Gary Gibson, et al., strength to BW proportions

[Tim Lofton]

I noticed Gary mention in one of his replies in his sumo DL topic, that he is at a BW of 167#, squatting around 350 to 360, and DL around 400. Obviously he is a very experienced lifter and puts tremendous effort and thought into his training, but physically, when the mantra of SS is gain weight-gain weight, how is he (and others) doing this at this weight?
I ask in all seriousness as a newcomer (novice) to this program and currently at about 176# with lifting numbers half of his, not that I expect to be there or anything. I'm just trying to grok getting somewhere near those numbers as I progress (obviously I don't compete either) without putting on more muscle. How does one keep building strength without pushing their weight up?
By the way Gary, I do appreciate the insight and depth you provide in your topics and responses. Thanks all for your input.

tim

[blowdpanis]

Well, stated differently, what are all the factors responsible for making somebody stronger besides gains in muscle mass?

The easy-ish answer here is "neurological stuff/magic." Same thing that allows guys in the same weight classes in strength sports to often gain strength year after year. Some people will obviously have more strength potential at a given weight than others.

[Gary Gibson]

Heh. I was going to post on this myself.

I peaked last month at a belt-n-sleeves 405 SQ at a bodyweight of 175. Jut a couple months before that I'd struggled with 370 as a last (successful) attempt at a meet for which I'd cut to get to 165. I also just missed my last (sumo) deadlift attempt with 474 in which I failed to lock out my hips before. I'm down about 10% because a) a 10-20% drop is required after a peak (that's why they're called peaks) and b) I lost bodyweight.

I can only get so strong at a given bodyweight. If I want to squat 600 lbs raw (and I really, really do), I'm going to have to weigh around 200 lbs. It's not going to happen at ~170.

As to why I'm not 70s Big now: Keep in mind that I started at 5'9" and 130 lbs. I'm now 5'10" and ~170. I've gained 40 lbs over the years. I would have gained them faster had I trained properly all along. Most guys start at around my height and 150-160 and end up around 190-200.

Blowd, I believe you said that you started around where I did with a similar progression in weight and strength..?

[blowdpanis]

Heh. I was going to post on this myself.

I peaked last month at a belt-n-sleeves 405 SQ at a bodyweight of 175. Jut a couple months before that I'd struggled with 370 as a last (successful) attempt at a meet for which I'd cut to get to 165. I also just missed my last (sumo) deadlift attempt with 474 in which I failed to lock out my hips before. I'm down about 10% because a) a 10-20% drop is required after a peak (that's why they're called peaks) and b) I lost bodyweight.

I can only get so strong at a given bodyweight. If I want to squat 600 lbs raw (and I really, really do), I'm going to have to weigh around 200 lbs. It's not going to happen at ~170.

As to why I'm not 70s Big now: Keep in mind that I started at 5'9" and 130 lbs. I'm now 5'10" and ~170. I've gained 40 lbs over the years. I would have gained them faster had I trained properly all along. Most guys start at around my height and 150-160 and end up around 190-200.

Blowd, I believe you said that you started around where I did with a similar progression in weight and strength..?

Yes, our stories seem very similar in that regard, and I like your last comment. I think it's one of those things people forget - "normal" for us as fully grown adults was like ~130 lbs. We're now ~170. If our normal was actually normal, like 150-160, then we'd be 185-190, and people would probably lend our thoughts more credence based on appearance alone. Oh well :P

But yah, my goals are a little less lofty than yours, at this point I really just want the ol 300/400/500. I suppose 200/300/400/500 (including the strict press). I am reasonably confident that I can do this with a bodyweight at ~180+, but have been reluctant to fat fuck myself up to that point, as my gains past the ~170 mark seem to start getting disproportionately sloppy.

[Gary Gibson]

...as my gains past the ~170 mark seem to start getting disproportionately sloppy.

A very important point and in line with what we've all discussed before: you add more fat per pound of muscle as you progress. Initially--depending on your genetics--you may add just a pound of fat for every 3-5 lbs of muscle. Eventually, you'll be adding a pound of fat for every 1-3 lbs of muscle, then it will be pound for pound and eventually you'll add MORE fat per unit of muscle. At some point down the road, you'll have to accept a pound of fat for an ounce of muscle gain. There's really no way around this. You can strip some of the fat as you go, but you'll just lose some muscle too. How much fat you'll carry with a given amount of muscle really is genetically set and there's just not much you can do about it. (I mean a minimum amount of fat per muscle; You can of course carry more fat per muscle by eating and not training.)

I guess we're lucky insofar as we both appear to be able to carry quite a bit of lean mass and our initial fat-to-muscle gain ratio was probably better than the average person's starting point. By the time either of us get to 200 lbs, however, our ratio would probably have done its natural diminution toward inversion and perhaps even flipped. There's a very good calculator on the weightrainer (I'm sure you already know of it) that takes wrist measurements and height into account and gives some idea of how much fat one would be carrying. It's based on measurements from (dozens? hundreds?) of muscle-building athletes over many decades.

Edit: This is what I meant by accepting a certain look to be as strong as possible, btw. One guy will only add 10 lbs of fat with his 30 lbs of muscles gained; another will add 25 lbs of fat with the same gain in lean tissue. This is genetically-determined (though one can improve the ratio with extrasomatic chemistry). Some of us will have to accept not being fitness models when we double our strength. We skinny bastards may not gain muscle easily, but when we do, it will be with less fat and we'll probably have some pretty good relative strength even if we aren't absolutely as strong as the big/muscular/fat men of the world.

[blowdpanis]

A very important point and in line with what we've all discussed before: you add more fat per pound of muscle as you progress. Initially--depending on your genetics--you may add just a pound of fat for every 3-5 lbs of muscle. Eventually, you'll be adding a pound of fat for every 1-3 lbs of muscle, then it will be pound for pound and eventually you'll add MORE fat per unit of muscle. At some point down the road, you'll have to accept a pound of fat for an ounce of muscle gain. There's really no way around this. You can strip some of the fat as you go, but you'll just lose some muscle too. How much fat you'll carry with a given amount of muscle really is genetically set and there's just not much you can do about it. (I mean a minimum amount of fat per muscle; You can of course carry more fat per muscle by eating and not training.)

I guess we're lucky insofar as we both appear to be able to carry quite a bit of lean mass and our initial fat-to-muscle gain ratio was probably better than the average person's starting point. By the time either of us get to 200 lbs, however, our ratio would probably have done its natural diminution toward inversion and perhaps even flipped. There's a very good calculator on the weightrainer (I'm sure you already know of it) that takes wrist measurements and height into account and gives some idea of how much fat one would be carrying. It's based on measurements from (dozens? hundreds?) of muscle-building athletes over many decades.

Edit: This is what I meant by accepting a certain look to be as strong as possible, btw. One guy will only add 10 lbs of fat with his 30 lbs of muscles gained; another will add 25 lbs of fat with the same gain in lean tissue. This is genetically-determined (though one can improve the ratio with extrasomatic chemistry). Some of us will have to accept not being fitness models when we double our strength. We skinny bastards may not gain muscle easily, but when we do, it will be with less fat and we'll probably have some pretty good relative strength even if we aren't absolutely as strong as the big/muscular/fat men of the world.

Right now I'm in the process of getting my average kcal intake up to ~4000 as "clean" as I've ever been (more or less paleo with a bit of dairy thrown in). We'll see if it makes any difference whatsoever, besides the frequency at which I'm shitting...which is a lot.

[Gary Gibson]

Right now I'm in the process of getting my average kcal intake up to ~4000 as "clean" as I've ever been (more or less paleo with a bit of dairy thrown in). We'll see if it makes any difference whatsoever, besides the frequency at which I'm shitting...which is a lot.

Every day most of my kcals come from a pound of beef stir fried with onions and the better portion of a gallon of milk. Tonight's pound is almost finished and those onions smell delicious.

[BryanM]

Yeah pretty much get born as a chipmunk.

An ant has a bigger strength to bodyweight ratio than a bear.

What's a "good ratio" is a sliding scale that goes down to a smaller number as skeleton mass increases.

[PMDL]

Mikey you just need to eat some cheeseburgers and quit worrying about the chin-fagging.

[blowdpanis]

Mikey you just need to eat some cheeseburgers and quit worrying about the chin-fagging.

But Matt, I'll never become a Crossfit Legend™ with that attitude...