- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 463
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ForemanRules said:skeletal muscle hypertrophy = more mass and more strength...
Correction......you are wrong go look up the definition of skeletal hypertrophyDale Mabry said:Correction...
=a higher capacity for strength gain.
ForemanRules said:Correction......you are wrong go look up the definition of skeletal hypertrophy
You miss-read my post....here it is againDale Mabry said:I am not sure what skeletal hypertrophy is, but muscular hypertrophy is enlargement of muscle fibers and does not necessarily equate to higher levels of strength. Motor unit recruitment and tendon attachment have as much to do with strength as hypertrophy. Look up Rob Wagner, a powerlifter. I think you outweigh him by 40-50lbs, and I imagine his bench press is larger than yours, and that is his weak lift. And he competes in tested events., and is a couple of years older than you.
ForemanRules said:You and a guy of your exact height, weight and muscle size will not have the same exact strenght.....and you two will not have the exact same time in the 100m dash.....its just genetics....life aint fair...
No it is the actual definition from a Anatomy & Physiology text book. If you choose to disreguard it then fine, thats your business. I think it is the main factor that determines muscle strength, but not the only one.Dale Mabry said:Just semantics...It's why you do a hypertrophy cycle right before a strength cycle. You build up the cross-sectional area allowing for a higher capacity for strength gain, then you work on recruiting more fibers in a strength cycle.
If you hold recruitment constant, then you are correct. Hypertrophy training isn't that great at hitting the fibers that need to be recruited for "strength".
I was just breaking balls on the skeletal hypertrophy thing, I know what you meant. Furthermore, I knew that you knew that you knew what you meant.
ForemanRules said:No it is the actual definition from a Anatomy & Physiology text book. If you choose to disreguard it then fine, thats your business. I think it is the main factor that determines muscle strength, but not the only one.
Defien the difference in these two types of training....Dale Mabry said:Strength shouldn't be in the definition of hypertrophy. Also, I think the "can develop" part is misleading. Assume you and I start an 8 week training program and are of equal strength, and I do 4 weeks of hypertrophy training followed by 4 weeks of strength training, and you do 8 weeks of hypertrophy training. You would come out of it with a greater increase in muscle size (hypertrophy), but I would come out with greater strength increase.
Hypertrophy leads to larger muscle fibers to recruit, but the high-end fibers are not recruited with hypertrophy training, thus you need to train at a lower rep range.
I know you aren't saying it is the only factor. What I am saying is it gives you a greater potential for strength increase, but you will not realize that potential thru hypertrophy training. Also, given the above example, if I trained strength for 8 weeks and you trained in a hypertrophy range, I believe I would come out stronger at the end of that 8 weeks, but if we continud that over a longer time period and you threw in a couple of strength cycles, you would eventually surpass me.
Dale Mabry said:Hypertrophy rep range 8-12, strength rep range 2-8. Keeping in mind you will get some strength from the hypertrophy and vice versa. 60 seconds between sets for hypertrophy, complete recovery for strength. Similar volume.
Dale Mabry said:I would come out stronger at the end of that 8 weeks, but if we continud that over a longer time period and you threw in a couple of strength cycles, you would eventually surpass me.
ForemanRules said:I agree with you then if you are talking about a 1 rep max.....If I do sets of 10-12 and you do sets of 3-5 and we are identacal twins at the exact same training level when we start then in the end I would be better at a 12 rep max and you would be better than a 3 rep max..
Using this logic, if a bodybuilder 'threw in a couple of strength cycles' he would be able to set world records. Interesting theory, but I smell BS unless I'm completely misunderstanding you.
P-funk said:It would take more than a "couple" strength cycles to set world records. You are grossley down playing the abilities of those that set these records if you figure that to be true. A bodybuilder would have to train for strength for a long amount of time to allow the proper strength adaptaions to occur to be able to complete with world record holder.
Squaggleboggin said:He stated that, if he continued strength training for a longer period of time, the one with hypertrophy gains could essentially gain strength much more easily.
Squaggleboggin said:What happened to CNS adaptations and the fact that you can get much, much stronger while not being very big at all? It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.
Squaggleboggin said:What happened to CNS adaptations and the fact that you can get much, much stronger while not being very big at all?
It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.
Squaggleboggin said:It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.
Dale Mabry said:No I didn't, I said he would have more potential for strength gain. I said nothing to the extent that he would gain it more easily.
ForemanRules said:Top powerlifters are that because of their genetics, just like Bodybuilders or any other top athletes.....you guys over think the simple far too much.
Every sport requires special training....but if you get stronger you get bigger....developing a specific rep strength is just a final touch.CowPimp said:That definitely has something to do with it, but there is still a difference in training that goes into achieving structural and neural adaptations.
CowPimp said:Squaggle, powerlifters don't only train for strength. They train for hypertrophy too. You have to alternate intensities to prevent achieving homeostasis and help stave off overtraining. If you look at bodybuilders who do go heavy, Ronnie Coleman being one example, they are hella strong. Ronnie can squat 800 raw for a couple reps.
I'm willing to bet some of them could set world records if they altered their training methods for a sufficient duration.
ForemanRules said:Every sport requires special training....but if you get stronger you get bigger....developing a specific rep strength is just a final touch.
ForemanRules said:Every sport requires special training....but if you get stronger you get bigger....developing a specific rep strength is just a final touch.
CowPimp said:If you get stronger you don't necessarily get bigger. How else do powerlifters maintain their weight classes but get stronger if that is the case?
Squaggleboggin said:Damn. I guess the people who do dinosaur training really are the only ones as obsessed with strength training as I am then. So does that mean that the body will not grow larger to accomodate increases in strength?
I don't think using Coleman as an example is very fair. How many drugs is that guy taking? I always talk about people who just use hard work to get where they are.