If i were to try to bench 1000k?

I

ian

New Member
This is a hypothetical question that sprung to mind from nowhere.....

What would happen if you tried to lift a weight you simply couldn’t move?

Lets say you can bench 100k for the odd rep and you tried 120k and could barely move it, if you continued to do the same thing week on week would you eventually be able to get out a rep or would you just be wasting your time?

Or

If you tried to lift 1000kg and just pushed as hard as you could for a few reps, would this do anything to the muscle?

(lets pretend I’m using a smith machine so I don’t get crushed)
 
All I can say is that this is a recipe for injury.
smile.gif
 
There is a technique I've not tried but a couple times of loading the bar and just unracking it, not trying it. This supposedly gives some neural connections that prepare you for bigger loads. I have no idea if it works any more than envisioning yourself as a roidmonster, but it probably won't hurt. (unless you do something stoopid.)
My impression of the technique was only one thought: "You ain't reddy fer dis!"
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you tried to lift 1000kg and just pushed as hard as you could for a few reps, would this do anything to the muscle?</div>

Sure. Its essentially an isometric. Whether a 1000 kg barbell or a 1000 kg car or a 1000 kg wall, you are pushing against an object that is, for you, immovable.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lets say you can bench 100k for the odd rep and you tried 120k and could barely move it...</div>

This is called a Static Hold. Sometimes called a Functional Isometric. It has a few names. The idea is the same. Grab a bar with more than your max and hold on to it! I did an entire workout of Static Holds for about 4 months in '97.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">would you eventually be able to get out a rep or would you just be wasting your time?</div>

Not at all. Look up Paul Anderson on the internet. He did this very thing and got up to squatting more than 900 lbs. In Paul's day there were no squat racks. So to squat Paul would dig a hole in his yard deep enough for him stand in. Then he would put the barbell over the hole. Then stand in the hole and squat the bar off the grass. Over time he would fill in the hole more and more. Once he could do a full squat with the new weight he would dig the hole all over again and add 50 - 100 lbs. Its Progressive Overload, just in a different way.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This supposedly gives some neural connections that prepare you for bigger loads.</div>

I've heard that too. You can also do holds at separate points in the Range of Motion to build muscle and strength. Or you can do them just at the sticking point to get a new max. These techniques have been around for a long time, they just don't get a lot of press.

Do Static Holds make you big? Yes.

Functionally strong? That's complicated. Isometric strength gains occur mainly at the angle you do them. BUT, there is a ~18 degree transfer of strength. This is how Paul Anderson could gradually fill up the hole.

Static holds can be paired with dynamic lifts. A long forgotten HIT strength routine is to do 1 Static Hold for 10 - 15 seconds to failure for 1 set. Then follow it up with a full range lift for 8 - 12 reps. This only works for single joint exercises. I did them with Preacher Curls.
 
Static holds are more or less effective depending on what is actually supporting the load. In the case of bench, if you just hold a heavy bar with elbows locked, most of the load is being transmitted through your bones and support structures to the bench rather than through your pecs and tris. There's not really any stretch involved either.

On the other hand, if you do heavy static holds you are actively stretching your upper traps and most of your forearm muscles are working hard to stabilise your elbow joint and to maintain your hands' hold on the bar.

Similarly, holding a heavy weight as if you were going to squat with it would work your spinal erectors and core muscles pretty hard but would do little for your legs themselves if your knees were locked. From your pelvis down to the floor, most of the load would be being transmitted through your bones. If you unlocked your knees that would be different.

Don't forget the use of negatives in your training (useful at the end of the 5s for some exercises). It is possible to do negs with loads that are up to about 60% heavier than you could lift concentrically but caution is advised. If you could do a single bench press with 100kg, you could load 120kg on the bar and do negs with that - lowering the bar to the safety rods set at chest height. Then just climb out from under the bar and raise the bar back up to the rack pins - much easier if you have someone else to help! However, I wouldn't recommend starting off with negs at this load. Better to start with a load that is about your 2RM and work up from there.

Exercises that really lend themselves to negs are dips and chins. For delts you could push press a 2RM load or heavier and then lower it under control.
 
Good point Lol. It would seem that there is the mental camp vs physical camp, wheras in the mental aspect they are saying you instill confidence at some level, but in the physical camp you are instilling ability.
Just &quot;holding&quot; the weight has it's inherent problems, as you mentioned, due to load transfer, and I think the O.P. was referring primarily to the physical side. I do recall, however, some long threads about isometrics vs dynamic resistance, and the dynamic always won out over isometrics for purposes of hypertrophy. But the discussions were only referring to weights that could be used dynamically, so this is another procedure entirely.
In the case of Mr. Anderson, he would have been working each rep without any stretch reflex, beginning the rep at his sticking points as the hole filled in. This introduces yet another principle aside of static work, and should be referred to separately as well, unless he was merely holding the weight off the ground.
 
Yeah, all of this is fine, but you will never have a chance of even unracking 1000 kg even if you had the two strongest men alive on both sides of the bar assisting the unrack.

And if you were able to start unracking it, it would crash down on your face killing you instantly before you could get the bar over your chest.
 
Yeah, I don't think the OP thought he could unrack 1000kg even if you could get a rack and bar long enough and strong enough to hold that much load! So his thought was more along the lines of the benefits of pushing against an immovable object.
 
Besides since the object is immovable you do not get any feedback so you can't really tell how much strength you are really putting into it. Of course you can be very self-aware and be sure that you are actually putting all of your strength into it and as time goes by you get stronger and you are putting more and more strength into moving the object but somehow I just feel that lacking the feedback (object moving) you can't be that certain.
 
Well, this actually opens up a further division in the experiment.
One, you have a weight you can't move at all.
Two, you have a weight you can't lift for a rep.
O.P. is obviously choice #1, but since that point is moot for the aforementioned reason of feedback, we move on to #2.
If we can't set up for negatives, we then a.) have to dig a hole (use partial ROM's) and come up with more ROM on a single weight, or,
we b.) just unrack the weight and do static holds, perhaps slightly into the ROM. Anything further on this and you're back to doing a.) partials.
I'm just trying to keep things clear as we discuss this.
 
I was just thinking... isn't most forearm training essentially static? Deads, pullups etc. At least for me, those are the only exercises I do that let my forearms work, and so far they seem to be growing fine.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I was just thinking... isn't most forearm training essentially static?</div>

Sometimes.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Deads</div>

Yes.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">pullups</div>

Depends. Overhand narrow grip will work the brachiordialis. So will wide grip. The brachiordialis assists in elbow flexion (curling like movements) whenever the wrist is neutral or pronated.

Treating forearm work as a seperate body part and doing work for it is always possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top