Sup /fit/ (for ref later, 6', 140lbs, ~64kg)
I'm currently working out for racket sports in particular. Most of my workout focuses on legs, I have very specific exercises for building arm strength.
At the moment I do leg curls (both ways), leg abductions (both ways), leg presses, squats, wrist curls, that thing where you pull weight towards your chest (dunno what it's called), and that thing where you pull down to work shoulders/chest (not sure what that's called either).
So first thing I wanna ask:
My gym workout seems quite short, even with a little warmup; I feel like I should be doing more but I'm targeting what I need.
I'm not sure how fast I should increase weight. For the curls and abductions, I'm doing around 70kg, for leg press I'm doing 130kg. I'm worried about joint strain if I push it up too high too quickly.
My sets are usually 2 sets of 8 for those exercises. I'm mostly building strength rather than resistance or hypertrophy. Maybe I should change this to 3 sets of 5 and ramp the weight up?
That said, my squat and lunge is too weak. I start to struggle at around 50kg, but I can do almost 3x that in a press. I don't really understand why I'm struggling. I've had people check my form. Any advice?
Thanks /fit/, you're fuckin' gorgeous
>>34886688
>I start to struggle at around 50kg, but I can do almost 3x that in a press.
Mirin OHP
>>34886735
Well not really, it seems a bit useless if I can do 130 on a machine but only 50 on free weight. It tells me something somewhere must be weak, surely?
50 doesn't even seem good for my weight. I should be able to do body weight at least.
>>34886742
It tells you that the listed weight on a machine bears essentially no relation to the amount of force you're putting out or to what you can accomplish with free weights.
>>34886750
So what're you saying I should do? It doesn't seem like the motion between a leg press and a squat would be that different.
>I'm building strength
I'm sorry to break it to you anons, but your "routine" is absolute shit and won't build anything at all.
Go read the sticky and then research for beginner programs (SS, SL , whatever) and do these.
>>34886775
I'm saying it doesn't matter that there's a disparity because they're completely different exercises and the amount of weight listed on the weight stack (I'm assuming you have a pin-loaded machine rather than a plate-loaded one) is completely different to the actual amount of work you're doing.
>>34886688
>I do leg curls (both ways)
I know you mean leg extensions but the first thing I pictured was your knees bending the wrong way trying to curl them forward somehow.
>>34886735
>implying OP does OHP, let alone knows what it is
>inb4 The Press
>>34886816
That's horrifying.
>>34886802
Yeah it's a pin loaded machine. So the weights listed are just arbitrary?
>>34886775
And yet the different results. On average, leg press is twice a person's squat.
Not him, but I recommend you stop the leg press and start squatting exclusively. It is vastly vastly more applicable to sports performance. It trains balance and support muscles in a way much more like real motion (but without being so like it that it harms neural specificity).
Cable machines have their place, but with few exceptions, I think that place is in a body building routine. Free weights of every sort are fundamentally better for improving your physique for the purpose of upping your performance in sports.
This next advice you can take with a grain of salt, but I don't think you should bother with lunges either. The squat targets the same muscles, but in a way that lets you put up much more weight per leg. A lot of people cite the fact that the motion of a lunge is much more like leg movements you use in sports, but the similarity doesn't seem nearly great enough to matter. The brain is very good at splitting up motion between the left and right side of the body.
I commend your focus on legs. Arms are to direct power, the massive muscles in your legs and connection to the ground create it.
I do think 3x5 would serve you better. At such a low weight, I'm pretty sure you could add 5kg every single work out, and you could do that 3 times a week, for at least six weeks straight (after which you might need to jump by smaller amounts). Just to check, you aren't doing this every day are you? Given that you're six feet tall, but only 140lbs, I'd guess that you're not getting stronger because you're not eating nearly enough. Building muscle is very calorie intense work, and requires a lot of raw materials in the form of protein. Lifting twice a week might be more realistic to fit your schedule of sport specific training though.
>>34886839
They're typically real, as in that's how much the bits of metal actually weigh. More or less.
Its just that once pulleys and levers get involved, the amount of work you need to do to lift the weight changes completely (and is essentially unique to each model of machine).
>>34886858 (cont)
I think you should stop the lat pulldown and replace it with overhead presses and chin-ups.
You should stop the other exercise (I don't know, a row?) and replace it with bench presses and maybe Pendlay rows.
Above all else, I think you need to start doing power cleans. These are key to improving power development in any movement that involves the legs.
>>34886839
They're not arbitrary, it's just that despite seeming like a similar movement and hitting the same muscles, there's a completely different relation between the weight on a squat and the work done of a squat versus the weight on a leg press and the work done during a leg press.
>>34886858
>And yet the different results. On average, leg press is twice a person's squat.
That now makes a lot more sense. If I can squat 50, leg press 130, my upper back isn't as strong as my legs so that's probably where some of the difference is coming from.
>Cable machines have their place, but with few exceptions, I think that place is in a body building routine. Free weights of every sort are fundamentally better for improving your physique for the purpose of upping your performance in sports.
So like, how would I perform the leg abductions on free weights?
>The squat targets the same muscles, but in a way that lets you put up much more weight per leg. A lot of people cite the fact that the motion of a lunge is much more like leg movements you use in sports, but the similarity doesn't seem nearly great enough to matter. The brain is very good at splitting up motion between the left and right side of the body.
It's mainly to train the muscle motion. I need to be able to lunge and recover very quickly. I guess part of it is being able to retain balance and coping with balance under force.
>I commend your focus on legs. Arms are to direct power, the massive muscles in your legs and connection to the ground create it.
It's targeted towards racket sports. To train my arm strength I specifically use weighted rackets. I wouldn't gain very much by building my arms a lot.
And 3x5 seems reasonable. I don't think I could add 5kg every workout, maybe each week. I only have time in my schedule to work out 2x a week as against 3.
With regards to weight, you're fucking telling me. I've been actively trying to gain weight but it just doesn't want to happen. On top of that I think I might have Celiacs after repeatedly passing blood, so I don't think the enormous amounts of pasta were helping, only making things worse. I'm planning on starting oats sludge with shit like milk and peanut butter though.
>>34886922
I've done a fair bit of work training people for sports, so I'm gonna do you a favour here:
Do not, ever, try to increase your strength by using more heavily weighted versions of what you actually do in your sport. Lunges? Fine. Swinging an extra-heavy racket? Not so much. It does little to improve your strength and a lot to fuck up your movement pattern and timing once you go back to using the proper weight.
>>34886956
So, I've been looking around at some information.
It recommends things like hand grippers and a variety of exercises including arm flexions/raises, things like lowering a dumbbell behind your head.
Would I be better off grabbing a set of 30KG dumbbells for the time being? Doing things like dumbbell squats, the exercises mentioned above, maybe some dumbbell/weighted situps?
I can still go to the gym twice a week, but I could always add a third day for those exercises.
Also I have a bit of a shoulder issue on one side. I'm not allowed to exert pressure on the collarbone going towards the chest inwards (above is fine, but it means that bench press is a no go).
>>34886922
I'm >>34886858
I agree 100% with this guy:
>>34886956
It is a TERRIBLE training methodology. I won't call it bro-science; but more call it "really thoroughly disproven (also proven to screw up your form)" science.
That's actually part of exactly why weighted lunges aren't such a hot idea. It's too close to a movement you actually make constantly, so training with weight fucks up your neural pathways when the time comes to do the real thing.
Absolutely do lunges. Bodyweight lunges. do 100 of them a day, but do it as part of sport specific training rather than your strength training. (Warning, never received racket sport training training, I don't know if that's actually right. But it was a big part of the bodyweight circuit Coach preferred for baseball.)
>I don't think I could add 5kg every workout
If you can't add 5kg to your squat every work out for at least nine workouts, then you are not a metabolically healthy male human.
>So like, how would I perform the leg abductions on free weights?
I guess part of the idea is "why do you need to target that one specific muscle"? Barbell squats will hit every muscle in your leg to some degree, and they'll hit them as a cohesive whole.
>I've been actively trying to gain weight but it just doesn't want to happen.
Have you considered, I don't know, buying a large shake and fries every single day, dipping the fries in the shake and eating the whole thing?
You're obviously not in danger of becoming a fatty, so eat until you feel sick, use the extra calories to build powerful ball slamming muscle.
>>34887163
>If you can't add 5kg to your squat every work out for at least nine workouts, then you are not a metabolically healthy male human.
If my starting weight is 50, and I weigh 64, don't you think 95 might be a bit of a push in that time frame?
>Have you considered, I don't know, buying a large shake and fries every single day, dipping the fries in the shake and eating the whole thing?
You're obviously not in danger of becoming a fatty, so eat until you feel sick, use the extra calories to build powerful ball slamming muscle.
I struggle to eat enough. Like I said I was eating a fuck ton of pasta and such but it made me feel very sick.
>I guess part of the idea is "why do you need to target that one specific muscle"? Barbell squats will hit every muscle in your leg to some degree, and they'll hit them as a cohesive whole.
Would dumbbell squats as mentioned >>34887149 work?
>>34887270
You would be suprisef how much weight you can put on the bar if you eat enough
>>34887270
Dumbells are an issue because it's difficult to add weight. You'll need to progressively increase. Just a couple of 30kg dumbells wouldn't let you do that.
Barbells are literally tools designed with that in mind. Hit the barbell squats.
Also, the others are right about the food. It's hard, but you need to get that intake. Look for ways to increase calories easily. That oats sludge sounds like a good place to start. Just make sure you actually work out the required calories and track your intake. You can't just go off being full.
>>34887378
So I just need to chronically overeat? How do you guys afford that? Shit's expensive.
>>34887396
Yeah, but we're trying to grow here. It's not so much overeating as is providing the correct fuel to the engine. You're starving the motor.
Oats cost nothing and can be blended into shakes. Rice is cheap and calorie dense. Eat heavier/fattier meats like Steak and Lamb. Peanut butter is incredibly calorie dense. Snack on nuts. Guy I lift with eats basically how you normally would, but during bulks just begins eating heaps of rice and butter on the side.
Basically find something cheap, calorie dense and ideally kinda healthy, then eat the shit out of it.
>>34887488
I eat a shit load of peanut butter and I'm already drinking normal shakes and a load of milk, eating mostly meat and potato. I guess I just need to start binging on rice and sauce and oat shakes.
>>34887500
Yeah, but like I said, actually track this stuff. Don't go off how you feel, because your body isn't used to what you're trying.
"a shit load" isn't a unit of measurement. You need to be saying you have eaten 250 calories of peanut butter. Jump on a TDEE Calculator and see what you use in a day, then eat more than that.
Meat and potato is fine - variety is not the issue. Quantity is.
>>34887530
>Daily target of 3600 calories
I'm going to explode.
>>34887625
You've got this breh.
>>34887625
>>34887625
1
>>34887625
2
