Out of Skinnyville - Pummi's (B)log - Page 52

agreed, 160lbs would very lean
also pummi expected a stronger deadlift based on your beasty OHP. your OHP is almost 20% better than mine while DL is about the same

Quote

02-07-2015 , 03:55 PM

#1277

Aidan

Kroenke Out

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 24,320

There is no way id guess you failed 170 after that 165 attempt. Four plates doesnt seem far away at all. Nice work!

Quote

02-07-2015 , 03:59 PM

#1278

ano12345

banned

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 13,741

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashy

agreed, 160lbs would very lean
also pummi expected a stronger deadlift based on your beasty OHP. your OHP is almost 20% better than mine while DL is about the same

His press is fine. Nothing special, but fine. Yours is just very low. Hope this helped.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 04:25 PM

#1279

cashy

we have welbeck

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 29,767

my very weak press is completely irrelevant to the the topic which is his press to deadlift ratio so no your not so thinly veiled insult is not helpful at all

Quote

02-07-2015 , 04:36 PM

#1280

ano12345

banned

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 13,741

Sorry I was being too obtuse with my point. 160 press to 370 deadlift (I will buy the ejaculation excuse and give it to him) is perfectly normal. His squat should be 315+ and his bench 265+ to go along with his press and deadlift, but whatever.

You have a very skewed ratio sense, based way too much on your own numbers. You should spend less time in your own log and those of fellow non-lifting Euros and look at the logs of some of the more dedicated lifters, ie Aidan, Skeletor, Cha, Busto (both of them), etc. etc.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 04:38 PM

#1281

loco

The First Golden

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 14,844

My maxes have been
S - 305
D - 365
B - 265
P - 165

So yes, agree with Jdock once again.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 04:46 PM

#1282

cashy

we have welbeck

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 29,767

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick_Ben

i'm actually reading trough all of those logs on a regular basis and people like n4rf/kidolin for example seem to have big DL numbers but fairly lowish bench/press in comparison.
people with 265-300 bench seem to always deadlift 500+

Quote

02-07-2015 , 04:54 PM

#1283

Weasel45

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,284

I mean press to deadlift is a dumb ratio. I deadlift 600 and press 195 ish. Real Busto presses 230 and deadlifts 400 ish. We both bench almost exactly the same

Quote

02-07-2015 , 05:05 PM

#1284

cashy

we have welbeck

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 29,767

what's the reason for those massive differences in your opinion?
mainly setting different priorities or do other things like differences in built/proneness to injury etc matter a lot as well?

Quote

02-07-2015 , 05:10 PM

#1285

Weasel45

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,284

I dont really ever press and busto doesnt deadlift that often so thats why we are different. But some people are really good at one lift and not great at another. In one meet i did some guy in my class benched 380 and deadlifted 823. And its not like he never benched, he was one of the most jacked/lean guys i have seen in person.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 05:14 PM

#1286

ano12345

banned

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 13,741

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel45

I mean press to deadlift is a dumb ratio. I deadlift 600 and press 195 ish. Real Busto presses 230 and deadlifts 400 ish. We both bench almost exactly the same

This post is extremely dishonest. Busto has a extremely freak outlier press and you a strong deadlift relative to your other lifts. I am gonna give cashy the Benefit of the doubt he really is clueless. Someone link Rips chart. The classification system is dumb but the ratios of lifts in various classifications is pretty good.

Keep in mind we are all special snowflakes to a degree, but exceptions don't invalidate generalizations.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 05:24 PM

#1287

cashy

we have welbeck

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 29,767

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick_Ben

I am gonna give cashy the Benefit of the doubt he really is clueless. Someone link Rips chart. The classification system is dumb but the ratios of lifts in various classifications is pretty good.

http://startingstrength.com/files/standards.pdf

for 165lbs

press 153
deadlift 411
(164/438 for 180lbs)

so yeah, pummi's press is strong in comparison to his deadlift.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 05:32 PM

#1288

Weasel45

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,284

QB,

Yes, but i mentioned that i never pressed. My only point was that press has almost 0 correlation to deadlift

Quote

02-07-2015 , 06:00 PM

#1289

Montecore

RPElf = +EV

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 82,122

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashy

sup

also

Quote

02-07-2015 , 07:01 PM

#1290

ano12345

banned

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 13,741

Yeah,

I like how there are 100 logs and he picked the 2 biggest lower/upper body strength discrepancy outliers to prove his point.

I can think of 20 logs off the top of my head of guys who have benched 265+ who have never gotten near a 500 lb deadlift (myself included)

Also, now that I am looking at the charts again I remember the forum decided years ago the upper body pushing lifts were way too low, and reflected that starting strength doesnt have enough upper body volume or accessory work to be balanced, although it is fine as a beginning powerlifting program.

Quote

02-07-2015 , 07:27 PM

#1291

cashy

we have welbeck

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 29,767

lol
never seen "hey look at X to support my argument" to "oh wait nvm X actually disproves my argument so it's obviously flawed" so quickly

also I just picked 2 as example
others have similar tendencies, I remember aidan with a rather weak bench(somewhere around 270?), extremely beasty squat(400?) and definitely DL of around 500 or more.
monte is more of an outlier due to his tallness

Quote

02-07-2015 , 08:13 PM

#1292

ano12345

banned

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 13,741

I think we have exhausted this conversation.

You are just going to have to accept (or not) Pummi's press/deadlift numbers are well within reason, his other lifts are low and could be improved upon if he desired it, and your own press is low, but it is something you could work on and improve if it is your desire to do so also.

Quote

02-08-2015 , 06:33 AM

#1293

Pummi81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,787

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Royale

165 looked way easy

Felt way harder than what it looks like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick_Ben

Something isn't adding up. Looking at those nudes I would guess 160 pounds max, and yet you are claiming 175+? I was honestly expecting your body composition to look like me or Snitch. I am only 2 inches and 10 pounds more than you, and I am fat.

We might need to see some sort of lower body shot. Maybe you do have a huge ass? But right now things just arent adding up.

Maybe you guise should stop lying about your height? This ain't Tinder.
Seriously though, tape doesn't lie, 40"+ ass and 24"+ thighs.
I should be squatting a small automobile but I'm not...

Quote:

Originally Posted by loco

On my phone he looks pretty fat. His belly looks it's was layered by cottage cheese. His pecs are getting droopy. Just disaster if any more weight is added.

...and ^that is unfortunately an accurate assessment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan

There is no way id guess you failed 170 after that 165 attempt. Four plates doesnt seem far away at all. Nice work!

Thanks.
Seems like if I get the bar to move at all I'm always making the rep and it'll even look easy on tape.
170 simply wouldn't budge, I even gave it another go after psyching myself up for a minute, but nope.

Unfortunately gains will pretty much be on halt for the next few months.
4 plates could be an EOY goal maybe.

Quote

02-08-2015 , 06:38 AM

#1294

Pummi81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,787

Re:Ratio-talk;

5:4:3:2
DL:SQ:BP:OHP

The golden standard.

Quote

02-09-2015 , 04:47 AM

#1295

Pummi81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,787

8.2.2015

Cardio
60 minutes+ of walking by the nearby ski track and teaching my older son the lost art of cross-country skiing.

Quote

02-09-2015 , 05:29 AM

#1296

Pummi81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,787

Bulkament wrap up

Week	BW	Cals	Protein	Carbs	Fat	Fiber
1	70,2	2726	176	255	111	30
2	70,7	2846	187	266	115	35
3	71,1	2969	172	294	123	31
4	71,7	3192	189	307	134	39
5	72,4	3347	194	330	139	37
6	73,4	3332	200	306	145	46
7	74,2	3671	218	360	151	37
8	74,5	3338	206	309	142	42
9	75,0	3553	197	329	161	36
10	75,4	3110	202	290	127	43
11	75,7	3212	207	297	133	37
12	75,7	3415	206	322	145	42
13	76,3	3486	225	308	150	41
14	76,9	3535	219	336	146	39
15	77,8	3435	202	316	151	36
16	77,7	3288	189	337	132	30
17	77,8	3449	208	314	151	41
18	77,8	3814	219	366	164	37
19	78,7	3709	225	341	160	40
20	79,4	3644	220	346	153	38
21	79,5	3947	232	368	172	43
22	80,3	3350	213	316	137	39
23	80,6	-	-	-	-	-

Body composition changes:

BW: 70.2 kg -> 80.6 kg
BF-%: 12-13 -> 19-20
LBM gain: about 3.50 kg
FAT gain: ~7 kg

Spoiler:

Yeesh.

Strength gains:

DL: 143 kg -> 165 kg
FS: 85 kg -> 100 kg
BP: 84 kg -> 100 kg
OHP: 60 kg -> 72.5 kg

The end.

TL;DR:
Natty muscle building is hard.
Cutcutcut you fat************.

Last edited by Pummi81; 02-09-2015 at 05:36 AM.

Quote

02-09-2015 , 10:24 AM

#1297

cashy

we have welbeck

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 29,767

you contemplated shorter/slower cycles?
imo surplus was too high and cycle too long if physical appearance/lower body-fat is important to you.
from the starting point you had 300kcal surplus 3 months bulk followed by a short 2-4 weeks cut would had been a better approach i think

Quote

02-09-2015 , 10:50 AM

#1298

__w__

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,640

Jesus man, what a change you've made. Now it'll be fun to see how much of that muscle you can hold on to during a cut.

Great job. Really good work here.

Quote

02-10-2015 , 03:51 AM

#1299

Pummi81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,787

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashy

you contemplated shorter/slower cycles?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashy

imo surplus was too high and cycle too long if physical appearance/lower body-fat is important to you.

Yes.
Being fairly lean is important to me, can't imagine being this fat in the longterm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashy

from the starting point you had 300kcal surplus 3 months bulk followed by a short 2-4 weeks cut would had been a better approach i think

Yeah, coulda done that or plenty of other things to curb the BF gains but what's done is done.
But in the end it's not that bad to be wearing a bit of a fatcoat in the winter months.
Time to cut now though.

However, I think the next bulk I'll be doing will be uberslow, 100 kcals surplus a day for a year or some such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by __w__

Jesus man, what a change you've made. Now it'll be fun to see how much of that muscle you can hold on to during a cut.

Great job. Really good work here.

Thanks __w__.
TBH once I've unfattened myself I fully expect me to look basically the same I did when I was 70 kg.
Such is natty bodybuilding.