Thread: Strong but not big.......frustrated

yea, i don't understand it either.

could be a technique issue.

Mike456, anyway you can put up a video of you squatting for us?

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

I ABSOLUTELY believe it is easier to impose neural adaptations. Even on a subconsious level, altering hand spacing to move a heavier load is the bodies preffered method than to actually add mass. It's natural.

The first few months of training are almost exclusively neuromuscular adaptations. Advanced trainees, in my experience, generaly have an easier time increasing poundage than adding another inch or pound of weight. And when I say advanced, I mean athletes or bodybuilders who are getting close to genetic potential.

Intermediates may not be in the same boat.

And as far as your definition of weaker: do you mean in weight training performance? field performance? net muscular torque? Are we taking into classification how much power is being generated during these exercises, lenght of movement arm, and so forth?

I can use HIT and not gain a pound and easily increase strength with a single set non stop. It takes a great deal more volume, eating, and overall workload for me to optimize muscle.

No way to settle this argument, though. Like most arguments around here. Some of my ideas seem loon to ya'll, but that's ok, there's a little truth in crazyness too.

You're ideas aren't crazy at all. The argument is a little obscure though...that's why nobody's sayin anybody is straight up wrong or stupid heh.

I think it may seem that neural adaptations come faster than structural...because the simplest neural adaptation may mean another rep or two or a little more weight, which seems VERY significant. Whereas a subtle structural change is in NO way noticeable....(we're talking growth on a cellular level.) So perhaps we are both right.

Originally Posted by P-funk

yea, i don't understand it either.

could be a technique issue.

Mike456, anyway you can put up a video of you squatting for us?

Yea, I will try to get it up as soon as possible.
Cowpimp already saw a vid of me tryin to squat, but it was bad picture, I wll try to get it it from different angles.

1 side
1 front
and 1 back

would be great!

heres a link to the new thread with the vid:
http://ironmagazineforums.com/showth...95#post1417795

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

I ABSOLUTELY believe it is easier to impose neural adaptations. Even on a subconsious level, altering hand spacing to move a heavier load is the bodies preffered method than to actually add mass. It's natural.

The first few months of training are almost exclusively neuromuscular adaptations. Advanced trainees, in my experience, generaly have an easier time increasing poundage than adding another inch or pound of weight. And when I say advanced, I mean athletes or bodybuilders who are getting close to genetic potential.

Intermediates may not be in the same boat.

I agree that when you first start lifting your body leans toward neuromuscular adaptations as well. You're right. However, that is only because the body is grossly ineffecient at that point. Once you are capable of activating more motor units, rate coding increases, co-contraction decreases, motor unit synchronization improves, and appropriate energy system substrates increase in density and/or number, then your body will invoke structural adaptations.

However, most of these neural adaptations are general. Movement specific neural adaptations, and these general adaptations as well, maybe be drastic initially. However, they taper off VERY quickly. Once you reach intermediate status and above, I think it is far easier for your body to add mass, supposing that it has the resources to do so. When your a beginner, the point is moot anyway as resistance training is such a shock to your body that structural and neural adaptations come relatively easily.

And as far as your definition of weaker: do you mean in weight training performance? field performance? net muscular torque? Are we taking into classification how much power is being generated during these exercises, lenght of movement arm, and so forth?

I'm talking a variety of resistance training exercises. The repetition maximums that I can attain are higher than theirs.

I can use HIT and not gain a pound and easily increase strength with a single set non stop. It takes a great deal more volume, eating, and overall workload for me to optimize muscle.

No way to settle this argument, though. Like most arguments around here. Some of my ideas seem loon to ya'll, but that's ok, there's a little truth in crazyness too.

Does more volume mean harder though? I don't think so. That's completely subjective. I think HIT is way harder than any other training protocol I've ever tried. In my opinion, 4 sets of 8 is way easier than 1 set of 5 + 2 + 1 rest pause style.


With all that said, let me rephrase a little bit what I think about invoking neural adaptations. Doing so requires a more specific method of training. How hard the training is becomes far too subjective to say one way or the other. Not just any method of training will do unless you are a beginner. You have to be systematic, hence the use of periodization (Not to say that periodization isn't beneficial for mass gains).

However, there are a wider variety of training paramters that seem to spark structural adaptations so long as you have setup the proper anabolic environment to do so, most notably by eating copious amounts of food. Granted, as you gain more mass, you have to become more systematic about the way you do things, just like with becoming more neurologically efficient.

In the end it's all relative because you have to consider the lifter's background, the inherent fiber types of the muscles throughout their bodies, their hormone levels, etc.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

hence the use of periodization (Not to say that periodization isn't beneficial for mass gains).

.

is this implying that periodization benefits one training for strength moreso than size?

When periodization and training for size, what parameters do you feel are most important??

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

is this implying that periodization benefits one training for strength moreso than size?

When periodization and training for size, what parameters do you feel are most important??

I think it's more important, if nothing else, because of the increased chance of overtraining when using higher intensity weights. Managing CNS fatigue becomes very important when working with weights that are at 85% of your 1RM or greater.

Quantifying certain parameters as most important are hard, but I would have to say volume and intensity. Frequency is pretty important too, but more people argue and have differing opinions about this one. I think TUT is a little less important than some make it out to be, but lots of people feel this one to be extremely important in terms of hypertrophy.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I think it's more important, if nothing else, because of the increased chance of overtraining when using higher intensity weights. Managing CNS fatigue becomes very important when working with weights that are at 85% of your 1RM or greater.

.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you, what exactly is more important??

Quantifying certain parameters as most important are hard, but I would have to say volume and intensity. Frequency is pretty important too, but more people argue and have differing opinions about this one. I think TUT is a little less important than some make it out to be, but lots of people feel this one to be extremely important in terms of hypertrophy

We might be on the same page here, but I was strictly speaking of variables to be manipulated when periodizing a program. Like volume and intensity, resting intervals etc.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

I'm sorry, I'm not following you, what exactly is more important??

Proper periodization in a program geared toward improving maximal strength relative to a program where the goal is hypertrophy.