That feel when you're the guy who has been hitting the gym

>>39431788
what program are you running? i didn't make any progress while i was running a full body workout 3 times a week, but when i switched to PPL 5-6 times a week with compound movements included in the programs my lifts went up and i finally saw some progress

Just accept you're a no-gainer and left for the sake of looking better than you would if you didn't.


I'm almost 5 years in....
Height: 5'7
Weight: 75kg

OHP 60kg x 5
Squat 110kg x 5
Bench 90kg x 5
Deadlift 140kg x 5


My time lifting/stats are horrible, but I look 100x better than when I first started lifting, and I have a really good metabolism, and I just look overall healthier.

Stop worrying about what other people say on here. People on here will never be happy with any results they get, it's called human nature, with a sprinkle of autism and lack of other life goals.

>>39431788
I've been going for over 4 years and I've never made significant progress.

>>39432155
Little over 4 years in...
80kg @ 5'10
sq/bp/dl/ohp: 90/75/115/55

>>39432155
u do bench 90kg x5 ? over 24 hours or over 90 seconds?

>>39431788
What programme?
How much sleep are you getting?
How many protons and how much fat do you eat on both on a cut and on maintenance?
Why don't you go have your blood-work taken? The works: hormones, lipids, vitamin and mineral levels.

The only way for a male to have such trash numbers after a year of lifting or even never having lifted is to have something bad going on health-wise. Don't listen to those "hard-gainer" fags, if you aren't on the average level of a non-lifter after a year on any semi-decent programme - you're sick.

>>39432271
>if you aren't on the average level of a non-lifter after a year on any semi-decent programme - you're sick.
warning, retard reddit logic

>>39432155
Those numbers are probably late-intermediate for your size. Doable in about 2 years, the fact that it took you 5 years to get there is probably due to any combination of: not eating right, sleeping too little, drinking, not periodizing properly, low T.

>>39432326
I actually did hit those numbers in the first year.

I just never really progressed after it. I don't drink, and I sleep 8-10 hours a night.

It's more so a combination of feeling depressed that I am training harder for less results, taking on new responsibilities in life outside the gym, not caring anywhere near as much with nutrition and tracking every calorie/macro.

I just got complacent and don't really care anymore. I use to be slightly stronger desu. I just stopped caring about pushing through, it just became an uphill hard as fuck battle that wasn't worth the results I was getting.

>>39432326
Or he just doesn't have good genetics.
Reason why the "everyone must be able to lift X by time Y" is biased, is because people who have shit genetics generally don't stick with lifting for more than a few months.

>>39432281
Fuck off mate. The average person is weak as fuck, even the most dyel skellys with a life-time of sitting on their asses and eating shit can get at least a bit above average if they lift for a couple of months to at most a year.

To be below average after a year of lifting either means he is anorexic or insomniac or has the t-levels of a post-menopausal woman or any other number of serious medical conditions.

>>39432365
No, and you just contribute to this perpetuating myth.
Just like there are guys with great genetics that can become big and strong pretty easily, there are guys with shit genetics who don't.
See >>39432358 to understand why the "statistics" are skewed.

Switch up your exercises. Do touch up sets.

>>39432348
To be fair a lot of people maintain at late-intermediate levels, especially if they got lots of responsibilities. After that you have to get much more meticulous about your programming and diet for a tenth of the progress.

As far as I remember the rule of thumb is: you make 50% of your gains (genetic max, perfect diet, rest and training) in the first year, 25% in your second and so on.

>>39432358
If he hits those numbers in his first year, then chances are he has above-average genetics.

>>39431788
LOW TEST

it all comes down to genetics and test. some people will just never make it

a 40kg bench and 50kg squat is utterly pathetic

>>39432419
If he hit them in his first year, then it seems average for a healthy college-aged male.
Still, that doesn't mean he'll be able to go much past that in the years after.
Although in this case, I'd agree that he could probably get stronger with a good coach.

>>39432384
Sorry, but we're probably going to disagree on this even after a dozen back-and-forth replies.

If a non-midget guy in his youth can't reach a 1plt bench after a year or more of trying, then he is going to be too weak to live any kind of active lifestyle by his 40s or 50s. That is a medical condition, sure, it may be a genetic condition and very little you can do about it - but that's still a medical condition and not "just normal variance."

>>39432462
Yeah, probably.
I think weaker people are part of the normal healthy distribution of people.
You think they're not, or atleast, you think the line lies higher.

I'll leave it to this then.
Nice that you can disagree respectfully, so thanks for that.

>>39432460
>If he hit them in his first year, then it seems average for a healthy college-aged male
My experience is mostly with mates who are between 6'-6'2'' tall, they all barely put up slightly higher numbers within the first year. At 5'7'' I think he did very well to get there, then again I don't know too much about how shorter ROM scales with less lean mass.

>>39432507
Yeah, it's not bad, but there's a big variance.
I think there's a big differece between guys with a sports background and guys who haven't done any kinds of sport in their youth.
Friend of mine did hockey for a few years, and pulled 4 plates at ~90kg (5'10) after half a year.
Only got to a 65kg bench though.
I've seen soccer players deadlift 100kg first time they tried deadlifts.
It depends.

>>39432487
>or atleast, you think the line lies higher.
Yep that's it, somehow if you're below 90% of people in terms of genetic strength potential to me that seems like a pretty big handicap - on terms with being 5'5'' or shorter in the western world or having a 3'' penis or an IQ of 75 (probably not exact equivalents.) I can see how someone might see that as pretty insensitive and cruel, considering that at least a fifth of people will probably fall short on one of the important metrics.

Nevertheless, I think it's probably worthwhile for OP to get himself checked out by a doc before writing himself of as genetically disadvantaged in the muscle department. There is still a decent chance that it is something he can fix at least to some degree. Maybe, just maybe he ends up discovering an underlying condition that would have even more serious consequences later on.

>>39432596
Yeah, I don't think it's 90%, but we both don't have good research or data to back it up.
I get what you mean though.

I agree completely with your second paragraph by the way.