|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 3, 2012 16:41:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 4, 2012 20:12:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 5, 2012 16:53:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 5, 2012 23:01:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 7, 2012 0:10:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 8, 2012 1:50:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 9, 2012 2:03:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 10, 2012 0:27:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 11, 2012 1:05:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 11, 2012 21:10:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 12, 2012 20:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 13, 2012 16:24:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 13, 2012 23:08:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 14, 2012 15:24:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tcajim1 on Sept 14, 2012 19:03:57 GMT -5
It has been over a year since I've posted... but I've got to give an alternate opinion and example. To start - your strength is truly impressive and I hope you do try out for the bobsled team... Doug Sharp was on the USA team that received gold medal... he lives in my town and I've met him once... he's about my size - you seem to be much bigger than he is.
To my alternate opinion: I disagree with you about absolute versus relative muscular endurance. Absolute endurance, as I understand your comments, would therefore pertain to powerlifters only - the bigger and heavier the lifter, the more they eat, the more they lift, the stronger they are, and the more endurance they have.
Relative endurance, by your definition has to due to personal maxes and endurance based off their coefficient - for a lack of better terms. This proves to be who is fitter, plain and simple.
The question about which is better overall is clearly, in my opinion, relative endurance. Why? Simple: 99% of the population, weight lifting and fitness/exercising population isn't a powerlifter gearing for three lifts. The 99% of the population can't lift over 350lbs on a bench press. Therefore, these people only need and care about relative endurance because that is all which is required for them and by their peers.
My example about the stronger athlete has more endurance, well - I'll prove ya wrong: your bench is a ton more than mine now, and mine now is more than it was in about the year 2000. In 2000, for my department, our PT test included as many strict push ups in a minute as possible. No dipping the chest, having to touch the testers fist each down rep, etc. I had three testers and did 99 in one minute. Confirmed by all three testers.
To me relative endurance applies to 99% of all the population. An athlete who weighs much more than 300lbs in just about any sport won't play much because their endurance is bad because they carry too much weight and get too tired.
The only exception is a powerlifter.
I am truly jealous of your bench - by the way... outstanding!
|
|
|
Post by tcajim1 on Sept 14, 2012 19:09:05 GMT -5
I made a typo.. Doug Sharp and his team earned the bronze medal, NOT gold.
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 15, 2012 0:40:45 GMT -5
Thanks for the response! I'm actually having this exact same discussion on my fitocracy account right now.
I should have been more clear in typing. I was talking primarily about external resistance. And speaking of external resistance, I think what I said is true.
If you're using bodyweight as the standard, then bodyweight is the resistance in question, not an external source. If that's the case, the concept of absolute endurance is out the window unless you're talking about two people who are the exact same size. For two athletes the same size, I'd say the stronger one still has the advantage. For two athletes of different size, relative endurance does play a larger role because it's a matter of strength relative to bodyweight. In that case, things tend to simply favor the smaller person (which is why PL and OL have formulas to account of the relative advantage of lighter people).
As for pushups, ours were chest to floor, hold lockout until told to go back down (to make sure they were all fully locked). I'm sure sure how much of a difference that makes, but I would definitely be good for more than 75 under the conditions you're describing. Also, keep in mind that I said relative endurance IS absolutely trainable, it simply has a lower ceiling on how far it can take you if trained exclusively. With minimal training I can easily get my max reps for pushups over 100. That would NOT be true if I were weaker and still the same weight.
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 15, 2012 2:30:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 15, 2012 17:10:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 17, 2012 1:10:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 17, 2012 21:50:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 18, 2012 21:01:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 20, 2012 1:03:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 21, 2012 1:18:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thatnuckolskid on Sept 21, 2012 23:22:54 GMT -5
Today's training, my thoughts on supplement use (plus a review of some new ones I'm taking), and an amusing story from my meet (in which I'm a jerk to an unsuspecting person). It was a fun post to write, so I hope it's a fun one to read: gregnuckols.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/todays-training-and-supplements/(Squatted 425 and Closegripped 315 5x4)
|
|