Lifting Heavy is so overrated.

You started off saying resistance training was useless for sports performance and now you've compromised to it's useful to a point. I don't think anyone ever said it's all you need for ANY sport, excluding lifting sports.

I don't think I said it was useless, just that it does not "develop" explosiveness - a myth being pushed around this forum.

So because my sport is not a popular one it doesn't count in this argument?

Christophe Lemaitre can sprint faster than you ever will and does not lift weights. It isn't the panacea you believe it to be.

Yes some boxers lift weight as part of their supplementary strength and conditioning programs. Punching power is more complex than simply lifting more in the gym and as a result punching harder. There are plenty of people that go to gyms and can out-lift professional boxers, yet will never punch as hard.

Another example is Harry Aikines Aryteey (sp?) the sprinter, who can power clean 400lbs yet is nowhere near top level sprinters times.
The point remains that he is faster for doing resistance training than without it.
My point still stands that explosiveness can't be built to any great extent from weight training alone. There's just more too it. People need to accept what they are and all of this "training" won't make a bit of difference apart from to their bodyspace profile "stats" or TSR fitness guru recognition.

Lactic acid is another sports science myth.

It is overrated as you correctly stated. A lot of people who lift heavy and are trying to get big are often the ones who failed at sports when they were younger or got bullied/teased and feel the need to look intimidating to others. After they get bigger and stronger they still suck at the sports.

Gaining weight can be a burden if you're into a competitive sport which requires some kind of endurance.

For the majority of people who just want a reasonable physique when they take their t-shirt off at the beach, all this heavy lifting (deadlifts, squats etc...) stuff is simply unnecessary.

I think the point is pretty simple about weight training:
It will probably help the majority of athletes to be stronger than they currently are since some degree of limit strength is necessary for all tasks. In addition, limit strength is a very trainable quality in comparison to the majority of motor qualities. The point is not that athletes necessarily need to be strong in absolute terms but whether they would benefit from resistance training, which is true in the vast majority of cases. What form this takes is another question entirely.

With regard to IRL's point about biomechanics: if you're trying to improve yourself, it's not as if you can make your limbs longer or make your limb ratios closer to the what you can get for your sport. You can only make yourself stronger, faster, more flexible or improve your endurance. Might as well focus on what you can do with your genetics rather than just bitch about the limitations.


This is untrue and even if it were true, the vast majority of sprinters lift for a reason: it improves the performance at their sport. This is not to say that the best sprinters are the best lifters but merely that weight training does improve sprint times in the vast majority of individuals.


The point remains that if you resistance train in a sensible manner, you will hit harder. You might as well train the motor qualities you can do get better at your chosen sport. Genetics may determine how far you can go but if you're serious about training, you might as well do what you can do maximise your potential.


Doesn't change the fact that the majority of people will run faster if they lift weights. Increasing your leg strength will make you run faster even if you don't sprint up until a certain point. This is not to say that the biggest squatter is the fastest sprinter, but it is probable for many people that increasing their squat will decrease their sprint times.


Explain. It seems quite obvious that lactic acid exists.

Finally, it depends on what you mean by 'explosiveness.' It's probable that if you coach someone to do kettlebell swings, jumps, cleans and other fast lifts that they will be able to jump higher, run faster etc which will transfer over in a tangible way to the majority of what most people would describe as 'athletic' activities.

seriously, whenever I hear advice of EAT LIKE A HORSE LIFT HEAVY! i facepalm

it does nothing but put pointless excessive strain on your joints for minute added strength gains



I've switched to calisthenics only after 2 years of weights and have been progressing every week




moral: Lifting heavy is overrated. 1-5 rep ranges are pointless unless you're a powerlifter

You will not get "more explosive" by lifting weights, otherwise all field athletes would need to do is lift weights and nothing else. Please note most records in the field events of athletics have remained unbroken for 15-25 years.

Yes the most recent research suggests LACTATE (not lactic acid) exists but is in fact beneficial to motor function.
I am aware that lactate has been hypothesised to be a fuel source that improves as opposed to decreases performance.
There is a lot more to understand about physiology and biomechanics than just lifting heavy is good/bad etc etc.
Sure there is. I've just claimed there are benefits to resistance training for the vast majority of people, which is not a notion you've disproved in any way whatsoever.
If OP wanted a decent body he shouldnt be taking advice from a bodybuilders forum for starters, eating like a horse and lifting heavy is how you get like that, it increases mass. Strength is a bit misinterpreted and the body weight exercises you do now are good for strength gains that you will actually use, not to mention compulsory base fitness before you do any 'heavy lifting'.
I don't think any of the regulars are actually claiming you need to jump right into maxing. The idea of 'functional' strength seems quite silly to me. I do not train bodyweight really. Yet I find it reasonably easy to do lower-level gymnastic skills like L-Sits, hanging leg raises, handstand pushups, one arm pushups etc. So basic weight training has transferred over the other way. You could say the same of my ability to move objects etc. Functional strength is entirely determinant on the function you're trying to express. To all intents and purposes, my training is 'functional.' I would also argue that in many respects, something like a MedX machine is more useful than bodyweight for a lot of beginners.
I am sure if I looked through your two years of training and lifestyle I could spot many reasons to why you may not have noticed much change, and not understood why. -Think how complex your body is as a system, everything you do will effect it in someway, the more factors you learn about and control the more efficient your workouts will be.
I'm pretty sure why I haven't got that much stronger to be honest. I don't eat very much, this is not news to me. When I eat more (see what happens during the summer of my log, I get stronger. Some form of periodization/cycling helps as well.

Yes but boxers train every week so obviously with practice they will be able to transfer their gained strength into the punch. If you go gym and thats it then your fighting skills are not going to get much better.

Ain't readin all posts

But stand by my point 100%. lifting in 1-5 rep range is pointless unless you're a powerlifter

Ain't readin all posts

But stand by my point 100%. lifting in 1-5 rep range is pointless unless you're a powerlifter

It all depends on your goal. Liften smaller amounts more often increase your strength. However, doing max lifts (when you lift as much as you can) increases muscle size. So if you want your muscles to get bigger, the best way is to lift as much as you can. If you want actual strength, lift a decent amount a lot.