Thread: powerlifters and muscle size
11-21-2005, 02:11 PM #1
powerlifters and muscle size
OK heres my question (or comment, I havent figured it out yet). If you listen to all of the advocates of heavy training=size you will find they believe just that, that strength GAINS add up to size GAINS, ok so if you try to get strong you will get big by accident. Great now what about eating????? I have quiet a few powerlifters in my circle at the gym who all dont consider themselves bodybuilders at all whatsoever, and laugh at me stuffing my face all day and taking time to assess symetry fiber types etc.. I do realize that certain muscle groups (usualy dealt by genetics) are lacking big time on each and every one of them, there backs are huge, thats about it back and necks. So me knowing that at least 4 of them dont eat 500+gms of protien a dy etc, they eat like normal people, when they are hungry(which is more than most because they are needing replacement nutrients from thier heavy lifting) but still no where near "enough" from a bodybuilding perspective. So I guees it is a question after comment...why do people still swear that training like a powerlifter will get you massive??? now for the comment.. you must train similar to a powerlifter and eat like a bodybuilder to get massive. comments????
11-21-2005, 06:41 PM #2Banned
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Pittsburgh, PA
I am not sure of your exact question. The theory of mass developement is this: Big muscles are generally developed with high rep training. The reason for this is that the muscle recognizes the work load that is being done, and therefore recognizes the need for glycogen. The large the muscle, the more glycogen it can store. There is another side to the coin. Lifting heavy will not necessarily make you bigger. If this were so, there would be no powerlifting weight class below 198 (except for maybe dwarves). Lifting heavy does require large amounts of energy and doing large volumes, say squats for 7 sets of 3 reps and three singles on Max Effort, will definitely thicken the muscle, but the muscle will lack curvature since the lifts are compound. Eating like a body builder is a statement I am not sure I under stand. Do you mean dieting or bulking? Body builders eat like slobs in the off season to get their nutrient levels very high in a small amount of time. Improper nutrition has its muscle building limits. If you don't change you food intake as your body changes, which is what you are telling me about your buddies, they will reach a size and strength, and find it difficult to get bigger. Anyone on this forum will tell you that if you don't increase carbs and protein when you reach equilibrium, you will see little growth. Hope I helped.
11-22-2005, 06:30 AM #3New Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
Serious powerlifter´s eat alot and good quality nutrition!
Probably something like 35%protein 25%fat and 40%carbs. Roughly though. Main thing is to eat enough!
11-22-2005, 10:56 AM #4
i tryto take in a gramof protein per pound of body weight and it works fine for me. please try to clarify your question,, i am not sure what it is your asking
11-23-2005, 09:12 AM #5
i was sort of asking who really thinks that meerly training for strength w/o the calories will produce muscle gains, my point is that it will not, although a lot of people get so oversimplified in thier beliefs that the end up telling people that if you get stronger you will no doubt get bigger. Has anyone read any of Dantes posts where he says "the greatest strength gains will result in the greatest muscle gains" of course he understands that you need to eat a lot as well. I just get sick of people telling others that if you get stronger you will be putting on the size, it is almost trivializing the importance of eating properly to reach your goals.
11-23-2005, 12:23 PM #6Originally Posted by BITTAPART2
IMO (very generaly speaking) bodybuilders tend to overexagerate(sp?) the importance of diet while underestimating the importance of proper workouts(following crap routines found in flex ect).
Powerlifters on the other hand is the opposit, they constantly evolve lifting science while neglecting diet.
Offcourse there are those in both "camps" that do both things right.
If you eat and workout in a way that makes you gain both strenght and size you are bound to gain muscle imo and I gain the most muscle when I gain the most strenght.
11-23-2005, 01:36 PM #7Originally Posted by johan
11-23-2005, 02:17 PM #8
I have always felt that some of the best physiques in bodybuilding started with or continued on with a foundation in powerlifting or strength training... for example from the old school like Franco C. or Arnold S. to the new school like Dorian Y. to Ronnie C. sure they have great genetics but besides that there muscle density is just insane... and I think a lot of that can be attributed to strength training... I do not know any powerlifters (or at least any good ones) that aren't concerned with nutrition... I mean this isn't Rocket Science nobody is going to build a powerful physique without proper nutrition.
11-23-2005, 02:31 PM #9Originally Posted by RJstrong
But for a powerlifter or bodybuilder not concerned about keeping a low weight proper nutrition could be a few servings of steak and potatoes with some whey shakes throw in over the day and to lose the weights just skip the potatoes
I think to many people put TO much emphasis on diet.
11-23-2005, 11:22 PM #10Originally Posted by RJstrong
12-10-2005, 01:14 PM #11
Not trying to sound like an Ass Kiss but Johan's knowledge is spot on as far as I'm concerned. Diet is overemphasized in bodybuilding while BS routines are overemph'ed. I respect powerlift for the sheer effort required (for some) to squat 3-4 X bodyweight. < Show me someone who can squat as "little" as 3x bw and I'll show U one large/muscular MF.
12-12-2005, 01:57 PM #12
all and all training for size and strength are to seperate entities, yes there are similarities, but they are very different, and diet is different , but proper nutrition is a MUST in wither sport. p.lifters have the advantage of not having to cut weight, at least not like a body builder, so the night before a BB show while the contesetants are trying to look more cut and starving, the powerlifter the night before the contest(or at least me) is out at the bar drinking and eating like a pig after weighing in. as a powerlifter i can give a fck about size, and i am sure a bodybuilder at a high level can care less about his strength, but is more focused onhis size. it really is hard to do both , training for size and strength . when you first start to lift you get a bit of both, but after you are experienced you really have to decide which way you are going to go if you are trying to be the best of the best
12-12-2005, 02:06 PM #13Originally Posted by Doc.Sust
12-12-2005, 03:57 PM #14Originally Posted by johan
Last edited by Doc.Sust; 12-13-2005 at 03:14 PM.
12-12-2005, 04:14 PM #15Originally Posted by Doc.Sust
12-12-2005, 06:32 PM #16
I am a powerlifter and i can tell you the proper nutrition is extremely important to me. Also, I like the comment someone up there made about only doing low reps. This is not true. As a powerlifter you must train for speed and explosive power, and light weight high reps is great for this.
I think the confusion people have comes from confusing strength training with bodybuilding. For example take the bicep curl. For strength and practical use you will not use "perfect form". Why? Because that is not how the human body works. You will using your delt, pec, bicep, forearm, and trap pulling that crap up. A BB however does not care about practical use and strength but wants to get the best bicep development possible, so strict form is required.
12-13-2005, 03:16 PM #17
bb and plifting are VERY different worlds!!!
12-14-2005, 09:29 AM #18Associate Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
anyone ever see bill carpenter from iowa? He is an awesome powerlifter. Actually great bench presser. His squat and deads are pretty respectable too though. He could enter a bodybuilding comp and turn heads. anyone ever see him?
12-14-2005, 10:02 AM #19Originally Posted by wrestler152
12-14-2005, 04:19 PM #20
Something that hasn't been mentioned is PLers who HAVE to worry about weight because they're pushing the boundaries of their class.
Size does equal mass, so those guys could never train for strength if strength did truly = mass.
Lighter PLers lift heavy, but don't take in the huge number of calories (protien or carb) that the big boys do. They get stronger, but they don't get more massive. That alone proves that strength doesn't necessarily = size.
Now, there may be a practical limit that they can reach without the huge intake, but, for everyone but the elite of the elite of their class, they can still gain strength without having to move up weight classes.
The real question is, "Can you get size without proper nutrition?"
It probably turns out that, like so many things in life, the answer is "Maybe".
Some people have metabolisms that make better use of what they eat, so they don't have to cram themselves full every other hour to gain size.
Some people have metabolisms that aren't so efficient, so they're forced to take in a larger number of calories to compensate.
That's what makes BBing and PLing part art, part science.
12-14-2005, 04:24 PM #21
the most interesting thing would be to pic out 1000 powerlifters totaly randomly and 1000 bodybuilders and compare avarage muscularity.
12-15-2005, 02:34 PM #22Originally Posted by RMBros
12-15-2005, 03:27 PM #23Originally Posted by johan
Wonder if you could get funding?
12-15-2005, 03:28 PM #24
12-16-2005, 12:22 PM #25
Look at the guys on the strongman show on ESPN, powerlifters, and they're gigantic.
12-16-2005, 01:26 PM #26Originally Posted by RMBros
12-16-2005, 01:29 PM #27Originally Posted by madflabby
12-16-2005, 01:48 PM #28
I still think that if you compere the avarage powerlifter with the avarage bodybuilder the powerlifter will have the edge in both strenght and size. But its just a hunch I have and nothing I can motivate except that the avarage bodybuilders shoots himself in the foot with his stupid routines.
12-20-2005, 03:51 PM #29Originally Posted by Doc.Sust
12-21-2005, 03:14 PM #30Originally Posted by johan
Obviously a 165 PLer isn't going to have a much size as a 165 BBer, because some of the PLer's weight will be fat and water.
Up at the upper end of the range, I'd say that PLers have some muscles that are bigger (tris and hamstrings come to miind), some are going to be smaller (quads and biceps).
There are some muscles that PLers just don't train and some that they train every time they are in the gym. That's just not the same plan that BBers have. Also, a PLer who is having trouble making weight will be much more ripped and have denser muscles than a big boy because he will have totally focused on NOT making size gains, because the added size = added weight.
By the way, why are we talking about Strongmen in this thread? They're a completely different style of athlete than a PLer. An SM must have strength and endurance, so they're much more likely to get hypertrophy (muscle growth) than a PLer is. An SM athlete HAS to do higher rep stuff, more like a BBer.
Here's a breakdown of who would win in a PLer vs SM vs BBer muscle comparison contest (for the heavy weights and above, the middle of the pack and little guys probably all look pretty close to each other):
Pecs - Probably the BBer. The PLer would have huge/strong pecs, but they aren't built like the BBer's. Plers tend to put mass on the outside of the pecs, where BBers tend to focus on the inside, near the middle of the chest. That means that BBer's pecs at least look bigger. SMs don't bench, so there's little doubt the SM would be dead last (except for Pudz).
Biceps - Close race between the BBer and the SM, but I'm going to give the BBer the nod. SM will have less growth due to flexion. The BBer will have a huge difference between flexed/unflexed. The SM has to lift HUGE weights for a number of reps, and things like stones and bus/train pulls count on your grip and the motion that pulls things toward your body (which normally works biceps - think about rows and pull downs here). The BBer's bis are one of his favorite things to work and they count for a lot during comps. Remember, "curls for the girls", right? No doubt here, PLer is a distant last because none of his lifts absolutely depend on bicep strength.
Tris - Close call between the SM and the PLer, but the PLer wins in my book. by sheer weight alone, the PLer moves more than the SM. Remember the bench record is something like 1000lbs (new this year) and the overhead press record isn't anywhere near that. PLers may bench with shirts, but the tris have to take all of the weight once it gets past a certain point - and the shirts don't help with that. SM just lifts things over his head and doesn't bench, so not as much chance for growth. BBer's will have much more defined, ripped tris, but their strength and size won't be close.
Quads - Absolutely, the BBer. PLers and SMs try to keep from using their quads any more than they have to - they simply aren't powerful lifting muscles like the glutes and hams.
Hams/glutes - I'm thinking the PLer, because he focuses on full ROM squats and DLs. Some BBers don't do ANY full ROM squats or DLs and SMs never have to do full ROM squats or DLs unless they are very short.
Calves - A champion BBer should win here (BBers with genetic trouble on the calves probably wouldn't). PLers and SMs don't specifically train calves. They do tend to be big guys with big calves, but I would think that a well trained super heavy BBer would have bigger ones.
Lats - Close between the BBer and the SM, but I think the edge will go to the BBer. SMs don't train lats too much and PLers normally only train lats the the same plane as bench, so they don't get overally growth.
Traps - SM all the way. An SMs job depends on being able to lift stuff over his head while standing. BBers try to keep a neck so they have visually appe****g, symetrical builds, so they don't try to put much mass on the traps. PLers do some overhead training, but not nearly enough to keep up with the SM - neither willl have much of a neck though (remember, we're talking about the big boys here).
Other shit - Who cares???? I don't care who has bigger serratus or delts or abs (just the muscle, or the PLer would win every time), so I'm not going to do a compare.
12-22-2005, 04:57 AM #31
that was a good breakdown
12-27-2005, 11:29 AM #32
Thank you sir!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)