what should I do to broaden my shoulders?

oddjob62 · 10 Mar 2003 at 19:09

Originally posted by sedm1000
Ok, we could obviously go around in circles here. The only further point I`d make is can you imagine Magnus Samuelson hauling himself up a sheer rockface? Tori Allen could.

Ok lets not start being stupid now. She's like 14 and weighs nothing. I know lots of kids her age that can climb trees and things like they are nothing, but they aren't "strong" even for their age, let alone in the general scheme of things

I never once said anything bad about rock climing, it's a very impressive sport and does take a lot of strength and endurance, (used to watch the xgames a lot). But your argument was BW exercises can build a stronger human being than weight lifting.

sedm1000 · 10 Mar 2003 at 19:29

Originally posted by oddjob62
But your argument was BW exercises can build a stronger human being than weight lifting.

No, if you read my last post, you would see the argument is that BW training can build stronger muscle than big weight training. This I still believe to be the case. Measuring strength pound for pound, heavy lifters can be outcompeted by rock climbers.

Kanes · 10 Mar 2003 at 20:57

Originally posted by sedm1000
Measuring strength pound for pound, heavy lifters can be outcompeted by rock climbers.

to a point, the lb per lift/lb per body weight is only a useful argument upto a point. You're forgetting just how much some people can lift

Being larger can become a problem with injuries but for most people it's not really an issue. The thread starter is probably talking about putting on a bit of visible muscle, not becoming Mr Olympia. For that weights are the best idea, not necesarily lifting the heaviest thing you can, but something suitable with a decent number of reps and good form (*goes off to look at the curl fan boys doing their lovely swing dance while trying to curl as much as possible)
Most people stop at a point when trying to gain mass, once they're happy with that they focus on cutting and keeping in that shape. Not everyone is on the goal of putting on as much muscle as possible in a short timespan.
Bodyweight exercises are OK imo, but just for defintion, not really putting on lots of muscle. Pull ups and such will do ok but for putting on visible weight you can't beat weights and cardio.

oddjob62 · 11 Mar 2003 at 10:10

Originally posted by sedm1000
Measuring strength pound for pound, heavy lifters can be outcompeted by rock climbers.

And what about light lifters?? like the Olympic lifters who can c&j 3x their bodyweight over their heads??

Or if you want to use the little girl argument, there are female powerlifter in the 44kg category who can deadlift over 160kg that's nearly 4 times bodyweight. Of course the men can do well over 4 times.

Gilly · 11 Mar 2003 at 10:20

Originally posted by oddjob62
And what about light lifters?? like the Olympic lifters who can c&j 3x their bodyweight over their heads??

Or if you want to use the little girl argument, there are female powerlifter in the 44kg category who can deadlift over 160kg that's nearly 4 times bodyweight. Of course the men can do well over 4 times.

How does this prove that lifting heavy weights at too young an age can't be damaging?

sedm1000 · 11 Mar 2003 at 10:30

Originally posted by oddjob62
And what about light lifters?? like the Olympic lifters who can c&j 3x their bodyweight over their heads??

Or if you want to use the little girl argument, there are female powerlifter in the 44kg category who can deadlift over 160kg that's nearly 4 times bodyweight. Of course the men can do well over 4 times.

The necessitiy of keeping overall weight down makes thier muscles stronger pound for pound. If you could have big muscles with that much strength, you could be lifting far more.

noob · 11 Mar 2003 at 10:36

Originally posted by Gilly
How does this prove that lifting heavy weights at too young an age can't be damaging?

He is not trying to prove anything to do with damaging yourself in that post.

Gilly · 11 Mar 2003 at 11:14

Originally posted by noob
He is not trying to prove anything to do with damaging yourself in that post.

Then we're getting way off topic, thanks for pointing it out

sedm1000 · 11 Mar 2003 at 12:17

We are debating the measure of strength - a little off topic maybe, but I think interesting. Care to add your 2p?

oddjob62 · 11 Mar 2003 at 12:44

Originally posted by sedm1000
The necessitiy of keeping overall weight down makes thier muscles stronger pound for pound. If you could have big muscles with that much strength, you could be lifting far more.

Face it. If you took the average person. cloned him/her, and put one on a bw program and one on a weights program, the one on the weights program will be able to lift more weight at the end. That's my last play this neverending argument game. And before you say it.... how many people have to be able to climb cliff faces

Last Post.

sedm1000 · 11 Mar 2003 at 14:06

Originally posted by oddjob62
Face it. If you took the average person. cloned him/her, and put one on a bw program and one on a weights program, the one on the weights program will be able to lift more weight at the end.

If you train lifting weights, you will be better at it than someone who doesn`t. I am arguing that how much you can bench is not the best measure of strength though.