Strength Testing, Bench Press.
Options
Replies
-
AND you can fill the bar completely out to the edges.
Loveit.0 -
-
I made one small tweak to my bench last week and its made all the difference, and its something I wasn't doing form-wise that I used to do. Now I can get back to really pressing the weight up once again.TFaustino67 wrote: »Thanks guys; all valid points. Though I'd argue sloppy form
Tweaks? Yes. Always. Again, thanks.
Not all benches are created equal - and I somehow forgot that.0 -
I just picked up the two 20 lb dumbbells I have to see how many reps I could do with that. At a total of 40 lbs, I got in 35 reps with a few more left in the tank. That puts my estimated 1 rep max at around 87 pounds. If that's an accurate way of looking at it, that's actually not as bad as I thought I would be.0
-
0
-
Hit 3 sets of 5 @ 90 comfortably without a spotter this morning, that's definitely an all time best for me. Going to attempt 100 w/ a spotter this wknd.0
-
DjinnMarie wrote: »For me I'm not so much concerned with how much I can push, but rather how much I *look* like I can push.
I've always been the opposite. Function over form. Looking like you can lift a lot (but can't) is like having a pristine restored sports car with flashy paint and blingy wheels but with an anemic stock motor in it. I prefer to be the beat up, primered Camaro with the twin-turbo big block under the hood.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »TFaustino67 wrote: »Thanks Nate and good point - I'm on the same boat with Db and am still reading through. I'm currently on Cycle 2 week 1 - behind the curve but its the holidays..what are you gonna do
So you were on 5's week and you missed 4 reps? If you're only on your 2nd cycle and you're missing reps then I'm going to say that you set your Training Max too high.
Agreed. Although I'm thinking something else is wrong. If this is only cycle two, that means he got at least 5 reps last cycle but then only got 1 rep with just 5lbs added to the bar? Something's wrong there.
FWIW, when I can't make my required minimum reps for 5/3/1, I deload my training max about 10% and keep going.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »TFaustino67 wrote: »Thanks Nate and good point - I'm on the same boat with Db and am still reading through. I'm currently on Cycle 2 week 1 - behind the curve but its the holidays..what are you gonna do
So you were on 5's week and you missed 4 reps? If you're only on your 2nd cycle and you're missing reps then I'm going to say that you set your Training Max too high.
Agreed. Although I'm thinking something else is wrong. If this is only cycle two, that means he got at least 5 reps last cycle but then only got 1 rep with just 5lbs added to the bar? Something's wrong there.
FWIW, when I can't make my required minimum reps for 5/3/1, I deload my training max about 10% and keep going.
It is possible, many variables with lifting. To me though a 2nd cycle failure usually represents the TM.
Honestly one of the best things I've read from Jim is his 5/3 Periodization and Programming. Basically you go ahead 5 cycles and then start back on the 3rd. Say your TM for the Press is 135 it would look like this
- Macro-cycle 1
meso-cycle 1: 135
meso-cycle 2: 140
meso-cycle 3: 145
meso-cycle 4: 150
meso-cycle 5: 155
- Macro-cycle 2
- meso-cycle 1: 145
- 2: 150
- 3: 155
- 4: 160
- 5: 165
It really does work and work well. I've had some good rep PR's and 1-rep PR off of this method. I know people criticize the slow addition of weight to the TM, and yes it is slow and gradual, but what people fail to realize is that your TM really has little to do with your 1-RM or absolute strength. It's more of a way to regulate your training and set yourself up for success.
0 -
Since there is a difference between benching with dumbbells and a barbell, I don't think the 87 pound estimated max that I previously posted is correct. Based on my thread here (community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10016739/weight-difference-between-machine-and-free-weights), it seems like I could possibly bench between 72-85 lbs for 10 reps if I was using a barbell, which equates to a 1 rep max of 97-114 pounds. That's better!0
-
-
DjinnMarie wrote: »For me I'm not so much concerned with how much I can push, but rather how much I *look* like I can push.
I've always been the opposite. Function over form. Looking like you can lift a lot (but can't) is like having a pristine restored sports car with flashy paint and blingy wheels but with an anemic stock motor in it. I prefer to be the beat up, primered Camaro with the twin-turbo big block under the hood.
My stature prevents me from ever pushing impressive numbers. So rather Than not being able to lift a lot, and looking like I can't lift a lot, I'll take looking like I can but actually can't. Form over function is my only option.
0 -
.DjinnMarie wrote: »For me I'm not so much concerned with how much I can push, but rather how much I *look* like I can push.
I've always been the opposite. Function over form. Looking like you can lift a lot (but can't) is like having a pristine restored sports car with flashy paint and blingy wheels but with an anemic stock motor in it. I prefer to be the beat up, primered Camaro with the twin-turbo big block under the hood.
I always wondered why they put a 6 cylinder in muscle cars to begin with.0 -
970Mikaela1 wrote: ».DjinnMarie wrote: »For me I'm not so much concerned with how much I can push, but rather how much I *look* like I can push.
I've always been the opposite. Function over form. Looking like you can lift a lot (but can't) is like having a pristine restored sports car with flashy paint and blingy wheels but with an anemic stock motor in it. I prefer to be the beat up, primered Camaro with the twin-turbo big block under the hood.
I always wondered why they put a 6 cylinder in muscle cars to begin with.
So us poor people can afford them and look cool. LOL
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »TFaustino67 wrote: »Thanks Nate and good point - I'm on the same boat with Db and am still reading through. I'm currently on Cycle 2 week 1 - behind the curve but its the holidays..what are you gonna do
So you were on 5's week and you missed 4 reps? If you're only on your 2nd cycle and you're missing reps then I'm going to say that you set your Training Max too high.
Agreed. Although I'm thinking something else is wrong. If this is only cycle two, that means he got at least 5 reps last cycle but then only got 1 rep with just 5lbs added to the bar? Something's wrong there.
FWIW, when I can't make my required minimum reps for 5/3/1, I deload my training max about 10% and keep going.
It is possible, many variables with lifting. To me though a 2nd cycle failure usually represents the TM.
Honestly one of the best things I've read from Jim is his 5/3 Periodization and Programming. Basically you go ahead 5 cycles and then start back on the 3rd. Say your TM for the Press is 135 it would look like this
- Macro-cycle 1
meso-cycle 1: 135
meso-cycle 2: 140
meso-cycle 3: 145
meso-cycle 4: 150
meso-cycle 5: 155
- Macro-cycle 2
- meso-cycle 1: 145
- 2: 150
- 3: 155
- 4: 160
- 5: 165
It really does work and work well. I've had some good rep PR's and 1-rep PR off of this method. I know people criticize the slow addition of weight to the TM, and yes it is slow and gradual, but what people fail to realize is that your TM really has little to do with your 1-RM or absolute strength. It's more of a way to regulate your training and set yourself up for success.
That's interesting. I've only read the original and Beyond 5/3/1. I might have to try that, especially with OHP (I've had to deload that one three times in the last year). I've also deloaded my bench once but have never deloaded my squat or deadlift. The super slow progression might be perfect for the slower lifts (and probably for squat/deadlift as I get closer to my genetic potential).
Agreed on your assessment of TM/strength relationship. Lower TM just means more reps but it balances out.0 -
970Mikaela1 wrote: ».DjinnMarie wrote: »For me I'm not so much concerned with how much I can push, but rather how much I *look* like I can push.
I've always been the opposite. Function over form. Looking like you can lift a lot (but can't) is like having a pristine restored sports car with flashy paint and blingy wheels but with an anemic stock motor in it. I prefer to be the beat up, primered Camaro with the twin-turbo big block under the hood.
I always wondered why they put a 6 cylinder in muscle cars to begin with.
Me neither. Muscle/pony/sports cars in general are pretty crappy cars. I've had two Camaro SSes and a Corvette (currently) and I love them to death. But I can admit that they are pretty cheap and crappy and inconvenient in general. But it's the performance that makes up for all of that. Take away the performance and it's kinda like, what's the point? It's like stuffing a rolled-up tube sock down your pants. Looks like it could be fun but when you put your foot down (or pants down) then the illusion is gone.
Personally, if I couldn't afford the "fast" version then I'd just buy something more practical. A v6 muscle car is pretty much the worst of both worlds. Slow AND impractical.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »TFaustino67 wrote: »Thanks Nate and good point - I'm on the same boat with Db and am still reading through. I'm currently on Cycle 2 week 1 - behind the curve but its the holidays..what are you gonna do
So you were on 5's week and you missed 4 reps? If you're only on your 2nd cycle and you're missing reps then I'm going to say that you set your Training Max too high.
Agreed. Although I'm thinking something else is wrong. If this is only cycle two, that means he got at least 5 reps last cycle but then only got 1 rep with just 5lbs added to the bar? Something's wrong there.
FWIW, when I can't make my required minimum reps for 5/3/1, I deload my training max about 10% and keep going.
It is possible, many variables with lifting. To me though a 2nd cycle failure usually represents the TM.
Honestly one of the best things I've read from Jim is his 5/3 Periodization and Programming. Basically you go ahead 5 cycles and then start back on the 3rd. Say your TM for the Press is 135 it would look like this
- Macro-cycle 1
meso-cycle 1: 135
meso-cycle 2: 140
meso-cycle 3: 145
meso-cycle 4: 150
meso-cycle 5: 155
- Macro-cycle 2
- meso-cycle 1: 145
- 2: 150
- 3: 155
- 4: 160
- 5: 165
It really does work and work well. I've had some good rep PR's and 1-rep PR off of this method. I know people criticize the slow addition of weight to the TM, and yes it is slow and gradual, but what people fail to realize is that your TM really has little to do with your 1-RM or absolute strength. It's more of a way to regulate your training and set yourself up for success.
That's interesting. I've only read the original and Beyond 5/3/1. I might have to try that, especially with OHP (I've had to deload that one three times in the last year). I've also deloaded my bench once but have never deloaded my squat or deadlift. The super slow progression might be perfect for the slower lifts (and probably for squat/deadlift as I get closer to my genetic potential).
Agreed on your assessment of TM/strength relationship. Lower TM just means more reps but it balances out.
Not just more reps but even good 1-rep PR's. I recently hit a Press 1-rep PR that is 40lbs better than my TM, similar results for Squat and Bench.
If you really like 5/3/1 then you should strongly consider joining his site. There is so much good information on there and many many intelligent and strong people as well. It's $20/month but there's several books worth of information on that site; it's rather invaluable IMO.
0 -
970Mikaela1 wrote: ».DjinnMarie wrote: »For me I'm not so much concerned with how much I can push, but rather how much I *look* like I can push.
I've always been the opposite. Function over form. Looking like you can lift a lot (but can't) is like having a pristine restored sports car with flashy paint and blingy wheels but with an anemic stock motor in it. I prefer to be the beat up, primered Camaro with the twin-turbo big block under the hood.
I always wondered why they put a 6 cylinder in muscle cars to begin with.
When I was in high-school my shop teacher had a stock 1969 Camaro with a 6 cylinder with around 300hp and that thing was fast!!!0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »TFaustino67 wrote: »Thanks Nate and good point - I'm on the same boat with Db and am still reading through. I'm currently on Cycle 2 week 1 - behind the curve but its the holidays..what are you gonna do
So you were on 5's week and you missed 4 reps? If you're only on your 2nd cycle and you're missing reps then I'm going to say that you set your Training Max too high.
Agreed. Although I'm thinking something else is wrong. If this is only cycle two, that means he got at least 5 reps last cycle but then only got 1 rep with just 5lbs added to the bar? Something's wrong there.
FWIW, when I can't make my required minimum reps for 5/3/1, I deload my training max about 10% and keep going.
It is possible, many variables with lifting. To me though a 2nd cycle failure usually represents the TM.
Honestly one of the best things I've read from Jim is his 5/3 Periodization and Programming. Basically you go ahead 5 cycles and then start back on the 3rd. Say your TM for the Press is 135 it would look like this
- Macro-cycle 1
meso-cycle 1: 135
meso-cycle 2: 140
meso-cycle 3: 145
meso-cycle 4: 150
meso-cycle 5: 155
- Macro-cycle 2
- meso-cycle 1: 145
- 2: 150
- 3: 155
- 4: 160
- 5: 165
It really does work and work well. I've had some good rep PR's and 1-rep PR off of this method. I know people criticize the slow addition of weight to the TM, and yes it is slow and gradual, but what people fail to realize is that your TM really has little to do with your 1-RM or absolute strength. It's more of a way to regulate your training and set yourself up for success.
That's interesting. I've only read the original and Beyond 5/3/1. I might have to try that, especially with OHP (I've had to deload that one three times in the last year). I've also deloaded my bench once but have never deloaded my squat or deadlift. The super slow progression might be perfect for the slower lifts (and probably for squat/deadlift as I get closer to my genetic potential).
Agreed on your assessment of TM/strength relationship. Lower TM just means more reps but it balances out.
Not just more reps but even good 1-rep PR's. I recently hit a Press 1-rep PR that is 40lbs better than my TM, similar results for Squat and Bench.
If you really like 5/3/1 then you should strongly consider joining his site. There is so much good information on there and many many intelligent and strong people as well. It's $20/month but there's several books worth of information on that site; it's rather invaluable IMO.
Was not aware of that at all. Will investigate, thanks.0 -
Dope and Sam... some really good conversation here, thanks. Most if it is well beyond my level right now, but it's good to think about and save for down the road. It's nice to see some more advanced/experienced approaches.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions