Strength vs Endurance: Specificity and Specialization: Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield vs Tom Platz

Store: teespring.com/...
Forum: www.empire-forum.com
Excelling at strength sports require training multiple different thresholds over a training lifetime. Volume and hypertrophy work with varied excersizes is often prescribed for building muscle, endurance, and a wide foundation that can support a high ceiling of potential performance. Specialization is also required in the form of time spent doing the exact thing you plan on competing in to get as close to that potential ceiling as possible.
Here, I discuss the famous squat-off in FIBO Germany in 1993 between powerlifting icon Fred 'Dr. Squat' Hatfield and Bodybuilding pioneer Tom Platz. Both achieved the highest performances in thier respective sport, each with a different direction of specialization. They both performed equally impressive, albeit very different, feats of strength.

[@pepepopo7100]

I'm ranting and raving to all my buds about your underrated channel. Keep up the great work Bromley!

[@joshcoleman7339]

Appreciate all the content you've been doing over the lockdown period.....I hope you continue to chern it when it all turns to normal and your back to being super busy

[@diego17th]

Every time I listen to this man, I realize he is a genius.

[@mohawk3371]

I find that the endurance to top end strength curve is different for different lifts. For my self the bench is more endurance biased, where I find I can do 10-11 reps at at 80% (or even a little more), and which rapidly drops of up as the weight goes up. On the other end of the spectrum are squats and especially dead lifts . For squats I find a 10 RM at 75% very challenging, and even more so for dead lifts.

[@wmfilms123]

I've learned so much from your channel, keep up the great work

[@BossofBosses111]

That's why I always believe training at different rep ranges, whether it be with DUP, Block training, etc... Leads to more well rounded muscular strength and hypertrophy

[@chunx077]

Wow so many good content in this channel. This is amazing

[@anthonyluisi7096]

Nice 👍🏻 I thought Bromley lived in the gym . 😂 nice to see him at home with awesome lifting content once again 👍🏻👏

[@CoAnLi]

Great content! Thank you so much

[@milesorec6789]

great stuff mate thanks for sharing

[@chrishomer]

Super interesting. Thanks for making this 👍

[@coreywelch243]

Thanks for the great content 💪👍

[@unclefrancis5134]

Super interesting- great talk.

[@aparthia]

This individual difference between how many reps people can do with different percentages of their 1RM is why I like using rep maxes to program off of. So instead of 4x10 @70%, 4x8 @75%, 4x6 @80% I like to do 4x10 @12RM, 4x8 @10Rm, 4x6 @8RM And then I keep a notebook of my 1-15 rep maxes for each lift.

[@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans]

Would that just be RIR/RPE?

[@thenaturalphenom7]

Best fitness channel ever

[@realinohio]

I trained with Tom Platz once when he taught my issa PT Cert. He is awesome!

[@mjconns]

FYI that tshirts link doesn't work: "Uh oh... We couldn't find the page you're looking for."

[@wanderingcousin]

Really interesting, thanks. Connecting this to your review of Juggernaut, could you see benefit in taking that program and adapting the cycle with 50% or 100% higher rep ranges (adjusting weight %s and sets)?

[@limitisillusion7]

I think that best fit curve changes significantly depending on what lifts you're doing. You're going to hit a wall on endurance rep ranges a lot faster on exercises that recruit more muscles. Not only that, but there are obviously some muscle groups better equipped for higher rep ranges. I'm not saying your were claiming otherwise, but it's just something to point out. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are very good at the maintaining the extremely high rep ranges with low weight, given enough training, like you pointed out. But that's really only becomes true when the weight has become significantly low enough to cross the line into cardiovascular training. Regarding the Hatfield/platz thing, I think you need to consider steroids too. I really think leaving that out of the model is leaving out a huge factor. You could compare natural vs unnatural body builders to figure that out. Obviously specialized training techniques will effect what someone is able to do on a strength vs endurance curve, but only comparing two people in this way is not useful for predicting the extent of it. I personally fall closer to that upper endurance specialization curve. That's not to say I'm ripped like a body builder, but I have much better peak endurance than peak strength because it seems more useful in everyday life. If your aren't training to be a world class power lifter, then I think that applies to everyone. I rarely run into a case where lack of strength is my bottleneck.

[@AlexanderBromley]

This video is about how a lifetime of specialized training will lead you with specialized qualities. It's the definition of SAID, which is observed in all athletes across all sports. I sincerely dont understand what the discussion of steroids would add to this topic.

[@AdrianFlorist]

I feel like it's important to count how hard an 855 squat is on the CNS, but the point is clear nonetheless.

[@shycreation9418]

The thing you don't talk about in this is how these guys were on ungodly amounts of gear. You simply aren't able to do that much intense volume as a natty and be able to recover

[@yahyachafiq4112]

can you do a video of how strong you can get natural for the average genes

[@Jmack7861]

My 3rm on squats is 455... and 405... and 365. My work capacity is shit lmao

[@dennisnordlund902]

Same 😂 I’m gonna work on volume and upping work capacity next week, having totally fried my cns for months and months on end.

[@TDace25]

#rememberhatfield

[@limitisillusion7]

There's also the possibility that you don't become the world class power lifter without specialization. I think power lifters don't compete with body builders and vice versa for a reason... Perhaps that you can't have both.

[@WiseGuy508]

There was once this guy called Ronny Coleman. Oh and Dorian Yates was pretty good at the bench.

[@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL]

Put lifting on a graph, that's language I can understand.

[@zsahe21]

!!!!!

[@iwantlee9510]

When my squat 1 rep max was 130 kg I remember doing 100 kg for 12 reps. With a 1RM of 130 kg Strengthlevel.com puts my 12 rep max to 91 kg, which is way off. I guess I'm more of a Tom Platz than a Fred Hatfield.

[@senselessnothing]

I don't believe this theory at all

[@aaronjester3266]

albu obscure why not?

[@senselessnothing]

@@aaronjester3266 The extent to which you can change your muscle fiber distribution is small. Beyond that all you can do is pack up more energy in those fibers by training, whether you do it by 20 rep sets or 3 rep sets the physical process is the same. Subject to skill differences since someone that hasn't trained much with one mode isn't acquainted to tempo it or put maximum effort.

[@AlexanderBromley]

The bit about fiber variability is false. Fibers are extremely plastic, moreso than previously thought. renaissanceperiodization.com/muscle-fiber-types-change-training-end-unfounded-debate/ But even if that was the case, there is so much more to adaptation. Increase in mitochondrial bodies, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, cardiovascular variables, neurological adaptations.... Talking about the physical process of adaptation between sets of 3 and sets of 20 (muscular strength/power and muscular endurance) as being the same shows such a limited understanding of human physiology and sports science..... having an opinion about what type of ice cream you like is fine, but having an opinion on something fact based when you have no education in it is not.

[@senselessnothing]

@@AlexanderBromley The argued extent to which such changes occur as a percentage physiologically does not keep up with the evidence of training results. I've been through enough sports and have enough experience to see how people are inherently slow twitch dominant or fast twitch dominant, to one extent or the other, training doesn't seem to help much with that. So for example "our recent study (in review) on monozygous twins (i.e., exact same DNA) with 30+ years of differing exercise routines showed MHC I FT% of 90%+ in the endurance exercising twin to only ~40% in the sedentary one." may seem quite significant, but it would really is not in practical performance terms. Is that due to different efficacy of people's fibers? Maybe a leverage difference? Whatever the case I'm not convinced that the performance alterations are very significant. So other than your senseless ad hominem, the end of the line performance results side with me. One would expect from plain understanding of the situation that my original argument presents a bottleneck to all performance shifts, but meh.

[@AlexanderBromley]

I'm going to guess I'm talking to an underperforming college student? . -10 points for lazily pulling the first study off Google in an attempt to look like an authority. -50 for thinking that leaning on quiz words from Philosophy 101 doesn't make you look like a weenie. You just cited A.) a shitty study (where n=2, and half of that sample size was untrained) where B.) it still showed a dramatic shift in fiber composition. What you are convinced of is of zero value to anyone; you do not have knowledge of the thing you are forming opinions on. Your description of how training works "packing up more energy in those fibers" where the effect of 20 reps and 3 reps is the same, was patently stupid (normally I would call it 'incorrect', but the confidence you displayed in giving such a wrong explanation moves it to 'stupid'). It's ok to be wrong or mistaken. It is never ok to present yourself as an authority when you are not. I do not like charlatans.