opinions on 2 hypothetical situations

[lemur]

ok...

Case 1

Person A does barbell curl with 100 pounds, 10 reps, 30 seconds for the set.

Person B does barbell curl with 90 pounds, 10 reps, 45 seconds for the set.

Case 2

Person A does barbell curl with 100 pounds, 10 reps, 30 seconds for the set, perfect form.

Person B does barbell curl with 110 pounds, 10 reps, 30 seconds for the set, with about an 8/10 on the form scale (slight body movement on the last few reps, lets say).

Assuming genetics and nutrition are the same, who do you think is going to experience better gains in each case in the long run? And of what nature will they be ? (strength, hypertrophy, etc..) And why?

 

[benchmonster]

The guy who is moving slower and with better form will get relatively more hypertrophy and less strength gain. The person moving faster will get relatively more strength gain and less hypertrophy.

Speed and strength are very closely related. Hypertrophy or muscle size increase is more related to time under tension than amount of weight or percentage of max being used.

B.

 

[MarshallPenniford]

Load is more important than time under tension for generating strength and hypertrophy. We would need to know their routines to know which is better in the above example.

 

[The Dude]

Don't think TUT doesn't affect hypertrophy dramatically? Look at what Poliquin did for David Boston during just one off season. Some "cocktails" probably didn't hurt either, but his training has done wonders for some elite athletes.

 

[MarshallPenniford]

I didn't say that. Just realize that load is *more* important.

 

[benchmonster]

Marshall, I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. Load is more important, by far, for strength increase, but much less important than TUT for hypertrophy.


That is why bodybuilders have bigger muscles than powerlifters, but powerlifters have stronger muscles than bodybuilders. Bodybuilders do greater time under tension, while powerlifters and other strength athletes work under a much greater load.

B.

 

[MarshallPenniford]

B - I know what you're saying. I'm just being extremely techinal (and accurate) about it. You can generate substancial hypertrophy with a significant load, without it, nothing will happen. Look at the amount of TUT your calves spend in a given day. Add load to the equation and you can generate hypertrophy with much less TUT. In fact, 1RM movements alone will generate hypertrophy. I believe that load is *more* important.

In no way am I discounting what you're saying though.

 

[SSAlexSS]

The guy who is moving slower and with better form will get relatively more hypertrophy and less strength gain. The person moving faster will get relatively more strength gain and less hypertrophy.

Speed and strength are very closely related. Hypertrophy or muscle size increase is more related to time under tension than amount of weight or percentage of max being used.

B.

Other way around. Guy who does FASTER gonna end up stronger and bigger.

To increase muscle size/strength its force output must increase.

F=MA. Force = mass * acceleration , There you go.

 

[benchmonster]

Alex,

When you get some hair on your chest, you will realize that muscle growth and strength increase are not the same thing. Why do you suppose that top bodybuilders are not winning the world's strongest man every year? If those with the biggest muscles are the strongest then the IFBB pros should dominate all strength sports. But it does not work that way. Strength and size are two different things.

B.

 

[vinylgroover]

How can you get bigger muscles without getting stronger?

I agree with Marshall, load is more important.

Benchmonster, your analogy is not as meaningful when you throw in weightlifters. Have a look at Olympic weightlifters in classes up to and including the heavyweight class (excepting the superheavyweights). Most of those guys are super muscular, super strong and when in competition mode, super ripped, yet they essentially lift and train for strength by training with progressive overload.