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.

 

[benchmonster]

Vinylgroover

Olympic lifters only go to prove my point. Yes they are muscular, but compared to an IFBB pro bodybuilder? No way!!!

If you think the most muscular people are the strongest, then bodybuilders would be winning powerlifting, olympic lifting, and strongman contests, and they aren''t doing that, are they?

A powerlifter, or olympic lifter is relatively stronger and smaller than a bodybuilder. The bodybuilder is working to build bigger muscles, and the strength athlete is working on getting stronger. They use different methods and obtain different results. Sure O'lifters are muscular, but have you ever mistaken one for Ronnie Coleman? Did not think so.

I will use myself as an example. Last July I weighed in at 215 and benched 355. Two weeks ago, I weighed in at 218 and benched 475, then 505, which was red lighted on butt raise, but was an otherwise good lift. Does that 3 lbs I gained in ten months explain the well over 100 lbs of gain in the bench? No way. I am more efficient, have faster bar speed, and am just plain stronger now than I was then, and not much bigger. Why? I train for strength, not hypertrophy.

You absolutely can get stronger without getting bigger. George Halbert has benched more at 198 and at 220 than he himself did at 275. His best lift ever is 733 at 215. His best lift in the 275's while very impressive, was less than 700. Tell me now how it is impossible to get stronger without getting bigger.

And just like you can get much stronger without getting bigger, you can get bigger without getting stronger. If I gave up powerlifting for bodybuilding (aint never happenin) then I would train for hypertrophy. My arms, legs, chest, back, etc. . . would get bigger, and it is very likely that my bench and squat would go down. Most bodybuilders are not benching 500 plus. It is logical to think I also would not be able to bench that much. But I would be bigger than I am now, and not as strong. Strength and hypertrophy are two different things guys. That is just the way it is.

B.

 

[Vortexx]

Both load and TUT are part of the equition regarding hypertrophy.

I feel that for most muscles 8-6 reps are long enough TUT to induce some hypertrophy while the load can be big enough to induce a CNS response / improved motor unit recruitment to allow for a heavier weight to be used next trainingsession.

There is this so called magical hypertrophy timeframe of 40-60 seconds, but if i train for 60 seconds usually i have to reduce load too much. sets of 35 seconds seem to be a nice balance

as a rule of thumb, take a single joint movement like leg-extension or preacher curls, compare the load you can use for 6 reps and for 10 reps. Does your load go DRAMATICALLY down with 10 reps?

Than you should stick to 6-8 reps, otherwise 10-12 reps is the way to go.

Also while the 40-60 second timeframe is speculated as OPTIMAL, it doesnt take in account doing multiple sets... Why do you think that bodybuilders usually take only 1 - 2 minutes rest between sets ??? (as opposed to PL who might rest for 4-5 minutes). This is not enough to let strength fully recover. Apparently you must measure the total workout (includiong rest) time divided by the average load used. The smaller the outcome the more INTENSE your workout has been and INTENSITY is key factor for growth. However if you would only rest 10-20 seconds between sets the average load would probably go down too much (unless you have superior creatine-phophate regeneration system) ...

What we have to work on is to make good testing procedures to find the right intensity for each individual.

 

[Manu]

Yes, i believe that you can gain strenght without adding much size and you can add size without adding much strenght.
It has to do with the sarcomere and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
The higher volume of training of BB's causes the hypertrophy of the sarcoplasm making greater glycogen and mineral storage. While the train of the weightlifters contributes to the hipertrophy of the sarcomere (smallest functional unity of the muscle), wich make them strong without adding the size of BB's.
Yes, i think TUT is more important to BB's and speed lower reps are more for the strenght training of Weightlifters.
I believe the best is to have some of both.
Sometimes i cheat trying to gain strenght (putting more weight, lower reps) and the make good form while concentrating on time under tension....i think it is good to mix both.

 

[b fold the truth]

The guy who is not afraid to do all 4 styles will be the biggest. Variation..

B True

 

[Intenceman]

TUT is the most important factor, but with 2 individuals, all other things being equal, the one who who is placing his muscles under the heaviest load will be getting more stimulation. Another factor is th degree of inroad- powerlifters use heavy loads, but don't USUALLY make as deep of inroads, thus not stimulating as much hypetrophy- though their strength goes up due to increased neuromusclular facilitation.

 

[coolcolj]

I use both myself