Cackerot69 you seem to be the man.

[endpoint]

You have the answer to everything in this field so i want to know if you can shed some light.
was going to send an email/PM......but i know a few people would be interested.


EATING FOR STRENGTH.
as opposed to eating for muscle.

does it differ in anyway?

if the training you are doing doesnt invoke much hypertrophy......but is making you stronger(nervous system training). do you eat the same way as the good ole' 4 sets 12 reps hypertrophy training?

sorry if i have put you on the spot, you seem to know what you are on about.

excuse the laymens approach........but that is what i am!

 

[Cackerot69]

First of all, I wouldn't recommend 4 sets of 12 for hypertrophy training

But, all in all, eating for strength and size should be very similar, but you would just want to eat more for size purposes (to support growth).

 

[Belial]

First of all, I wouldn't recommend 4 sets of 12 for hypertrophy training

lol. Ditto to that.

It also depends on your goals. Raw, brute strength, without size limitations involves eating craploads of everything.

However, I'd say powerlifters, OLs, or other individuals who often need to make weight

a) follow stricter diets, to avoid needless gain in adipose tissue, and

b) emphasize maximizing neuromuscular adaptation. Hypertrophy in and of itself may not be optimal nor sufficient for success in these cases; what I'd say also plays a vital role ito these folks is eating to maximize recovery, and absolutely MINIMIZING fat gain at all times.

Unlike bodybuilders, strength athletes cannot afford to deplete themselves quite as thoroughly when competition time arrives, therefore long cutting cycles and severe dehydration techniques are often out of the question.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[donutglazer]

Isnt cackerot some little kid cartoon?

 

[endpoint]

Since i dont really understand the process......would i be trying to get more protein? or would carbs be more ideal?

is it possible to lose weight and build strength?

I have had some success in the last 4 weeks with weight loss. but at the same time ALL my lifts have improved.

I have been doing cardio after i come home from school every second day

 

[GenetiKing]

endpoint = Cackerot69

 

[Cackerot69]

"Since i dont really understand the process......would i be trying to get more protein? or would carbs be more ideal?"

Both. You would want to eat enough protein and carbs to support muscle growth, and enough carbs to make sure glycogen is kept saturated at all times.

"is it possible to lose weight and build strength?"

Yes, through increased neuromuscular efficientcy, golgi tendon strength, and other non-bodyweight related things.

"I have had some success in the last 4 weeks with weight loss. but at the same time ALL my lifts have improved."

You just answered the above question

Another thing is that more muscle = more strength. A bigger muscle IS a stronger muscle. But, you want to make sure you aren't decreasing your relative strength by increasing your muscle mass (in PLing, and OLing). Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases in strength and power. If you add 20lbs to your bodymass and your total increases by only 10lbs in a higher bodymass division, then your relative strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

 

[endpoint]

Thanks bro.

Whats that supposed to mean GenetiKing. are you jealous?

 

[Goin_Big]

I don't get why anybody would ask cack about dieting I mean just ask him what kinda diet he follows ; )
pizza, ice cream, coffee, and not to mention his damn sleeping pills.

 

[Belial]

Yes. Optimization of neuromuscular efficiency is mas importante que hypertrophy, if you're already fairly lean and strong. So, optimize what you've got.

 

[GenetiKing]

Thanks bro.

Whats that supposed to mean GenetiKing. are you jealous?

Of what?

 

[endpoint]

GenetiKing: "endpoint = Cackerot69"
wasnt quite sure what you were trying to say

 

[absolute hardgainer]

GenetiKing,

I really don't think so. I've been in contact with endpoint (we're both from down under) and there is no need for any trolling from him or crackerot.

Crackerot does have some good info, good to have people with info on the board.

hardgainer (not impersonating anyone but myself)

 

[Tuna Guy]

A bigger muscle is not a stronger muscle, it has the potential to be a stronger muscle.

 

[Robboe]

Muscle strength and size are proportional both ways.

 

[GenetiKing]

GenetiKing,

I really don't think so. I've been in contact with endpoint (we're both from down under) and there is no need for any trolling from him or crackerot.

I know...it was just a joke. Sorry...

 

[GenetiKing]

Muscle strength and size are proportional both ways.

For the most part...yes.

However, neuromuscular adaptions can occur with little or no hypertrophy. The result is a stronger muscle that may not necessarily be larger.

This is probably most frequently seen in beginners. That's why many newbies sometimes see no gains for the first few weeks of training. The body will often respond to the new stimulus of weight training with greater neuromuscular adaption of existing muscle tissue as a hedge against adding the metabolically expensive muscle. (Your body would rather not add muscle because it will require greater maintenace and usage of valuable resources, i.e. calories.)

 

[HeavyDutyGuy]

For the most part...yes.

However, neuromuscular adaptions can occur with little or no hypertrophy. The result is a stronger muscle that may not necessarily be larger.

This is probably most frequently seen in beginners. That's why many newbies sometimes see no gains for the first few weeks of training. The body will often respond to the new stimulus of weight training with greater neuromuscular adaption of existing muscle tissue as a hedge against adding the metabolically expensive muscle. (Your body would rather not add muscle because it will require greater maintenace and usage of valuable resources, i.e. calories.)

True, but you also want to look at it long term. Will an arm that can curl 40 lbs be a hell of a lot bigger when it can curl 200 lbs? I say absolutely. Mine sure did.

 

[Robboe]

Yah, my apologies GeneticKing - i was going under the assumption that you guys were bodybuilders and not powerlifters [there is another forum for that i see].

It is right that you can get strong with very low reps and this not be enough for optimum hypertrophy, but if you are training with a good rep range 4-6 and 10-12 and your diet is spot on and you aren't overtraining, then it's pretty hard for a stronger muscle not to be a larger muscle!

 

[absolute hardgainer]

What GentiKing said!

Every person new to BB should read and understand that paragraph, VERY IMPORTANT.

hardgainer (!)

 

[Tuna Guy]

All else being equal, if all motor units are recruited then the larger muscle will always be the strongest.

Is it me or is the board becoming really bitchy at the moment.

 

[Cackerot69]

A bigger muscle IS a stronger muscle. Period.

A stronger muscle isn't always a bigger muscle, though.

 

[Tuna Guy]

Why?

 

[Cackerot69]

Well, I shouldn't have said a stronger muscle isn't always a bigger muscles - because it is...it's just that other factors contribute to strength.

A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle because a bigger muscle will contain more actin and myosin filaments. More actin and moysin filaments means a more powerful contration because there will be more moysin heads to cross-bridge to the actin heads which set off the contraction.

 

[Robboe]

"there will be more moysin heads to cross-bridge to the actin heads which set off the contraction."

let's not go into action potentials and thresholds now Cackerot!

 

[Tuna Guy]

Assuming that its activated. Muscle is also 75% water. The protein filaments of actin and myosin unly contribute a small part of the muscles bulk.
By the way you seem very knowledgable on the subject, are you a sport science student.

 

[Robboe]

Me? hell no - I'm just a smart ass.