Weak chest (48yo male)

wiigelec wrote: »

steveko89 wrote: »

Regarding the size/strength correlation, you don't have to get huge to get relatively strong. Granted, it was in my mid-late 20s but I went from a similar starting point to over 225 in a little over a year after I started lifting while benching 3x/week. I'm 6'1" and stay around 170-175 lbs.

So you got strong with significant increases in muscle and bodyweight then cut down to where you want to be while maintaining strength and muscle mass?

Which is what I am suggesting the op do (granted I never mentioned the cutting that can come after the strength / muscle / body weight)...

The starting point I referenced was based on what I could lift, bodyweight was in the low 170s when I started in 2015 and in an old spreadsheet I have from 1/2016 I was already to a 225 max at 176. Admittedly my recordkeeping is dodgy going back a few years, I'm more meticulous now. I probably have the handwritten sheets somewhere but not in a google sheet I can access from work.

Even so, putting on 10-15 lbs is different than 50. However, that aside, whether the OP elects to gain 0 or 50 lbs we can agree that getting on a better program where he's benching more often is only to his benefit. Combine that with sufficient dietary protein, rest/recovery and at least maintenance level intake.

wiigelec wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

You don't eat to get strong...

So a guy nearly 6' tall weighing less than 160# and currently unable to bench 135 won't need to build any muscle or add mass to improve his leverages in order to get his bench up to 225#?

My max when I was 142lbs was 230 lbs, so it is possible to get stronger without putting on much weight.

steveko89 wrote: »

However, that aside, whether the OP elects to gain 0 or 50 lbs we can agree that getting on a better program where he's benching more often is only to his benefit. Combine that with sufficient dietary protein, rest/recovery and at least maintenance level intake.

Agree body weight is a personal preference. Being biased as a former bean pole I lean towards the get bigger end of the spectrum...

andyrusho wrote: »

5’11”, 158lbs. My bench press is awful , 135 max. I’m ectomorph and eating 3000 cal per day . Lately I’ve been doing “iso lateral bench “ ( machine press) , on that my max is a horrendous 108lbs.
I work chest once a week (due to my over training which happens quickly as skinny ectomorph). The goal is 225lbs someday !
Any tips ?

I'm literally the same measurements as you and eat the same every day. I bench twice a week, using the typical hypertrophy 12-6 setup. When I hit a wall, I stop bench pressing and do secondary lifts/accessory lifts instead. It helps me overcome the wall after about 4 weeks of doing this, and I'm also usually able to increase the weight on my secondary/accessory lifts within those 4 weeks. It's a win-win for me.

ZakariyaRyu wrote: »

erickirb wrote: »

Why not try switching to a strength based program too then?

Hypertrophy programs will also go much better for you after you have already build up a steady base of strength. I suggest getting strength in first, then switch to hypertrophy as an intermediate program

My hypertrophy program allows for growth on all but accessory lifts weekly. Is that really necessary?

Is your goal to get stronger or bigger? which one takes more precedence?

wiigelec wrote: »

Chieflrg wrote: »

You do realize that that organization responsible for that book lost nearly all their top coaches because of unfounded blanket context that is in that book that isn't backed by established evidence?

I'm not trying to down Rip for he does some good work especially for advanced age people, but that book has many holes for long term success and I certainly wouldn't treat the context as law.

Are you talking about the barbell medicine crew? That whole deal was about rpe and intermediate programming primarily the Texas method. Of course they are coming out with their new rpe based version of a novice program but the principals appear to be similar ie full body moderate volume moderate intensity.

As far as established evidence people have been getting strong for a long time using squat bench press and deadlift.

Have you read the book? It is mostly technical and mechanical explanations of form on the main lifts how and why to perform them in a specific manner.

It has many holes for long term success because the 3x5 increase intensity every session is a beginner program only intended to be run for a few months. It’s not intended for long term success. My personal favorite for long term success is some iteration of hlm.

Actually according to Jordan stated one big reasons was the online coaching extension of Starting Strength(SSOC) was competing with Barbell Medicine. Jordan was getting hammered about it while other coaches were using his or simular programming without the getting flack for it as he was.

While Austin has said many times he and Jordan would try to discuss the discrepancies from the book that was ignoring current evidence. Rip and possibly others(I don't remember exactly who else) would shut down any talk of why it could be wrong. These things were suppose to be open to discuss and Austin said that if it weren't for that, he would never of left.

Rip had no problems with Jordan's dislike of Texas Method or 5/3/1 as he ok'd and published Jordan's article explaining why those two particular programs are inferior to the majority of lifters. Rip even caught flack from Wendler himself for agreeing with Jordan and publishing the article.

I'm a huge supporter of the squat, dead, and press. I perform all of them frequently in powerlifting training and competitions as well as utilize them for the majority of my trainees templates I program.

That is not the issue. There are many misleading statements in the Starting Strength book as well as other books associated with SS. It would take forever to state them all here. The book has some really excellent content, it also has some content that is not optimal or misleading.

My point is anyone telling someone the first course of action needed is to gain 50lbs because their bench is lackluster.
Especially while there frequency is currently only once a week. This is not only incorrect, but potentially harmful. I'd hazard Rip would agree.

Yes, I've read the SS book several times in the past decade. Like I said it has some really good content, but if we choose to believe certain excerpts out of context of what we are applying the content to, we probably would be better off rereading the book to get a better understanding. We should also question content from books or individuals if we are to continue to learn.

https://startingstrength.com/article/a_clarification

Chieflrg wrote: »

I'd hazard Rip would agree.

lol