opinions on 2 hypothetical situations

[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