I've been training for a few months now, and I've experienced quite the opposite problem from what most people here seem to be dealing with. Despite the fact that I've experienced marked hypertrophy gains, I've attained very little strength gain. This is completely opposite from my goals of maximum strength with little additional muscle mass. I've been keeping my reps low and sticking to compound lifts, but my muscles are growing while my numbers remain dismal. Anyone ever experienced this?
Strength Goals Not Being Met
- Thread starter MichaelA
- Start date
My program varies a lot, mostly because I think I've settled on one routine and then I read a new article that contradicts everything I've just researched. This applies mostly to lower body work, so my routine looks something like this:
Wide-Grip Overhand Pullups - 3 sets of 3-5, depending on how many I can do
Dips - 3 sets of 5-6, depending
Bent-Over Rows - 3 sets of 10
Clap Pushups - 3 sets of 10
Squats or Bulgarian Squats - 3 sets of 5
Overhead Cable Triceps Extension - 3 sets of 5
Good Mornings or Deadlifts - 3 sets of 10 once a week
Sometimes I swap out exercises for others that work equivalent muscles, depending on how my back is feeling. I've also started incorporating some grip training, farmer walks, plate pinches, and hanging. I've found that my Deadlifts and Bent-Over Rows are severely limited by my grip strength, so I've started focusing on improving that. Otherwise I'd be doing 3 sets of 5 for the Bent-Over Rows and Deadlift.
Wide-Grip Overhand Pullups - 3 sets of 3-5, depending on how many I can do
Dips - 3 sets of 5-6, depending
Bent-Over Rows - 3 sets of 10
Clap Pushups - 3 sets of 10
Squats or Bulgarian Squats - 3 sets of 5
Overhead Cable Triceps Extension - 3 sets of 5
Good Mornings or Deadlifts - 3 sets of 10 once a week
Sometimes I swap out exercises for others that work equivalent muscles, depending on how my back is feeling. I've also started incorporating some grip training, farmer walks, plate pinches, and hanging. I've found that my Deadlifts and Bent-Over Rows are severely limited by my grip strength, so I've started focusing on improving that. Otherwise I'd be doing 3 sets of 5 for the Bent-Over Rows and Deadlift.
Strength is a CNS thing; it's time to beat up the GTO. I don't know how long you've been working out but you need to start working with some heavy singles, doubles, and triples and start grinding out some maxes.
You should go read all you can at
I'm not really sure about the structure of your program. Why clap push ups rather than heavy jerks or push presses?
Google Captains of Crush if you want to start testing and working your grip strength.
You should go read all you can at
I'm not really sure about the structure of your program. Why clap push ups rather than heavy jerks or push presses?
Google Captains of Crush if you want to start testing and working your grip strength.
I do clap pushups as a chest exercise because I'm absolutely uninterested in making my chest any bigger, even at the expense of strength. I don't plan on pushing too many boulders off of my chest out in the real world. The reason I've kept the reps it at 3 sets of 5 is because with the rest period in between sets 8 sets of 3 or something like that would take a long, long time for the whole routine.
Then just skip direct chest workouts all together and rely on push pressing and db neutral grip push presses.
8 setsX2 min rest=16 minutes. There's really no reason to run every movement at an 8 set or so. You might look at Waterbury's stuff; he does a lot with the 10X3 and 8X3 and gets workouts done in 45 min-1 hour. Also, look at some of the Westside training protocols; they have a lot of higher set stuff but can easily get done in an hour or so.
It's up to you, but increasing max strength takes working at maximal levels to some extent and this means working in the 1-2 rep range.
What you seem to be aiming for is functional strength with minimal muscle mass gain.
This will only be achieved by doing heavy weight in low reps, building to high and then increasing the weight.
While most people recommend training the way power lifters do, this increases your mass. Functional strength gains are not common goals and therefore few people know how to achieve them.
Over all, the exercises would be best done in compound movements. Incorporating the right amount of cardio INSIDE the movements will help you achieve your goals.
I recommend signing up with a trainer to learn how to hit those goals, then apply what you learn on your own after you understand how to do it, if you desire.
Also, do not forget to eat proper amounts of protein and get plenty of rest. Those 2 elements can wipe out your gains if they are out of whack.
Last edited:
It won't, of course, just as it will not increase strength. Not eating right sabotages the whole thing.
However, training that way while not eating right for it WILL cause injury.
And we all know low reps, heavy weight produces mass. Mass does not always equal functional strength, and strength does not always necessitate greater gobs of mass.
You already know what we are talking about here. There is no need for me to define it.
Strength has been mistermed for so long, nobody seems to know what it is anymore. Lifting a heavy weight one time is not strength. Lifting heavy weight enough for daily tasks with it or performing actual work with it is true strength. Endurance, of course, is the ability to use strength for an extended period. Lifting a heavy weight once or twice is merely a stunt. True functional strength bridges the stunt and endurance into practical usage of your muscles.
For example:
Lifting a 90 lb bag of cement with one hand is a stunt.
Lifting a 90 lb bag of cement in one hand 15 times and loading a truck with them is strength. -Commonly termed as functional strength.
Lifting a 90 lb bag of cement one handed 50 times is endurance.
Unfortunately, today, low rep training leans to the stunt side of strength, and body weight exercises go to the endurance side.
On top of that, all else tries to be functional strength but fails in the fact that typical routines in the gym include isolation movements. Isolation is nonexistant in real life usage.
-And trying to move in daily tasks according to how you would lift in a gym is backwards. We should be trying to lift in a gym with the same posture we lift in real life.
....what?
Then why do we have guys in the 148, 165, and 181s that can put me to shame even w/o gear?
Reference?
Non-sequitur. You're assuming that heavy weights automatically produce mass gains irrespective of diet, which will be the factor controlling mass gain.
Strength training gains come from practice and from exposure to high-force training...heavy weights, or lighter weights moved fast, or moderate volumes of moderate weights.
This is the essence of PL training. Explain to me how this won't produce neurological gains, regardless of any mass gains.
Absolute strength is defined as the maximal force output that a given muscle or muscle group can produce. How does a 1RM not fall under this category?
The concept in your last statement here is strength-endurance.
Seems like you don't have that great a handle on the concept yourself.
Oh joy, a "functional strength" wanker.
Neverminding the false dilemma you're creating RE: 1RM lifting and strength-endurance training, let's think about this for a second.
Ignoring relative 1RMs, are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that if I add 100 lbs to my current 1-5RM that I won't have "functional" strength?
Hint: Don't tell me that if you don't want to get ridiculed extensively.
The term is "maximal strength".
No, this is strength endurance.
I'm seriously in awe here.
What you're telling me is that maximal strength work, which does wonders for both neural and anatomical gains, is worthless because you've latched on to some myopic notion of "functional ability"?
Wow.
Again neverminding the fact that the training is a foundation for the event, not the event....and that variety in training = better performances in *any* endeavor.....
Two things.
1) see above point about variation in training
2) Why in the name of God are you now making another non-sequitur regarding training heavy and use of isolation movements? Isolation work was a non-factor til you just brought it up out of thin air.
Specificity isn't simulation. Yet another flaw in your reasoning.
Dilly,
I don't know what your issue is, but try reading a whole post before you pick it apart.
My post made a few points quite clearly, and instead of reading through to understand them, you tried to counter each statement out of context.
I don't really care what you think. If you don't like what I post, that is your problem. -It doesn't change the reality of the facts I posted.
I don't know what your issue is, but try reading a whole post before you pick it apart.
My post made a few points quite clearly, and instead of reading through to understand them, you tried to counter each statement out of context.
I don't really care what you think. If you don't like what I post, that is your problem. -It doesn't change the reality of the facts I posted.
I did. Hence the point-by-point rebuttal, which indicates that the entire post was read.
I see. Appeal to ignorance fallacy. "My point is clear if you read what I wrote, even though you clearly read what I wrote and responded to it."
Appeal to emotion fallacy.
ie, if you could counter anything I said, you would have. Instead you counter with vague assertions that aren't backed up.
Dilly,
This is the last time I speak to you in this thread.
All you want to do here is argue with me, when the person who started this thread wants help.
Instead of hijacking for the sake of argument, how about doing some research? I will quickly answer your points you were rediculously trying to pick a fight with and hope you have the integrity to let this thread be used for help to the person who started it.
Answer: You are not making sense. I stated clearly that big mass gains CAN but do not ALWAYS DIRECTLY increase strength. -And you define strength as one single lift where I define it as more than a few. Therefore, the proper answer to why lighter weight guys blow you away is simple: they eat right and train different. -And, their lack of mass proves my point that they do not need as much as you to achive the same weight lifted.
My second point:
Answer: COMMON SENSE. If you run your body without proper nutrition, the body becomes weak and injury prone. Lifting heavier and more powerfully as opposed to lighter weight and at moderate speed forces the body to injure its self more freqently when malnutritioned.
My next point:
Your reply: Non-sequitur. You're assuming that heavy weights automatically produce mass gains irrespective of diet, which will be the factor controlling mass gain.
Strength training gains come from practice and from exposure to high-force training...heavy weights, or lighter weights moved fast, or moderate volumes of moderate weights.
This is the essence of PL training. Explain to me how this won't produce neurological gains, regardless of any mass gains.[/quote]
Answer:
1. No matter what you think, low reps and heavy weight DO by simple physiology produce greater muscle mass and denser bones. Food is the fuel, not the cause. Food fuels the body to provide the effects the body demands. When the fuel isn't there, damage to the body occurs.
2. Neurological gains? Since when are we talking about THAT? You have raised this issue simply to throw $8.00 words around without any knowledge of the process I am discussing. The issue here was how mass is not a constant in the strength category.
My next point made:
Your reply: Absolute strength is defined as the maximal force output that a given muscle or muscle group can produce. How does a 1RM not fall under this category?
The concept in your last statement here is strength-endurance.
Seems like you don't have that great a handle on the concept yourself.
Answer: Well, you have made an example of yourself and proved my point. You keep using theories, clinical definitions, and opinions to denote facts.
Look up the definition of torque in any book and it will not define it the same as you need to understand it for function in pulling a boat behined your truck.
A 1 rep max is irrelevant. -Unless you are a show-off or in a competition lift. Would you accept a torque rating on your truck for a 5 second max pulling a boat? I cannot imagine how manly comicbook or movie superheroes would be if they could only be super strong for one rep. The whole concept is useless in practical strength.
You assume my "concept" I "don't have a good grasp of" is strength-endurance". I already showed how endurance and functional strength is factored. You choose to deny common sense in favor of clinical definitions. Fine. Just remember, a lab is not real life.
Insults. Well, I guess we mock what we do not understand. You could have left that insult out and just asked questions to learn something.
1. Yes. If you can lift 1000 lbs in a bench press at 2 reps, for example, and another guy can do 450 for 30 reps, he is functionally stronger.
Common sense tells you that with both of you side by side under a truck, when pulling a transmission in and out a few times trying to make things fit, the other guy will be doing far better than you will. You will press the thing in once or twice, he will be going until the job is finished.
Which one was better at the real life application of his strength in normal tasks? How often do you lift something at work only once? Your concept of the definition of strength really is a gutted version of "potential" which is nothing until applied to task. -And application of a 1 rep max is again, useless.
2. If you choose to ridicule me extensively then you would have the maturity level of a 17 year old. If you cannot converse like an adult, at least keep it to a PM or something to leave the thread informative.
My next point I made:
Your reply:
I'm seriously in awe here.
What you're telling me is that maximal strength work, which does wonders for both neural and anatomical gains, is worthless because you've latched on to some myopic notion of "functional ability"?
Wow.
Again neverminding the fact that the training is a foundation for the event, not the event....and that variety in training = better performances in *any* endeavor.....
Answer: You still cling to clinical definitions. Neural gains can be accomplished other ways. Low rep high weight is not the end-all-be-all to everything. Incorporating low rep movements AND higher rep movements give better benefits rather than an either/or.
As you state, training is for the event. 1 rep maxes do not exist in real life work.
Not really. Isolation with 1 rep maxes is doubly useless. The body works in real life as a whole machine, not in isolation. Most people do high weight, low rep movements in isolating motions in some part of their routine. I simply pointed out the flaw.
My last point I made:
Your reply: Specificity isn't simulation. Yet another flaw in your reasoning.
My answer: If you see this point as flawed reasoning, nothing anyone says will help you understand the difference between real life and theory in lifting.
You said yourself, training is practice for real life. If you cannot work out in the same motions you use in daily activity, what the heck are you training for?
Nuff said.
This is the last time I speak to you in this thread.
All you want to do here is argue with me, when the person who started this thread wants help.
Instead of hijacking for the sake of argument, how about doing some research? I will quickly answer your points you were rediculously trying to pick a fight with and hope you have the integrity to let this thread be used for help to the person who started it.
My response: It won't, of course, just as it will not increase strength. Not eating right sabotages the whole thing.
Answer: You are not making sense. I stated clearly that big mass gains CAN but do not ALWAYS DIRECTLY increase strength. -And you define strength as one single lift where I define it as more than a few. Therefore, the proper answer to why lighter weight guys blow you away is simple: they eat right and train different. -And, their lack of mass proves my point that they do not need as much as you to achive the same weight lifted.
My second point:
Your reply: Reference?
Answer: COMMON SENSE. If you run your body without proper nutrition, the body becomes weak and injury prone. Lifting heavier and more powerfully as opposed to lighter weight and at moderate speed forces the body to injure its self more freqently when malnutritioned.
My next point:
Your reply: Non-sequitur. You're assuming that heavy weights automatically produce mass gains irrespective of diet, which will be the factor controlling mass gain.
Strength training gains come from practice and from exposure to high-force training...heavy weights, or lighter weights moved fast, or moderate volumes of moderate weights.
This is the essence of PL training. Explain to me how this won't produce neurological gains, regardless of any mass gains.[/quote]
Answer:
1. No matter what you think, low reps and heavy weight DO by simple physiology produce greater muscle mass and denser bones. Food is the fuel, not the cause. Food fuels the body to provide the effects the body demands. When the fuel isn't there, damage to the body occurs.
2. Neurological gains? Since when are we talking about THAT? You have raised this issue simply to throw $8.00 words around without any knowledge of the process I am discussing. The issue here was how mass is not a constant in the strength category.
My next point made:
Your reply: Absolute strength is defined as the maximal force output that a given muscle or muscle group can produce. How does a 1RM not fall under this category?
The concept in your last statement here is strength-endurance.
Seems like you don't have that great a handle on the concept yourself.
Answer: Well, you have made an example of yourself and proved my point. You keep using theories, clinical definitions, and opinions to denote facts.
Look up the definition of torque in any book and it will not define it the same as you need to understand it for function in pulling a boat behined your truck.
A 1 rep max is irrelevant. -Unless you are a show-off or in a competition lift. Would you accept a torque rating on your truck for a 5 second max pulling a boat? I cannot imagine how manly comicbook or movie superheroes would be if they could only be super strong for one rep. The whole concept is useless in practical strength.
You assume my "concept" I "don't have a good grasp of" is strength-endurance". I already showed how endurance and functional strength is factored. You choose to deny common sense in favor of clinical definitions. Fine. Just remember, a lab is not real life.
Insults. Well, I guess we mock what we do not understand. You could have left that insult out and just asked questions to learn something.
1. Yes. If you can lift 1000 lbs in a bench press at 2 reps, for example, and another guy can do 450 for 30 reps, he is functionally stronger.
Common sense tells you that with both of you side by side under a truck, when pulling a transmission in and out a few times trying to make things fit, the other guy will be doing far better than you will. You will press the thing in once or twice, he will be going until the job is finished.
Which one was better at the real life application of his strength in normal tasks? How often do you lift something at work only once? Your concept of the definition of strength really is a gutted version of "potential" which is nothing until applied to task. -And application of a 1 rep max is again, useless.
2. If you choose to ridicule me extensively then you would have the maturity level of a 17 year old. If you cannot converse like an adult, at least keep it to a PM or something to leave the thread informative.
My next point I made:
Your reply:
I'm seriously in awe here.
What you're telling me is that maximal strength work, which does wonders for both neural and anatomical gains, is worthless because you've latched on to some myopic notion of "functional ability"?
Wow.
Again neverminding the fact that the training is a foundation for the event, not the event....and that variety in training = better performances in *any* endeavor.....
Answer: You still cling to clinical definitions. Neural gains can be accomplished other ways. Low rep high weight is not the end-all-be-all to everything. Incorporating low rep movements AND higher rep movements give better benefits rather than an either/or.
As you state, training is for the event. 1 rep maxes do not exist in real life work.
Not really. Isolation with 1 rep maxes is doubly useless. The body works in real life as a whole machine, not in isolation. Most people do high weight, low rep movements in isolating motions in some part of their routine. I simply pointed out the flaw.
My last point I made:
Your reply: Specificity isn't simulation. Yet another flaw in your reasoning.
My answer: If you see this point as flawed reasoning, nothing anyone says will help you understand the difference between real life and theory in lifting.
You said yourself, training is practice for real life. If you cannot work out in the same motions you use in daily activity, what the heck are you training for?
Nuff said.
Clap pushups are good for building power. You dont necessarily need to "clap" but pushing yourself off the ground is a good way to increase power. This shouldnt be done by a newcomer, but someone who has trained for a few months and built the foundation first.