Thread: Strength training vs Hypertrophy training

Originally Posted by Vieope

I usually see this question of what type of training you do. In order to increase strength you must increase muscles.

I dont agree really, I'm about as strong as a 137 pound national level powerlifter. I can maintain size and gain some strength, if I restricted my calories I am sure I could continue to lose weight and maintain strength to some degree.

Some genetics, and some tricks thrown in there.

I would say there can be some kind of relationship in general but there is no direct line.

Originally Posted by Mudge

I dont agree really, I'm about as strong as a 137 pound national level powerlifter.

The problem is that you are comparing with another person, try to compare between the different stages of your muscle development. You have more muscles now than before so you are stronger. If you lose muscles/if you gain muscles/strength up/strength down.
Muscles are the only "fuel" to lift heavier. Damn, I sound so stupid with this argument.

Still don´t agree ? What am I missing?

I dont agree. Do you really think a 137 pound person was born benching 385 pounds? I would venture not.

I am not lifting much more than I was with 3/4" smaller arms, biceps are the same lifts, triceps a little stronger but not much.

I do not believe size and strength share a direct correlation. I do believe you can create a stronger muscle and maintain bodyweight and size.

If you gain strength you will gain size. If you gain size you will gain strength. However, the correlation is not linear. You can gain a lot of strength and a little size, a little size and a lot of strength, or somewhere in between. There is a reason powerlifters and bodybuilders have completely different training regimens.

What is the science behind it? Strength training produce a more compact muscle fiber?

In order to increase strength you must increase muscles.
In order to increase muscles you must increase strength.
They are related, it can´t be separated.

Wrong. I went from 241lb in late April 2003 to 207lb TODAY. In that same timeframe I took a sanctioned squat of 495 and made it 540. I took a sanctioned deadlift of 505 and made it 600. So the first line about needing to increase muscle to increase strength isn't right. Because I've never been fat. My losses all came from the muscle department.

To increase muscle is a fairly simple, yet intensely complex, thing. You need to lift an adequate amount of tension for an adequate amount of time. So, for example, you do a set of 8 and it takes you 20 seconds. Then you do a set of 2 that takes you 20 seconds. The time is the same, but in the second set the tension was 150lb heavier. Which do you think is going to be more beneficial? From a hypertrophy standpoint, neither is better. From a strength standpoint, the second set is better.

So you do not have to add strength to add size, but it is an option. But I argue that they're not related and they can be separated.

In your example, you said that you lost weight(muscles) and yet you were able to increase the weight in your exercises. You agree with me that your body changed in something to be able to lift heavier. Agreed? So, what was it that changed that was not muscles? See where I am confused?

I don't understand your question.

I think you're asking why I was able to lose weight and muscle but still increase my lifts. The answer is in the way I train. If I didn't answer your question, maybe you can reword it.

Your body went through a change, therefore it can lift heavier.
What changed in your body to make you lift heavier?

Oh hell, I don't know. I just trained. But then, in strength training, that's all you have to do. Train right.

Last I recall science still says you can change to some degree the balance of fiber types in your muscles (meaning favoritism). If you look at a crock or gator they are nearly all fast twitch fibers, lots of strength and speed but no endurance. So by your training you can stay lightweight and remain quite strong, or remain somewhat weak and yet be quite large in relation to the former.

You can become stronger without eating more (becoming bigger).

Size is more about diet than routine, anyways.

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Oh hell, I don't know. I just trained. But then, in strength training, that's all you have to do. Train right.

Good to hear someone say "I don´t know" here. The last threads that I watched people discussing, ego was more important.

Originally Posted by Mudge

Last I recall science still says you can change to some degree the balance of fiber types in your muscles (meaning favoritism). If you look at a crock or gator they are nearly all fast twitch fibers, lots of strength and speed but no endurance. So by your training you can stay lightweight and remain quite strong, or remain somewhat weak and yet be quite large in relation to the former.

You can become stronger without eating more (becoming bigger).

Yeah, I am convinced by this fast twich fibers explanation. So, since I am in to hypertrophy, the old saying that 8-12 rep still is the best method out there to stimulate the other fibers that I forgot the name?

Originally Posted by Vieope

So, since I am in to hypertrophy, the old saying that 8-12 rep still is the best method out there to stimulate the other fibers that I forgot the name?

Everybody is different, trial an error, it takes time and experimentation to see what works for you. You should know that by now.

What the hell? While everyone may be different, science doesn't lie.

What is the last words of science regarding hypertrophy?

That hypertrophy is attained by providing an adequate amount of tension for an adequate amount of time. I think I covered this above.

It is the link between your CNS and your muscle fibers. At first, you may only be using 50% of the available muscle fibers to complete a particular lift. As you go on in your training, you will keep increasing your neural-musculer efficiency. So eventually, if you are training properly, will increase your efficiency to somewhere in the range of 85-95%. At this point you will need to increase the cross section of the muscle fiber to increase the weight performed in any given lift. Now don't assume all at once that you are included in that 85-95%. Chances are you are not even close. Most people don't train properly for strength, even the ones who think they are training for strength

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Size is more about diet than routine, anyways.

I think that is what it mainly boils down to, PLs stay in a weight class by simply not eating more.

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Size is more about diet than routine, anyways.

That can´t be right, specially now that I believe some types of training develop each type of fiber. Unless you are talking about fat.

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Wrong. I went from 241lb in late April 2003 to 207lb TODAY. In that same timeframe I took a sanctioned squat of 495 and made it 540. I took a sanctioned deadlift of 505 and made it 600. So the first line about needing to increase muscle to increase strength isn't right. Because I've never been fat. My losses all came from the muscle department.

To increase muscle is a fairly simple, yet intensely complex, thing. You need to lift an adequate amount of tension for an adequate amount of time. So, for example, you do a set of 8 and it takes you 20 seconds. Then you do a set of 2 that takes you 20 seconds. The time is the same, but in the second set the tension was 150lb heavier. Which do you think is going to be more beneficial? From a hypertrophy standpoint, neither is better. From a strength standpoint, the second set is better.

So you do not have to add strength to add size, but it is an option. But I argue that they're not related and they can be separated.

what's the deal with your bench ?

Here is one to ponder. When you lift, the human body does not utilize all of your muscle fibers for that lift. So perhaps powerlifting can be seen in part as training the body to utilize more of the fibers for your lift, enabling a greater lift.

Originally Posted by SquatBenchDead

At first, you may only be using 50% of the available muscle fibers to complete a particular lift.

Beaten to the punch.

Originally Posted by Mudge

Here is one to ponder. When you lift, the human body does not utilize all of your muscle fibers for that lift. So perhaps powerlifting can be seen in part as training the body to utilize more of the fibers for your lift, enabling a greater lift.

Maybe powerlifting training is just there to prepare the CNS for a more difficult workout, not making it crash or to sustain more weight. Not exactly to create more muscles.
So for hypertrophy to happen we need to work out before the failure/crash of CNS ?

Either form of training must not over-tax the CNS. But the only way I believe to try and force the body to utilizing a higher precentage of fibers to do the work (recruitment) is to lift HEAVY weights.

Is there other way to train than heavy?
Please don´t say that light training do something.

When I mean heavy I mean low reps, for me under 8 reps would generically be "heavyish." I have done as low as 1-3 for bench though Lots of people rotate rep schemes.

Ok
I am addicted to 6 reps.