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.
Arugmentation is the key to clarity. If you were this sure of your positions, standing your ground wouldn't be of any consequence to you.
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 posts provided a defense agaisnt misinformation. THat's how they were useful.
My response: It won't, of course, just as it will not increase strength. Not eating right sabotages the whole thing.
Bull****. This can be disproven by anyone with three weeks to spare.
Answer: You are not making sense. I stated clearly that big mass gains CAN but do not ALWAYS DIRECTLY increase strength.
Which was a complete strawman argument from what was being debated.
-And you define strength as one single lift where I define it as more than a few.
I define maximal strength as a single lift. You define strength endurance as strength.
Context is key.
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.
Non-sequitur again. The small guys train the way that you said just a few paragraphs above wouldn't work, ie, like a powerlifter.
Care to explain?
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.
That's nice. Show it happening in the real world.
Again: Reference?
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.
Really? Show me this happening in the real world. Including showing me why we have championship OL and PLers that violate this statement with their very existance.
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.
Strength IS neurological gains, genius.
The issue here is that your total cluelessness is becoming more apparent with each sentence you type.
The co-existence of neural and anatomical gains apparently escapes you with your crusade to be "right".
Answer: Well, you have made an example of yourself and proved my point. You keep using theories, clinical definitions, and opinions to denote facts.
How silly of me to use facts 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.
WTF are you talking about? It does, if you consider context, ie, where the torque is being generated.
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.
Strawmanning with the 1RM again. Maximal strength deals with the 1-5RM in general, but ok.
While I love your car and Superman analogies, you'll have to do a bit better than this.
Also, take off the blinders and realize that training encompasses more than one method.
Training for max strength is useful and in fact foundational. The fact that you're on a "fucntional" kick means ****-all.
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.
Lab my ass. I'm stronger than you and I'll outperform you.
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.
I don't generally assume I can learn much from someone that shows a blatantly inferior understanding to a topic.
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.
I see. So now the bench press completely correlates to real-world performance.
Also, the guys I know that bench over 800 could come damn close to 450x30 anyway without training for it.
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.
Considering your complete lack of understanding that training != real world events, this paragraph is pretty useless.
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.
Ok. You're clueless. Moving on.
As you state, training is for the event. 1 rep maxes do not exist in real life work.
Again, you're completely ignoring the point that max strength is only rarely a 1RM.
That aside....who cares? Training up a motor quality doesn't require 100% specificity.
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.
You've been strawmanning badly but this is ridiculous. Nobody ever even brought up isolation work, let alone 1RMs with it, besides you.
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 would make sense if I hadn't just said that training does not equal the event about 50 times.
