to maintain your fitness in a non equipped environment, with no regular scheduled programme (ie, when deployed to a war zone), then aspects of that training regime could be swapped for more effective practices.



Answered above.



You know the military. I know the human body and how to train it to the best of its ability. Unless your're issued new physiology at boot camp, the rules of what works best apply to us all the same.

If you want to argue that push ups help your functional stamina, then fine, but seeing as how they do not focus on prime power generators, do not replicate any movement that will help you lift anything, carry anything, run with equipment, aid your grip, improve rotational strength, I think you are overplaying their value.

Much like in prison, high rep bodyweight work is favoured, because its available anytime, anywhere.



Well, to be fair, I was alluding to pull ups and the high rep crossfit footage you see than good old push ups.

For wacky push up form, you have to look to the record breaking crew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th9eRZkEj...t=1&index=1

I'll let you decide if this level of awesome stamina is more applicable on the battlefield, or in gay porn :/;)

Look, I get it ok, you are serving, and part of that is having to have absolute trust in the training you are being given, and the machine moving that cog. I would even say it would be worrying if you didnt get all up on your toes when it was questioned.

I have the luxury to speak freely and observe issues in your training. People like you protect that right, and I thank you, but it doesnt mean that you are correct in this thread.
War is your arena. If you tell me the best way to storm a building is 'A', then I am not going to argue 'B'.
Physical training is my arena. Before you enlisted, you trusted my advice, now you follow someone else's. That's ok, but dont go all shouty and throwing claims of 'BS' and 'Bollocks' at me because I say something you dont want to hear. Its not becoming of a man in your position.

"I have the luxury to speak freely and observe issues in your training. People like you protect that right, and I thank you, but it doesnt mean that you are correct in this thread.
War is your arena. If you tell me the best way to storm a building is 'A', then I am not going to argue 'B'.
Physical training is my arena. Before you enlisted, you trusted my advice, now you follow someone else's. That's ok, but dont go all shouty and throwing claims of 'BS' and 'Bollocks' at me because I say something you dont want to hear. Its not becoming of a man in your position."
Meh I'd pretty much agree that this is a reasonable perspective. I can respect that.
Now, I didn't say BS and bollocks to your opinion, because everyone is entitled to an opinion and it's my job to support the use of free speech, and god knows you know this stuff better than most, I said it because honestly you started coming across with what sounded a lot like a double standard and it sounded a lot like you were not listening to me when I told you that I didn't see high rep bodyweight training as the most important or even a real big part of training and it got to be extremely frustrating.
I'm sorry to sound a little rough, but I don't really care if that's manly or not. It doesn't really have much to do with being a man. Active duty troops tend to just talk that way. It doesn't really strike me as that shocking anymore. You get used to it after awhile. I'll try to avoid that out of respect though.
I don't mean to start a fight over this, I never thought I was being all that hostile. Just desensitization (sp?).
Sucks your vertebrae resulted in losing athletic opportunities, I got mono my senior year and it ended my wrestling season which was actually shaping up to be pretty successful.

And hey I really appreciate the thanks, we're not all the cold hearted murderers the media portrays us as. Actually we're under very similar ROE as police forces in most cases (well in Iraq anyway not totally sure how A-stan is I'll find out in 2012-Wish I could've been there for this deployment, I believe i nthat fight much more).

To hijack the thread, I wouldn't say that you guys are depicted as that at all. No matter how people may see the war(s), nobody I've seen (except nuts on the fringes) isn't respectful and greatful for the services you all provide.

And it seemed to me that you were not listening to my attempts to clarify my position. To quote Led Zeppelin, its a communiacation breakdown.



Well, I am not exactly a wallflower mate, I dont mind taking what I dish, its just you seemed to be having a go at me as a person, as opposed to the points I presented. Just suprised me seeing as how we have such a positive personal history on the site. No biggy though, I know the US military removes brain cells in all its ground force troops upon enlistment, so I'll put it down to that



Life is life. As long as you're breathing, suck it up and do what you can. Any other attitude and life will break you like a twig in a storm.

As to public opinion of the troops of all allied nations out in the middle east, nobody in your home countries will ever repeat the disgusting behaviour of the Vietnam campaign. We are all smart enough to understand that even if we think you shouldnt be there, its not down to you, and that you are doing a job in the name of your country that none of us answered the call to do. I also think that, while Iraq was a a complete misjudgement, Afghanistan was/is a valid response to an overt act of war - nothing else could have been done in light of 9/11, and kicking the Taliban in the nuts is a fine and just goal.

In the UK, love for the armed forces has never been higher. Heroes one and all. Now Dubya and Blair, that's another story.......

We know that, bro. You might be surprised that there is much military support here at home. I supported the Taliban action wholly, and even though I totally disagree with the Iraq action, I support the troops - period. You guys on the front line deserve nothing less.

You guys mirror my own thoughts on these conflicts prett much exactly.
And you're all right, there is a LOT of support here. I think even liberals realize the damage that is done in the long run by vietnam era vet treatment. Unfortunetly, there are a few places here (Portland OR for instance) where numerous people not only hate both wars but the military itself. My town deoesn't have that problem, most don't, but my buddy whose training to be a Marine officer gets a lot of s$it from people at PSU and in that whole city in general. It's petty sad. I know my German friends say that most people over there have a terrible opinion of us. And think 9/11 was just an inside job. Ugh drives me insane. It's too bad but there will always be people with crappy opinions.
The good thing is while you get that in some of the bigger pop. centers (like Portland or Seattle), the majority of places are not like that. I was shocked at the welcome home ceremony. Felt great. We had a huge biker group lead us home. And the benefits and job/education opportunities provided even for us reservists is astounding now.

Cord-It's pretty awesome that our "mother country" which was our biggest enemy for a long time is now our biggest ally. Despite bein pretty small I'm amazed at the contribution y'all make. Really good troops too. Some guys I served with hung out with the Brits on their last trip to Iraq. Most are A-stan now so I only met Aussies but that's alright I guess.

Back to strengthening. Is there any reason why suddenly now that I'm in my 20's I'm gaining strength and weight again? Is there truth to the whole muscle maturity thing?

Off topic continued: Any home-team anti military feeling is normally centred around towns/cities that have bases in them/near them. Heroes to a man they may be, but squaddies act like a$$holes in bars/clubs when their energies are not directed at an enemy. Tensions run high in local communities disrupted by such behaviour - got nothing to do with the job the military does. That is the dynamic in the UK anyway.



Back on topic, in short, yes. High test. levels combined with a body that is already conditioned by a history of hard lifting, and familiar with it, is ideally primed to make the most of it.

The great thing is that strength is probably the most age friendly facet of fitness. Even people in rest homes can register quick and dramatic improvement to mobility and daily function with basic monitored resistance exercise, and its not uncommon for power lifters to be competetive in their 50's and senior division weightlifters to take overall honours at comps.

Injury and lifestyle/motivation are more limiting factors than age.

Seems kind of paradoxical, gains usually slow down afteryears of lifting. That is until you hit your early 20's, then for awhile it speeds up. Seems that after years of "priming" the body,continued liting shouldn't slow gains.

well, its down to familiarity with the stimulus of training.

Example: When a youngster starts athletic training, the whole experience, from developing the NMC of the sport, to pushing the skeletal muscles and CV system to becoming able to complete the movements involved, is new. Because it is so alien to the body, the adaption rates are HUGE. Typically, this 'honeymoon period' lasts 6-8 months, by which time, the sport and the conditioning practices are familiar, and improvement slows down. In essence, the body becomes happy that it can achieve the tasks it has been asked of it, and further adaption comes harder, and slower.

By the time that kid steps on to the track as an adult on the world stage, those small increments, sweated out over years of training, mean that they are a world away from where they were after that 'magic' 1st year in their sport, but it also means, at the highest level, that all the hard work, all the hours labouring over technique, all the sacrifice, is in the persuit of improvements in the 100 ths of a second, or a meter, or even an inch, depending on the persuit.

The closer to your genetic potential you come, the harder the journey becomes.

That being said, if you have hit a long term plateau, then suddenly experience a renewed period of quicker improvement, then you can only question not the improvement, but the lack of improvement preceding it. The answer will lie in bad practice, over training, or lack of motivation, or varying combinations from that list.

Nobody hits their prime in their late teens, so if you werent improving, you were simply doing something to sabotage your progress.

Actually, I'm not really doing anything different. Of course, I had taken about 5 months off from serious lifting in 2009 so that probably had something to do with it. It's strange though because I had become weaker then when I was a senior in high school yet it's taken me about 9-10 months to make it up and actually shoot past my old bests. Seems like it shouldn/t take so long. On the other hand, my form is wayyy better than when I was in high school. I'm a stickler for lifting form now, so I guess maybe my old bests were an illusion from too much cheating.

The body is all about efficiency. All living tissue requires energy to maintain, so if you are not asking the body to do that for which the tissue was created, it will be discarded in the name of efficiency.
The CNS pathways opened and the NMC improvements do remain however, and so a return to previous abilities tends to always be easier and quicker. Equate it to the difference between hacking a new route through a jungle, and taking a well worn familiar trail.

If your previous bests were with sloppy form, then you are not merely traveling that established path, at some points you are fighting your way through new areas, and that is why your return seemed slower, but the improvement in technique is why you have found new improvement beyond previous levels, and is also why your opening statement:



is incorrect.

Yeah heh, I had to really think back to realize I actually am doing things VERY different. Primairly with form and recovery time (I used to not let my body recover at all hardly between workouts). It's only similar in terms of set and rep scheme.

There you go, so it is safe to say that your previous plateau in training was from overtraining, and not related to age

HA HA, I laughed when I read that.



With Storm being so young, I can't see age being a factor.

I didn't think it was age in the sense of my body slowing down, I had just heard that you reach your prime in your early-mid 20's and that's when you really make jumps after maybe plateuing for awhile as a teen. But that probably wasn't a real big part of it.

I think you actually hit your prime a bit later, maybe 27-28. That's when I hit my last growth spurt, and if you look at pro male athletes, usually you will find those to be their highest output years.

It's not an exact science, LaBron seems to have peaked at 14, but I am fairly certain for most humans, late 20's is the time period.

Samoans actually break that mold, they hit puberty at 9 and peak at 11.

Finally my numbers are going up; tonights workout saw higher reps at all weights (7 clean presses at 235 on the bench press as opposed to 4 or 5 at 235 a couple months ago).
I'm doing military presses with 65lbs. dumbells for around 5 or 6 which is new for me. Definitely feeling my motivation come back.