>Strength = aesthetics

are you trying to prove or disprove that?

imo the way you get big/aesthetics quickly is multiple sets sticking around 8 reps occasionally going up to 12 or 15. do your compounds and get strong but this is the way you do it

low volume squats give you strong legs like high volume leg exercises give you big legs

tighty wighties and pale skin are like anti aesthetic. I believe this guy when he says he only trains for strength. fucking dweeb.

>>40189570
OP post your pic and for how long you have been training

>>40189619
he only trains for strength, i think he does go for hypertrophy because bigger muscles=stronger

id rather be big as fuck and bench 2pl8 than be a twink shit that can bench 275

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84vmuuuHRg

>>40189622

I train for strength so my lack of aesthetics would just prove my point desu

File: itzach.jpg (135KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 480x640px

But are you squatting >415 for reps?

How strong is candito's bench though? And I'm talking with proper rom, not 2-inch bendy-back powerlifting bench.

>>40189637
it was 350 last i checked but prolly more now

>>40189634
strength training like this is ultimate cuck boy status

>>40189570
pretty funny that this pic basically shows how dyel most of /fit/ is when they use it to criticize strength focus as being small. He's literally got the worst possible setup, front facing light, and pale as fuck, yet actually looks big(if he was down like 3-5% bf you'd call him ripped). This is basically Candito trolling retards and they fall for it.

File: candito.jpg (66KB, 602x353px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 602x353px

>>40189570

>>40189658
it's just honestly a disgusting picture. that blank expression, the white on white on white background. the out of focusness. god. fucking kill me, stop posting it.

File: 006puZE.png (613KB, 480x960px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 480x960px

>>40189671

>dem T rex legs

lmao

Also guarantee he has a pump in that pic

>>40189629
>30 seconds in
>*BRRAAAAAAAAAPPPPP*

>>40189634
So this... is the power... of Starting Strength.

>>40189570

I think his legs are too big and it throws off his silhouette into giving a feminine look.
I know some may think different, but legs that big don't look good.

File: 20170129-110446.jpg (691KB, 1104x1288px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1104x1288px

In my opinion he looks pretty decent except for that chest gap.

>>40189725
his legs are disproportionate and his back needs work

>>40189570
mirin
overall well-balanced and composed physique, not like the curlbro OP likely is

PS: OP you're a fag

>>40189736

80% of physiques in the CBT are superior to his lmao

And they probably don't risk snapping their backs everytime they go to the gym like he does

>>40189725

How the fuck does one get so disproportionate? I mean, at some point you have to look at the mirror and say "maybe I should stop squatting 5 days a week".

>>40189776
>"maybe I should stop squatting 5 days a week".

Not an option

>>40189776
He's a powerlifter my dude. I don't think he cares.

>>40189776
he's a powerlifter. powerlifters compete in squat, deadlift and bench.

squat and deadlift require strong legs and bench doesn't really build a good looking chest like squat does legs so that's why.

>>40189861
What will build a good chest?

File: Bjork-explains.gif (467KB, 352x288px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 352x288px

>>40189570

i'm gay and I'd kill to look like that

huge legs+butt, broad torso, lean but not too lean

>>40189916
incline db chest press, incline db flys, weighted dips

>>40189916
genes

>>40189932
Why incline and not parallel bench?

>>40189613
>low volume squats give you strong legs like high volume leg exercises give you big legs

so why are his legs huge then?`maybe not in this pic, but look at other ones like >>40189671
. goes against your own logic

>id rather be big as fuck and bench 2pl8 than be a twink shit that can bench 275

that guy is 154 lbs. look at his arms, he's fairly big. 99% of people wouldn't bench his numbers regardless if they trained for strength or not. lets get real here

>I train for strength so my lack of aesthetics would just prove my point desu
bf%?


>>40189725
implying he will ever be aesthetic with those chest genetics

>>40189932
why is a db chest press better than a barbell bench press or an incline barbell bench press? also is a db chest press different than a dumbbell bench

>>40190012

most db exercises are better for straight muscle building, because they provide a greater ROM, and more stabilizers, and generally doesn't cause any imbalances that a barbell can

i thought everyone knew this

however, they are very hard to overload in small increments, which makes any sort of progression obnoxious. they are very impractical in certain exercises, like a heavy deadlift, or a heavy squat.

this means they are best used as accessories done for higher reps to build muscle, not to build strength

>>40189629

How is this possible? I understand he has excellent form and trains solely for strength, but I still can't wrap my mind around it

>>40190139
perfect internal leverages
perfect neurological adaptations for lifting heavy weight

he's a one in a few million genetic freak at benching, don't expect to replicate what he has done

>>40190139
Everyone's genetics are different, some people grow in different ways from the exact same routine.

It does not matter what you do as long as everything is sufficiently worked, your body will grow how it grows there is not a lot you can do about it. That is why of you have shit genetics you will never look "good".

>>40189740
>lmao
Yeah, LMAO. That was very funny. Comedic genius, that anon

>>40189861
depends on your build

bench is amazing for chest/tri/delts for me (extremely long arms)

squats do fuck all for my legs (esp quads) and all I do is highbar

>>40189629
If he fucked up, would those spotters be able to do anything at all
Probably can't diddle that weight

>>40190139
>>40190157

he has also trained for 15+ years or something

just look at these pecs mang:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGUNWa9qjFm/?taken-by=ufpwrlifter

training for strength or hypertrophy is irrelevant. it's 2017. ya'll know this.

>>40189740
>implying that CBT aren't giant lies

>>40190220

Who's lying in CBT?

>>40190179
it's not like he will suddenly lose all strength and just drop the bar on his chest.

spotters don't have to lift the entire weight. just being able to lift less than 100 lbs is enough for him to finish the rep.

FFS

Look, looking good is a mix of having alot of muscle, being lean and having good genetics.

Strength training is a great way to gain muscle, obviously if you are gaining muscle you need to bulk and so you are going to have more fat.

Candito=A good amount of muscle whilst not being lean or having good genetics (in terms of looking good)

If you follow a bro split you ain't gonna gain any more muscle then on something like 5/3/1.

Just lift and then get lean.

>>40190259
>If you follow a bro split you ain't gonna gain any more muscle then on something like 5/3/1.
that's just not true, though

bro splits usually have a lot more volume in a lower intensity range, which is better for gaining muscle

5/3/1 has an AMRAP set at a decently high percentage 1rm, then joker sets at an even higher percentage, then some back off and accessory work

you will never be able to use as much volume with this approach as you would have had you just worked at 70% 1rm for many sets, and hypertrophy is mainly a function of training volume

that being said bro splits suck, 2x a week frequency and high volume at ~70% will make you blow up

I've run SS, TM, 5/3/1, Sheiko, and bodybuilding upper/lower - guess which one gave me the most size gains? the routine optimized for size gains

>>40190259

but this is not common sense yet. it's only in the last few years studies (more importantly meta studies) have proven that strength and hypertrophy training is usually the same thing for a natural lifter.

people are still stuck in
"training for hypertrophy vs training for strength" mentality
"low reps for strength, high reps for muscle" mentality

the only thing that should differ between say a powerlifter and a bodybuilder is exercise selection, not the fucking rep schemes that you do

a powerlifter will do tons of compound variations that are as specific as possible to the big 3, to improve their total
bodybuilders will use the time instead to work on exercises that doesn't have a big carryover to the big 3, to improve their looks

if natty, both will go heavy, both will go for volume, both will try and increase weight using various progression protocols, both will emphasize compounds over accessories, both will look ugly at a high bf%, both will look good at a lower bf% (bodybuilders will look a tiny bit better because they spent all that time working on small muscles to improve proportions etc)

>>40190280
Progressive overload is far more important than getting sufficient volume.

>>40190303
higher rep ranges are a more efficient way to get in a lot of volume at lower %1rm

http://strengtheory.com/powerlifters-should-train-more-like-bodybuilders/

wanna do heavy 7x3, or 3x10 for the same hypertrophy effect? One took over an hour, one took a few minutes

people who did 3x10 could have done even more, and gotten even more size gains

there is a reason the differences between strength and size oriented routines exist

train according to your goals

>>40190280
So full body at 70% 3 times a week would be better than a 5 day splits.

>>40190324
the two are not mutually exclusive, progressively overloading (adding weight to the bar or doing more reps) with higher volume = more gains

>>40190336
anything with 1x a week frequency for a muscle is hot garbage

yes, 70% 3x a week would work well

>>40190280

overall volume doesn't matter that much. it's the number of hard sets that matter, regardless of the rep scheme. i usually call this practical volume. it's the main driver of hypertrophy

so we have definitions like this:

volume: sets x reps
volume load: sets x reps x load
practical volume: # of hard sets (RPE7+)

joker sets in 5/3/1 adds a lot of practical volume, but not a lot of volume.
AMRAPs in 5/3/1 adds some volume, but barely any practical volume

in fact, you could run 5/3/1 just as fine without the AMRAP sets, they don't contribute much to the bigger picture, compared to a few sets jokers and FSL's.

SS is low volume, high volume load, low practical volume
5/3/1 can be everything since it's so customizable, usally pretty low volume, high volume load, high practical volume
Sheiko is moderate to high volume, moderate volume load, high practical volume
Boybuilder routines - high volume, low to moderate volume load, high practical volume

a very easy way to prove this is to go into the gym, and do 25x1, and then a few days later go in and do 5x5, then tell me which is harder.

further reading: http://strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/

>>40190346
well garbage for most people anyway, when you're on gear it doesn't matter

also when you are sufficiently advanced and need a silly amount of volume for a growth response lower frequency might actually work better (purely empirical, no studies done on this but mike israetel has found this trend)

>>40190354
i was already operating under greg nuckol's definition of volume as # of hard sets when I made that post

you aren't telling me anything new anon

you can do a greater number of hard sets at lower percentages of your 1rm

http://strengtheory.com/powerlifters-should-train-more-like-bodybuilders/

aforementioned 7x3 vs 3x10 study, the results are very clear

>>40190329

Read my other post >>40190354

7x3 is more practical volume than 3x10. It's harder to finish, will stress your CNS & your joints more.

7x3 will probably cause more hypertrophy and strength gains, but like you said, it will take over an hour to complete and isn't practical to do at all.

>there is a reason the differences between strength and size oriented routines exist
Most size oriented routines that's popular are created by roiders, for roiders
Most strength oriented routines that's popular are created by coaches, for everyone

>>40190346
What reason is there for 6 day week PPL then if you can just do the same in 3 days with more frequency?

What about high weight sets followed by multiple accessory work? Im currently running Candito 6 week, and it hits everything multiple times a week starts with 8-12 reps and tapers down with lots of accessory work.

>>40190374
you seem to just be seeing what you want to see without actually reading Greg's articles

"If you go the first route, you’ll need to set up your training similar to Eastern bloc (i.e. Sheiko-style) or Norwegian lifters: Drop your average intensity. To tolerate the necessary training volume, you’ll need to do your sets of 1-5 with lighter loads, usually in the 70-80% range, with very few lifts at 85% or above. Furthermore, the sets will need to be fairly easy, leaving at least 2-3 reps in the tank each set. If you try to handle the volume necessary to maximize hypertrophy while still focusing on lifting 85-90%+, or within a rep of failure, you increase your risk of injury and burnout.

I’d recommend the second route for most people. Why? It’s simply a much more efficient way of reaching the same end point.

A recent study by Brad Schoenfeld illustrated this point beautifully. Two groups of lifters either did 3×10 or 7×3 with the heaviest loads they could lift. At the end of 8 weeks, the group doing sets of 3 gained more strength, but both groups gained the same amount of muscle. Ironically, a lot of strength athletes jumped all over this study, saying, “See, I can get swole doing my heavy triples!” without noticing two major caveats: The 3×10 workout only took 17 minutes, whereas the 7×3 workout took 70, and the subjects in the 3×10 group all wanted to train more, whereas the subjects in the 7×3 group were wrecked by the end of the study.

The superior gains in strength in the 7×3 group don’t particularly phase me either. Of course they’d test better at the end of the study: They were lifting loads closer to max, so they’d be more prepared for hitting a max single. I would almost guarantee if both groups were put on the same 4-6 week peaking protocol after the 8 weeks of different training, those strength differences would largely vanish as the 3×10 group had a chance to improve confidence and efficiency with heavier loads."

>>40190384

there is no reason since 6 day PPL is a garbage roid program. just think about it for one second PLEASE. use your brain.

a program that's
* super high in volume
* high in intensity
* high in frequency
* high in accessories
* usually linear progression
* low in rest days

you can't really handle everything cranked up to high with almost zero rest days for months on end, or everyone would be doing it.

most intelligent programs cuts down on 1-3 of these variables to make the program work. it's not intelligent to just do everything as much as possible all the time.

now if you used sound principles like linear periodization, DUP and such, while maybe cutting it down to 4 days using a PPLxFBxx split, it could be a very good program. but let's be real, no one does that.

>>40190404
I always thought it was a stupid program but it is always spammed here, 6 days a week seems over kill to me when you can make plenty progress with half that time.

>>40190384
6x PPL should be reserved for when you need so much volume per muscle group to progress that doing it inside of fewer sessions is not practical

it will take a while to get to that point, though

high weight sets followed by multiple accessory sets work just fine, they aren't specialized toward hypertrophy (because those heavy sets take a lot out of you that you could be using for more sets in the 65-75% range)

candito's program is some nightmarish shit anyway

>>40190404
PPL is not a program, it's a method of arranging your training

you could write a PPL that isn't all of those things, and is more reasonable in volume, intensity, and progression

2x a week frequency for most bodyparts is not super high

however, everyday is kidney day, you still get a lot more systemic stress from 6x a weeks and i think most people need a while to work up to that type of frequency

also you run into problems with shoulder girdle overuse, definitely has drawbacks

>>40190416
you will do just fine with an upper lower

File: 159.jpg (152KB, 408x500px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 408x500px

Don't fall for the strength meme. I can even 1/2/3/4 and look better than half the shits who lift big weights

Volume > everything

>>40190392

I agree with everything you're saying, and what Greg is saying.

I never made a point against 3x10, I just said that more sets are better if you just compare them back to back.

I also said it's not practical to train like that, because like you said, and I said, and Nuckols said, it takes far too long. It's not good for your joints. It's not good for your recovery. It's probably not good for your form either.

This is why good, intelligent programs include both styles of training. Higher reps set to squeeze in more volume without completely wrecking your CNS. Higher loads to squeeze in more strength gains.

If you ONLY cared about size, it would still make sense to train for strength every now and then (in a linear periodiziation fashion or whatever) because it would mean more size gains in the future.

The best is a mix, just like with everything in life. Nothing is ever black and white.

>>40190451
oh ok i thought you were disagreeing in some weird convoluted way

but i still think if you train for size alone there's no reason to dip below 6-8 reps 90% of the time

I think it was Israetel who said you should very occasionally do some heavier work even if the goal is purely size, seems to use some different signaling pathways or something

>>40190428
>PPL is not a program, it's a method of arranging your training
sure, but in the real world most peoples ppl always look the same
1-2 heavy compound movement for a few sets of low to medium reps
4-6 accessories for medium to high reps

6 days a week with no specific progression plan or deload plan


>you could write a PPL that isn't all of those things,

yes, that's what I said
>now if you used sound principles like linear periodization, DUP and such, while maybe cutting it down to 4 days using a PPLxFBxx split, it could be a very good program. but let's be real, no one does that.

>2x a week frequency for most bodyparts is not super high
that's why i wrote high on freq but super high on volume

>>40190442
Is this a meme?

>>40190442
Please tell me this is a joke

File: 1485281560249.png (1MB, 824x710px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 824x710px

>>40190329
Thats bullshit

Basically
>when you lift weights or tense your muscle you go through a chain of muscle fibers, starting with slow twitch ones for lighter weight and fast twitch muscle fibers when the weight gets heavier and heavier, these fibers are on a spectrum they are not binary, so you're activating all at the same time, like up a ladder from slow twitch to faster and faster twitch the more stress the muscle is under, a bit like the love tester from the simpsons.
>7x3 will be using heavier weight with similar volume
>heavier weight will cause you to use a 'higher' chain (more) fast twitch muscle fibers
>using 3x10 is using a lower weight and therefore using less fast twitch muscle fibers
>fast twitch muscle fibers when put under stress grow back much thicker than slow twitch muscle fibers and cause much more hypertrophy
>so using 7x3 you're inducing more hypertrophy
>using 7x3 you're making yourself stronger because you're adapting motor patterns to allow yourself to use heavier weight and induce even more fast twitch fibers are therefore more hypertrophy
>using 7x3 with higher weight is fatiguing your CNS more and therefore increasing your workload if it is adapting properly and you're getting enough rest/food
>this in turn will allow you to gain more hypertrophy
>7x3 is using less reps per set and is therefore giving you less chance of being injured and developing tendonitis
>this will in turn allow you to move more weight in the long run resulting in even more hypertrophy
>7x3 is also strengthening your joints more due to them being put under a heavier load and adapting, lessening your chance of injury even further
>only upside 3x10 has is increased time under tension which will slightly increase your endurance and reduce lactic acid buildup when doing longer sets.

>>40190442
Lmaoooooo

>>40190442
is this satire?

File: elrisitas.png (604KB, 581x469px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 581x469px

>>40190500
nice broscience

actual, real life science says otherwise though

>fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers used for different intensity ranges

oh lord we've got a full blown RETARD on our hands

>>40190527
>fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers used for different intensity ranges
try using reading comprehension mate

>>40190540
>"heavier weight will cause you to use a 'higher' chain (more) fast twitch muscle fibers"

work on not being a fucking idiot

fuck you faggot never post here again or i'll fuck you up

>>40190559
>these fibers are on a spectrum they are not binary, so you're activating all at the same time, like up a ladder from slow twitch to faster

again, reading comprehension

Also to add to >>40190500

the study in used in >>40190329 is garbage and has almost no detail in control factors or sample size. it can be found here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714538
A much better study with control factors put in to place with much more detail can be found here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/
This shows that Lean body mass for people using higher intensity is higher at the end of the study and of the people using the volume method only 60% of them saw any hypertrophy at all.

genetics > all

I'm new and a bit confused. Sticky says to follow Starting Strength regardless of objetives. Is it now not advisable for aethestics?

>>40191073
Man you have so much to learn.
But you can cut all the bullshit and watch 3dmj on youtube.
Search for Eric Helms Muscle and Strength pyramid.

It has everything you need to know and don't listen to /fit/ about anything related to training or you'll end up program hopping and skipping your wheels

>>40191101
Thanks, I'll see into it. My goals are pretty modest desu, most of the CBT bodies are more than enough for me

>>40190442
is there someone else in the room.

I'm a fucking girl and my traps are bigger than your,

>>40191283
>It has everything you need to know and don't listen to /fit/ about anything related to training or you'll end up program hopping and skipping your wheels
Most of the exercise scientists like Eric Helms and Greg Cuckols are full of shit. The Cuckols one is the special one. He reads abstracts from studies and draws conclusion solely from that. That is the 'science driven' training meme many fit users fell for.

My point is: keep it simple. You don't need to know what an AMRAPs and percentages are. You need to NOT miss a training day ever and increase the weight for 5lb every time for the first 6 months. To achieve that you need to eat and sleep. Weigh in every morning without clothes, calculate the average for a week, and it should increase for 1lb per week. If the weight is not increasing you're not eating enough. Do a routine similiar to SS with added some easy isolation work. You can do 4x8-12 for arms for example.

DO NOT skip the training day, eat, get creatine, sleep, increase the weight. Percentages and other nonsense are only a giant distraction from what you ought to do.

>>40192548
>You don't need to know what an AMRAPs and percentages are.
Yes you do lol. How are you going to regulate your training?

And I never mentioned Nuckols.

>>40192615
UUh "regulate". What a buzzy word. If you recover properly you will be able to increase weight on the bar. If you fail to increase weight on the bar under assumption you are recovering there is a thing called deload. Only "regulation" you need to know.

>>40189629
lmao at that blackie quarter-repping 2pl8 next to him, while being about 50lb heavier.
This guy is an absolute freak though. Crazy how good he is of the chest at this weight.

>>40190165
>>40190185
This. If you have shitty pec genetics, no amount of >hypertrophy-flys will ever make them great.

>>40189570
>>40189619
>>40189686
>>40189731
>>40189740
>>40189776

> y-yeah I can barely squat 2pl8 b-but at least I have a v-taper!

aestheticsfags are the niggers of lifting

>>40189634
zach wasnt repping 415 he was sqautting 320 5x5
https://youtu.be/7TB0PpIGcX0
Also, if he actually fucking cut down to 10% bf once he got his numbers instead of being a faggot and stopping lifting he'd be aesthetic.

>>40192548
>Greg Cuckols are full of shit
his programs is one of the more popular done by /plg/ for instance, so either he got very lucky or he's not full of shit

>'science driven' training meme
>>.40192673
>UUh "regulate". What a buzzy word
i don't know why the fitness culture specifically is so opposed to science and reason. it really baffles me. how can you laugh at someone for being science driven? i guess the meathead fitness stereotype really is true.

DEM DARN GOSH SCIENTIST PEOPLES AND DERE DUN GON NUMBERS, JUST LIFF SOME O' DAT DERE HEAVY WEIGHT AND EAT A DUN GON LOT O' DAT DERE FOOD !!!! YEEEEEHAAAW BOY

is really what you sound like

fucking retards like you is what is holding the world back

File: boxer.jpg (190KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1920x1080px

>>40189570
>2017:
>Training for 'aesthetics'
..so, you're all gay?
Or are you all still in denial about that, and still think you're training to 'get hot club sluts to bang' or somesuch nonsense like that?

Face it: If your primary goal in the gym is 'aesthetics' then you're wasting your time. 'Aesthetics' above and beyond what's normal for a healthy adult male who is not overweight is largely determined genetically, and there's nothing you can do in the gym to fix that.

Plastic surgery? Maybe.

It's like these silly girls and women who are doing over9000 glute exercises because they want a huge ass: What they really want is an 'Hourglass Figure', but they'll never get it without wider hips and tits to match, with a narrow waist -- and 2 out 3 of those things are genetic.

Now, what you should be doing is training for a POWER sport, like boxing or rugby. You'll get the 'aesthetics' as a secondary effect, which is the way it should be. Personally I'd recommend boxing. Aside from strength and real endurance, you'll get a level of personal discipline that is unparalleled in any other sport, plus you'll have the skills to defend yourself if necessary. What do you have to lose?

So forsake this silly pursuit of 'aesthetics'. You'll thank me later.

File: 3GE54yD.gif (2MB, 384x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x216px

>>40192782
he stopped lifting?

>>40190139
what the other guys said, + roids

>>40192855
>steroids
LOL how desperate and useless do you have to be to resort to that meme?
>2017: Looking like a circus freak
top kek
my sides, exploding
absolutelydisgusting.jpg

>>40192833
You know who lifts weights to spend some energy, keep themselves in shape, look good, prove their strong to others and themselves, and help in their day to day life and various physical activities? Men.

You know who trains for strength for it's own sake with no money prestige or pussy involved? Shit loads of homosexuals, heavily closeted homosexuals and beta males.

>>40192879
yeah because benching 4 pl8s natty while weighing 150lbs is possible natty.

>>40192833
Boxing is great but get your head off your ass

>strength
Boxers aren't really that strong. Powerful yes, but not strong. And most of the power is stored in lower body anyways
>you'll have the skills to defend yourself if necessary.
Autistic. Just run away if you want to avoid getting stabbed / kicked in the head from back.

>>40192883
>prove (they're) strong to others
I was behind what you're saying right up to that point. An adult man, properly developed emotionally and mentally, doesn't feel the need to 'prove' anything to anyone, he just does what he does and DGAF.

>You know who trains for strength for it's own sake with no money prestige or pussy involved? Shit loads of homosexuals, heavily closeted homosexuals and beta males.
Right. Like the dumb, damaged kids that frequent /fit/, who 'train for aesthetics' as their primary goal.
LOL okay buddy now you're just showing us all how insecure and how much of a try-hard you really are.

>has to 'prove himself to others'
>uses words like 'beta'
You're likely short, skinny, weak, bullied by others your entire life, and overlooked by females you're interested in, or perhaps even openly mocked by them, and you're overcompensating for all the above in a desperate attempt to achieve parity. Sad.

>>40192893
Why do you need to do that anyway? What's the purpose? What are you overcompensating for so desperately?

>>40192903
Unless you're planning on being a competitive powerlifter (which would be OK in my book, at least you're not training for mere 'aesthetics', LOL) why do you need to be massively strong? Even the average, amateur boxer is so much stronger than the average, non-athletic adult male, that there's no comparison.
>run away
Note that I stated you could defend yourself "IF NECESSARY". Doesn't mean you go around starting fights just because you can.

He must have a lot of fun shopping for pants

>>40192763

Strenght is pointless. Tell me what the point of training for strenght is if you dont compete in powerlifting. At least a good looking body makes you feel confident and gets bitches wet. Not to mention that training for strenght also carries infinitely more risk of injury.

Powerlifting/strenght training without competing is for autists

>>40192903
>just run away
And the pussification of men becoming males continues.

>>40193184
>overcompensating

>>40193184
most people here don't even lift or they do ss+gomad and think they're gonna look like bradley martyn.

>>40193184
my life is not as empty as yours so i need to lift in order to get women lmao. had no issues on getting a girl before i even started lifting so why waste time trying to become aesthetic? it serves no purpose to me.

>>40192782
to be fair zach was running TM not SS and this was volume day. his 5rm is probably somewhere in the range of 350-360 here.

>>40193232
People should not go around starting fights just because they can. That being said, however, everyone (men and women both) should have at least some rudimentary training in self-defense, so that the odd asshole who DOES go around starting fights can be dealt with.

It used to be the case that part of a young mans' education was in boxing or some other form of self-defense. It's not the case anymore though. I think that needs to change.

>>40193024
>I was behind what you're saying right up to that point. An adult man, properly developed emotionally and mentally, doesn't feel the need to 'prove' anything to anyone, he just does what he does and DGAF.
You're not an adult man.
You're some fucktard on a forum with fantasies of what it means to be a man. If you can't prove that you can get shit done then you lose a shitload of respect. One of the ways you can prove that you can get shit done is strength.

>>You know who trains for strength for it's own sake with no money prestige or pussy involved? Shit loads of homosexuals, heavily closeted homosexuals and beta males.
>Right. Like the dumb, damaged kids that frequent /fit/, who 'train for aesthetics' as their primary goal.
Yes, you're right. The entire aesthetics scene is mostly thinly veiled homosexuality and steroid peddling.

>LOL okay buddy now you're just showing us all how insecure and how much of a try-hard you really are.
K...

>>has to 'prove himself to others'
>>uses words like 'beta'
>You're likely short, skinny, weak, bullied by others your entire life, and overlooked by females you're interested in, or perhaps even openly mocked by them, and you're overcompensating for all the above in a desperate attempt to achieve parity. Sad.
I use the alpha beta thing that was started by women because that's what retards like you buy into.
Look at all of the bullshit you're projecting on me.

>>40193257
You're right, and 'most people' don't have the innate discipline to stick with a strength training program anyway, not unless they have a non-abstract reason to do so (like training for a sport they want to participate in).

>>40193306
and you think those people will have the discipline to stick to some BB routine as a natty?

>>40190185
i bet whenever he goes to a new gym people walk past this twinky asian guy with 3.5pl8 racked up and think this guy is going to kill himself and then shit themselves when he throws it up ez

>>40193279
>i need to lift in order to get women
LOL that doesn't work and somehow you haven't figured that out yet.

You know what women, overall, want? They want a guy who is NOT FAT, and shows some signs of being healthy. Beyond the first few minutes they're more interested in who you are, what you're about, do you have a sense of humor they like, etc, i.e. non-physical things. You guys all place too much emphasis on the physical, which to be fair is very common for young men. Learn better.

>>40193279

So tell me what purpose training for strenght has then. Do you want to purposely fuck up your back by the time youre 40 so you can live off welfare? Hey if thats your goal, go for it man

>>40193325
Did you not read what I wrote there? LOL.

I said:
>"..unless they have a non-abstract reason to do so (like training for a sport they want to participate in)."

>>40193334
did you reply to the right person?

>>40191519
Post body.

Lifting for aesthetics is mostly to impress women

Lifting for strenght is mostly to impress other men

Prove me wrong

>>40189776

This just in he's not a fucking bodybuilder.

File: 3AUbY2i.png (841KB, 1022x580px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 1022x580px

sup brahs

I'll start SL 5X5 tomorrow and I was thinking about my year plan.

I've never lifted before and I want to get aesthetics.

Is strength training the best way to start? Is 10-12 reps a meme? should I do strength training all year long, or do low reps hypertrophy training?

Show me your ways /fit/

shit that was supposed to be a post.....

>>40193389
This. Only homos don't lift for girls
And no fedora tippers, you don't lift for yourself you only hate yourself

>>40190139

Asian manlet genetics

>>40193184
>Basketball is pointless. Tell me what the point of training for basketball is if you don't compete in football.
>Playing an instrument is pointless. Tell me what the point of playing an instrument is if you don't play in a professional band.
You are literally so autistic that the possibilty of people simply doing something, because they like it and they have FUN doing it, is strange to you.

>>40193473

I would start with SS, unlike what many people say here, its not a meme. It lays a good base for strenght and you will get good noob gains with it. You dont wanna start a hypertrophy program when you can only bench 40kg

The only mistake people make is sticking to it too long, id say 3 months and then move on to an upper/lower body split or PPL

>>40193389
>Unable to imagine people doing things not to impress others
t. insecure beta cuck

>>40193522

No youre the autist here. Playing a teamsport like basketball or football increases your social skills, and teaches you how to work together with others. And maybe even leadership skills if you are the captain. All those things are useful in other aspects of life.

Playing an instrument stimulates the brain in such a way that no other activity can really mimic. Plus it can also boost your social skills if you do it with a band or group. And being in a band will also definitely give you pussy.

Now tell me again, what does strenght training add to your life in a similar fashion

>>40193343
because i enjoy it. you can fuck up your back by simply bending over or picking up some minor shit. at least my back is strong and has less chance of that happening.

>>40193598
>implying you can't train for strength together with others
>implying physical activity doesn't stimulate the brain
>implying picking up qts at the gym doesn't boost social skills and gets pussy
Yes, you definitely are autistic.

And even if it added absolutely nothing to your life but fun, this would still be plenty reason to do it.

>>40193598
>Playing a teamsport like basketball or football increases your social skills, and teaches you how to work together with others.
sounds the same as my day at oly gym

>Playing an instrument stimulates the brain in such a way that no other activity can really mimic.
and lifting doesn't? it has tons of health benefits

>And being in a band will also definitely give you pussy.
again showing your true intentions on why you lift

i wish i could be there and see the look of disappointment on your face once you realize that all of your social media fitness idols are not natty regardless of what they claim and that you have wasted multiple hours every day, 6 times a week chasing something that is not obtainable. not to mention that looking ripped won't fix your glaring social problems.

do you really think that you will magically find a gf just because you lift? i know that all kids are that naive but come on. why do other dyels at your school that are skinny have gfs and this board is filled with buffed >tfw no gf people?

think about it.

>>40193548

Oh get off your high horse. Even the most alpha of Chads care what people think of him. Its a simple evolutionary trait we needed to survive. Only if you are underdeveloped on a social level you dont care what others think (think psycho- and sociopaths in the most extreme cases)

Not giving a fuck what other people think of you doesnt make you alpha, it just means youre autistic

>>40193708
>Not giving a fuck what other people think of you doesnt make you alpha, it just means youre autistic
or that you have finally reached maturity and you realized it doesn't matter what others think

>>40193721

So when is the school shooting bro? So I can stay home sick that day

>>40193676
>>40193693

All the things you say I didnt include in my post because training for aesthetics also offers all these benefits.

It was never about lifting vs not lifting at all. It was training for aesthetics vs training for strenght/powerlifting. Cant believe I have to spell this out for you dumb fucks, thought you would understand

>>40193721
So you're somewhere between the ages of 21 and 25? I'm guessing closer to 25. Small chance you're between 25 and, say, 28?

>>40193754
shouldn't you be asking that the guy who acts like a teenage girl who wants to impress and be liked by everyone?

>>40193775
29 and i'm also not the guy who >>40193708 post replied to. i'm just some random reader of this thread

File: 1475073387025.jpg (450KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1600x1200px

strength = aesthetics

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPy3OkBgR12/?taken-by=bg_waiweight

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPxvaN-BXzJ/?taken-by=bilbo_swaggins181

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPd0bvojlUN/?taken-by=jessenorr

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNxEYXIja07/?taken-by=carrionlust

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFtsqToBKXy/?taken-by=filiplindstr

https://www.instagram.com/p/BE61yXMxKTX/?taken-by=70s_big

>>40193812
You probably get called an autist, have fedora-tipping images posted at you, and other usual /fit/ bullshit aimed at you all the time, don't you? Because you're at least 10 years older than the average /fit/ reader, and don't think or act like a kid anymore therefore they can't understand where you're coming from; am I right?

>>40193837
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BPy3OkBgR12/?taken-by=bg_waiweight

Achievable natty looks ok. Manlet

>>40193837
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BPxvaN-BXzJ/?taken-by=bilbo_swaggins181

Not achievable natty

>>40193837
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BPd0bvojlUN/?taken-by=jessenorr

Not achievable natty

>>40193837
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BNxEYXIja07/?taken-by=carrionlust

Not achievable natty

>>40193837
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BFtsqToBKXy/?taken-by=filiplindstr

Achievable natty. Looks like shit

>>40193837
>https://www.instagram.com/p/BE61yXMxKTX/?taken-by=70s_big
Not achievable natty

>>40193774
>waaah waah people enjoy doing different things than me
So strength training offers all these benefits that >aesthetics training also offers, yet strength training somehow makes your feefees hurt?

>>40193903

If you hadnt noticed, this thread was mainly a discussion of strenght training vs training for aesthetics. I have simply been discussing what I deem superior and why. You are the one coming with these non-arguments dumbass.

You seriously think I care what other people think is fun? If you like to smear shit all over your face, scream ooga-booga and pretend youre a nigger in Africa, go for it. I really couldnt care less

>>40193898
I'll give you Haack and Norris because they're questionable but the rest are very possible naturally (I know Carrionlust did a cycle but iirc it was something like 10 years ago)

and saying fil looks like shit is hilarious. post your body

>>40193708
>m-muh evolution
Get out you 5th grader. I just read a book simply because I enjoy reading books, not because I want to impress anyone. I also ate some pasta today simply because I enjoy eating pasta, not because I want to impress anyone. And I was also at the gym, doing my thing simply because I enjoy doing it, not because I want to impress anyone.
Does that mean I absolutely don't give a fuck about anything that people think of me? No, it does not. That's why I don't fart in public or listen to loud music in the subway.

If you're too autistic to grasp the concept that people do SOME things for other reasons than other peoples approval, I suggest you stop posting here and come back when you're older than 15 and out of highschool.

>short
>small frame with short clavicles
>huge head and neck
>unaesthetic pectoral insertions

It's his genetics, not his routine. Aesthetics is mostly genetics mates.

>>40193333

people stare at him in every vid i've watched lol

>>40193942
>and saying fil looks like shit is hilarious. post your body

No need to
He's just fat as fuck. Even an ottermode looks better than him

>>40194022
>what are weightclasses

I guess you have a point that aesthetics are subjective but you and I both know that if he just lost bodyfat he would look incredible. He stays at a higher bodyfat to compete in the 105kg category (of which he is the swedish n#1).

>>40193941
>I really couldnt care less
You obviously care very much, that's why you need to make stupid generalizations and try to play other peoples activitys and motivations down in order to validate your own. If your posts were merely an assessment of 'strength training vs training for aesthetics', you would have brought arguments for both and stated your preference. You did not do that. All you did was scream some buzzwords and memes - not even why you like one better, but why you get triggered by other people doing something different. This plus the fact that you are too autistic to get over the fact that people do things for fun, without making an autistic list of arguments and discussing them with trap-loving homosexuals online, just shows what an insecure fucking faggot you are and why you need to shut the fuck up.

>>40193473
>>40193529

do SS, not SL

also, people sticking with the program for too long means they're not doing the program correctly, like 90% of ppl who runs it. people seem to ignore most of the important info laid out in the book and then complain about mediocre results

it clearly states when to stop the program and you shouldn't run it any longer or shorter than that

>>40194038
>you and I both know that if he just lost bodyfat he would look incredible.

That depends on his muscle insertions,

>>40193962

So youre saying that. You have never ever, and I mean ever, bragged about the amount of weight you lifted on a compound lift? Neither in real life or on this board? Because if you did, your argument is irrelevant and youre full of shit

File: clarence.webm (274KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 640x360px

>>40194064
That's true, but there's nothing he can do about that.

>>40194039

I started off nicely, 30 minutes ago I simply asked what peoples reasons are to do strenght over aesthetics training. Because I cant understand why anybody would choose one over the other. In 30 minutes I have heard 0 good reasons or arguments. Ive only heard non-arguments and personal attacks.

So my logical conclusion is that there are no reasons except for 'fun'. So keep your fun, Ill make actual gains and not waste my time at the gym

File: 1485350536785.png (37KB, 872x497px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 872x497px

>>40189570
Will this program make me look good?

>>40193898

implying any of your aesthetic examples you'd give would be achievable natty

everyone think that powerlifting makes you into a 300 lbs fat man who can't tie his own shoes

and everyone thinks bodybuilding makes you into a perfect replica of zyzz that attracts any girl within a 100 mile radius

gues what? those "ugly" powerlifters will never be aesthetic because of their genetics, it doesn't matter what the fuck they train for. you are delusional to think that people like Ed Coen would ever, ever look good, given a bodybuilding program.

guess what? you won't look like zyzz either, unless you roid and have godly genetics

take a look at the average young, healthy powerlifter and tell me they wouldn't look good if they just cut bf%. not the fat, balding extreme cases

even debating strength vs aesthetics is completely autistic for a natty lifter, and if you roid, you can do whatever the fuck you want, so who there's no point debating either.

as a natty lifter, all you can really do is train for strength, with accessories for aesthetics or whatever. you can't ignore the strength part.

it's 2017. i thought this was common sense by now. you can't even argue this.

>>40194139

because strength is aesthetics for a natural lifter. what the fuck is so hard to understand?

training for aesthetics doesn't exist for a natty lifter. it doesn't exist.

>>40194139
>In 30 minutes I have heard 0 good reasons or arguments.
Strength training has the exact same arguments going for it as >aesthetics training has - as I've already said multiple times.

>Ill make actual gains
So will anybody doing a strength routine while not being a weak bitch.

>not waste my time at the gym
Sure, it's not the people doing meme splits for roiders that are wasting their time, it's the ones genuinely making progress on proven strength routines.
You also realize that you thinking other people are wasting their time is absolutely irrelevant if they see it as time well spend?

>>40194161
People act like strength and size are two completely different goals, any properly programmed routine is going to build both, if it's a strength focused thing it'll probably only give you like 80% of the results of a bodybuilding thing and vice versa.

Also people stress completely wrong points when they ask "is this a good program" and just point out exercise selection with rep/set schemes. You need some planned way to do progressive overload, this is seriously the most important thing that no one here every writes on their programs. Progressive overload can be done in a ways, beginners can do adding 5lbs a session like SS, and once you get passed that it becomes more complicated since you just can't add weight every session, most intermediates and advanced people do it with volume.

thread was interesting until "muh genetics" fags fucked it up. stop using it as a crutch

>>40194430

because genetics is everything in any (with very few exceptions) physical activity

not saying you shouldn't work hard and all that, but it's facts we have to deal with so we don't delude ourselves like that aesthetics faggots in this thread

File: combine_images.jpg (318KB, 1067x862px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1067x862px

>>40194367
>>40194161 is a powerlifting focused program.
It's wave loading i.e. each week higher weight but lower reps, which makes each week different. Then after 3 weeks putting the weights up and starting again

Pic related is a hypertrophy focused split using the same wave loading techniques.
Which one do you think gives the best gains? I think both would bring similar results.

>>40194041
>>40193529
why SS over SL?

>>40194624

because a million of reasons, but it boils down to:

* doing 5x5 for every exercise, every day,every week becomes really tough, really quickly, and you'll start to stall. you end up in a kind of a stall - deload cycle with very minor progress. people who have done TM can attest to this, where you only do 5x5 ONCE a week, and you only increase weight once a week, instead of three, and it's fucking rough.
* slower progression than SS. because of #1 you start with the bar on every exercise. in SS you test your initial strength so you can start higher. #2 your increases are always the same, 2.5 kg on every exercise except deadlifts where you increase 5. in SS you increase more in the beginning when you can handle it, and then decrease to 2.5 kg, and eventually 1 kg for upper lifts, which means quicker progression in the beginning, and longer sustained progress. with SL you progress slower than necessary in the beginning, and then too much in the later stages. 2.5 kg every workout for upper lifts become very hard.
* worse exercise selection. it has rows instead of chin ups that SS has, which is a worse exercise in of itself, and worse for novices overall.
* you still progress faster on SS with LESS volume, so what's the point of doing 5x5 instead of 3x5? it doesn't make sense,

tl;dr SS is quicker, has better exercise selection (even if you remove power cleans), less volume with equal or better progression, stalls & deloads less, and you are done with the program faster.

>>40192879
>all steroids will turn you into Ronnie Coleman

lmao how fucking stupid can you be

>>40194867
thanks for the info.

I picked SL over SS primarily because I don't know how to do Power Cleans, nor do I really know anyone who does them.

My 5x5 stats are .5/1.5/2.5/2.5, and I'm a recovering fatty (which doesn't seem to help since it feels like most of the shit I read is for skellies who have trouble squatting more than lmao1pl8 at the start).

Should I switch over to SS w/ Pendlay Rows instead of power cleans or should I just try to learn them? Kinda worried about my hugeass thighs getting any bigger too, so maybe dropping down to a 3x5 squat would be beneficial.

>>40195020

rows is not needed in a novice program. chinups is far superior anyway. a real ss program looks like this

A
Squat
Press
Deadlift

B
Squat
Bench
Power Cleans
Chinups

you can replace the power cleans with lighter deadlifts at 80-90% of your previous deadlift workout at 3x5

so this way you're still doing a lighter pull off the floor.

don't switch program if it works though and you're happy with what you're doing, just stick with what you're doing if it works. it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. don't be that guy that does 5 different novice LP programs and never get to intermediate.

just take some sound principles from SS and incorporate them into SL. start microloading bench and ohp when you feel a 2.5 kg jump would be too much next workout.
start loading 2.5 kg on deadlift too if 5 kg jumps become too much. squats should never drop below 2.5 kg though. if your squat stalls 3 times (i.e. you've deloaded and worked your way up 3 times total) you're done with the program.

base on your numbers, it looks like you have 1-4 months left on the program, depending on your genetics

>>40195020
>I picked SL over SS primarily because I don't know how to do Power Cleans
no shit. you don't know how to do any of the other exercises either. one of the main goals of a novice routine is to learn the basic barbell exercises.

>>40189570
>skinnyfag: 187-81kg~
>did candito for 7months
>jesus fkin christ
>candito? more like bubblebutt program
>strength increase was obvious
>HUGE bubblebutt
>can't wear clothes normally anymore without them accentuating my bubblebutt
JUST

>>40193184
Strength is fun. I have nothing against people who train for aesthetics; personally, I find moving really heavy things more enjoyable.

People who try to argue which opinion is better are autists and probably permavirgins.

>>40194867
SL is better and not all exercises in SL is 5x5. How about you actually read into a program before you start trying to explain why someone shouldn't do it. Oh wait, this is /fit/.

>>40195188
You can't get aesthetic and put on mass unless you lift heavy stuff.

Unless you're one of the people who tren hard anavar give up and eat clen.

Oh wait, all of the powerlifters and strong guys here do that too.

>>40194867
Doing something like ICF atm (so basically SL with accessory work), but with weighted chin-ups over rows on day A and pendlay rows over leighter rows on day B. Also doing power shrugs instead of normal shrugs.

Now, I have 6 years of total lifting experiance. First 4 years were only brosplit bullshitting with some decent gains, but relatively weak lifts. Then went to the army and could only train that much (had nothing to train legs in the bases gym). 1.5 years ago I then fucked up my foot while skydiving. Couldn't train at all for about 4-5 months. Then only half-assed it, barely being able to train legs (foot would feel sprained the next day even with baby weights) till October last year. Tried getting back into it with my old brosplit, but lifts were shit and I wouldn't really progress, so I decided to try a decent routine for once to get my strength, form and mobility back.

So the main argument against SL is the too high volume and intensity. My thought-process was: Someone that has constantly, though less and not as serious the last 2.5 years, trained for 6 years, more volume and intensity should be doable. Am I correct on this one or should I cut the main lifts down to 3 sets?

I started with barely any weight and am just now back to slightly above 0.5/1/1.5/2 for the 5x5 lifts. Haven't had any stalls so far.

>>40195194
are you retarded?

SL is DESCRIBED AS 5x5, like SS is DESCRIBED AS 3x5. yes i know deadlifts are 1x5. fucking end yourself trying to nitpick semantics

>"SL is better"
you got me. you win with those three words.


>>40195282
>0.5/1/1.5/2 for the 5x5 lifts. Haven't had any stalls so far.
in what time period? this is what the average person can expect the first month on SS, +- a week or two depending on genetics

like i said. do whatever you want. all these novice LP programs work at the end of the day. we're just discussing efficiency at this point.

>>40195370
SL is only 5x5 for like 3 weeks

>>40195436

>Switch to 3×5. After you had to deload twice on a lift, you switch from 5×5 to 3×5 for that exercise. When that no longer works you switch to 3×3 and then 1×3. This drops the volume (stress) while increasing the intensity. There will be less technique practice, but by this time you should have had plenty.

Source: https://stronglifts.com/what-to-do-after-12-weeks-of-stronglifts-5x5/

If that happens after 3 weeks, you're really not recovering properly. Are you legit retarded saying shit like this? You can't even defend the program you fanboy. Probably just baiting at this point.

>>40195370
>in what time period?
Was there after about 4 or 5 weeks. Then had to pause for 3 weeks over the holidays (no gym membership at home and then catched a cold), deload a bit and am a bit over those stats again after 2 weeks now.
Overall I could have started higher and gotten further, but I wanted to get my foot slowly used to heavier weight and wanted to focus on my form as much as possible.

>we're just discussing efficiency at this point
But efficiency is important, no? Especially if you are like me and just want to get back to where you already were as quickly as possible.
What I've noticed is that 5x5ing 3 exercises quickly gets too much when my nutrition isn't 100% on point. I eat slightly less than I should and the workouts become almost unbearable. They also take forever when warming up properly for the major lifts, but that's usually not much of an issue.
But most importantly: I'm not sure if my body will always be able to recover within 2 days, especially since I started serious post-workout stretching again. The DOMS is serious since I started this and this doesn't just go away after 1 day of rest.

>>40195556
>become almost unbearable

i told you that would happen, and you're only a month in lol.

i don't think people realize that when comparing 5x5 and 3x5, 5x5 is just one set short of doubling the volume of 3x5. it's very obvious when I type it out like this, but it can be hard to forget. it's a pretty significant increase.

but i'll keep repeating myself, if it's working, stick with it. you can change to 3x5 if you stall like it says here >>40195507

>>40194097
what a g

>>40195674
>you can change to 3x5 if you stall like it says here >>40195507
Just read that after I posted. Would have done this anyways, but as long as I can make it through them when I'm eating enough I'll keep it up. What bothers me is that Day A feels so much easier than Day B. OHPing and Deadlifting alone fuck me harder than the entire Day A workout. Is it an option to just cut the volume on Day B and see how that goes before cutting it in general?

>i don't think people realize that when comparing 5x5 and 3x5, 5x5 is just one set short of doubling the volume of 3x5. it's very obvious when I type it out like this, but it can be hard to forget. it's a pretty significant increase.
Somewhat true. I guess for most 3x5 feels so very little, while 5x5 is too much over longer time periods.

>>40193184
that and strength=injury

Lift moderately heavy, get jacked, still be able to walk at 90.

>>40194139
Post pic of your aesthetic body bby

>athleticism=aesthetics
fixed
that
forrrya

>>40190139
What? His form is fucking shit

File: image.png (393KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 650x650px

>>40189634
Kore ga... Sutatin suturenguzo da...

>>40189916
squats

File: 2DOSycH9.jpg (32KB, 472x472px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 472x472px

>>40190442
>I can even 1/2/3/4 and look better than half the shits who lift big weights

>>40197342
> Doesn't do fat perma bulk 45%bf powerlifting 2 inch ROM bench
> hurr durr form is shit

Fuck off cunt, you're retarded

I know you're in here Trappy.

File: islam15.jpg (115KB, 960x798px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 960x798px

what is 1/2/3/4

>>40197494
I'm pretty sure he meant can't not can

>>40197581
Number of 20kg plates on each side of the barbell for the main lifts, OHP, BP, SQ, DL
So 1/2/3/4 is some arbitrary standard meaning you can lift:
OHP 60kg
BP 100kg
Squat 140kg
DL 180kg

>>40193898
holy shit just give up