Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Which do you believe is resposible for more strength gains, CNS stimulation or Muscle
S
solidj55
Guest
Ok so is it true that going heavy(to a certain extent) is what trains your CNS and allows you to get stronger? I will be the first to admit. Ive also heard that going heavy too long or too intense for too long tires the CNS and you will platue. I always thought the muscles did this and you were overtrained but maybe it is the CNS. I was thinking about different workouts and different styles of lifting and Ive come to this conclusion. Olympic weightlifters and sprinters probably get more CNS stimulation then most powerlifters and bodybuilders. Im not saying this is true, this is just my opinion. The reason I say this is because if you look at the size of some of these guys they are not as big and muscular as bodybuilders or powerlifters. You really cant throw bodybuilders in there too much though because they dont train for maximal strength they train for hypertrophy. Now comparing two athletes who train for maximal strength(even though they are different lifts and olympic weightlifters have to use more "form" than powerlifters) olympic lifters, or at least the ones I have seen, dont seem to be as thick and muscular as powerlifters but they are exremely strong in what they do. The reason I brought this up is because I was looking at some Olympic Training routines earlier today and seeing how they do it. All of the routines I looked at used some form of basic periodization but yet it was a little untraditional. They never go over five reps in any cycle. Now in all the periodization routines(not including Westsides method of periodization) Ive ever seen the first week starts at 10-12 reps with about 55-65% of your 1RM and then you end up dropping reps each week and upping the percentage of weight. Well these routines were similar but different. There workout for lets say the lightest week would be 5x5 at 65%(using fast explosive reps kinda like westside DE day)
Then the next week would be 5x5 at 73% or something. Then they would eventually drop to sets of triples and one week of singles. But I was really surprised that with the extreme submaximal weights that they didnt at least rep out a little bit. Maybe Im just a fucking retart but has anyone any knowledge on this? This is my final assumption as of right now. Bodybuilders use weights that reach maximal hypertrophy with minimal CNS overload , powerlifters use weights that use about 50/50 muscle/CNS stimulation, and Olympic Lifters use the most CNS and least muscular stimulation. Ok now that I have babbled on and probably made an ass out of myself and made me look like an idiot I will leave this alone for now.
Then the next week would be 5x5 at 73% or something. Then they would eventually drop to sets of triples and one week of singles. But I was really surprised that with the extreme submaximal weights that they didnt at least rep out a little bit. Maybe Im just a fucking retart but has anyone any knowledge on this? This is my final assumption as of right now. Bodybuilders use weights that reach maximal hypertrophy with minimal CNS overload , powerlifters use weights that use about 50/50 muscle/CNS stimulation, and Olympic Lifters use the most CNS and least muscular stimulation. Ok now that I have babbled on and probably made an ass out of myself and made me look like an idiot I will leave this alone for now.
benchmonster
New member
If I understand the original question correctly, then I am going to have to go with CNS. Now true, the muscles actually lift the weight, but without the CNS firing those muscle fibers off fast and effectively, then you don't lift much weight.
How is it possible for George Halbert to lose muscle and still bench more weight while smaller? IMHO, he has made his CNS much more efficient, which fires off a higher percentage of his pressing muscle fibers. Halbert pressed more at 215, than he had when he was 40 or more pounds heavier than that.
I have gained over 150 lbs on my bench in the last year without a significant gain in bodyweight or body composition. I have bigger arms than I did a year ago, a little bigger chest, and a little smaller waist, but not nearly in proportion to the strength increase. How is this possible? I am stronger, sure, but mainly I am more efficient, and I have learned how to fire more of my muscle fibers at the appropriate times.
Becuase of the above, I have to say that CNS is much more important than gaining muscle. Muscle must get stronger, but mind control and muscle efficiency is where it is at. This is why powerlifters are stronger than bodybuilders, even though bodybuilders have bigger muscles.
B.
How is it possible for George Halbert to lose muscle and still bench more weight while smaller? IMHO, he has made his CNS much more efficient, which fires off a higher percentage of his pressing muscle fibers. Halbert pressed more at 215, than he had when he was 40 or more pounds heavier than that.
I have gained over 150 lbs on my bench in the last year without a significant gain in bodyweight or body composition. I have bigger arms than I did a year ago, a little bigger chest, and a little smaller waist, but not nearly in proportion to the strength increase. How is this possible? I am stronger, sure, but mainly I am more efficient, and I have learned how to fire more of my muscle fibers at the appropriate times.
Becuase of the above, I have to say that CNS is much more important than gaining muscle. Muscle must get stronger, but mind control and muscle efficiency is where it is at. This is why powerlifters are stronger than bodybuilders, even though bodybuilders have bigger muscles.
B.
S
solidj55
Guest
Thanks guys for all of the replies.
Benchmonster-I like your explaination about Halbert, that says it all right there in my book. Ok now my last question is, HOW do you make your CNS more efficient??? I know by training but is there a trick to the trade that I dont know about?
Benchmonster-I like your explaination about Halbert, that says it all right there in my book. Ok now my last question is, HOW do you make your CNS more efficient??? I know by training but is there a trick to the trade that I dont know about?
" Zuluz you make it sound like the CNS is what moves weight. Maybe i dont grasp what the CNS role is played. But a muscle doesnt have to be big to be strong."
PlJay-- Really you're agreeing with what I said.
When you say 'a small muscle can be stronger than a big muscle'...you know what the difference is? That's right: the CNS.
" Zuluz you make it sound like the CNS is what moves weight. Maybe i dont grasp what the CNS role is played. But a muscle doesnt have to be big to be strong."
Good question. By doing the exact movement you want to improve or slight variations-- neural adaptation is extremely specific.
You can try these neat tricks to potentiate the nervous system:
Supramaximal Eccentrics
Supramaximal Isometrics [preferred]
Waves
Synaptic Facilitation
" Drugs.
not joking
even caffiene and ephidrine can help...."
That's bullshit.
Hope this post is useful to someone.
-Zulu
PlJay-- Really you're agreeing with what I said.
When you say 'a small muscle can be stronger than a big muscle'...you know what the difference is? That's right: the CNS.
" Zuluz you make it sound like the CNS is what moves weight. Maybe i dont grasp what the CNS role is played. But a muscle doesnt have to be big to be strong."
Good question. By doing the exact movement you want to improve or slight variations-- neural adaptation is extremely specific.
You can try these neat tricks to potentiate the nervous system:
Supramaximal Eccentrics
Supramaximal Isometrics [preferred]
Waves
Synaptic Facilitation
" Drugs.
not joking
even caffiene and ephidrine can help...."
That's bullshit.
Hope this post is useful to someone.
-Zulu
Arioch
New member
Both. It depends on what point you are at in your training, etc. as well.
Novices will make most of their gains through CNS adjustments.
After the beginner gains stop, and reality hits, then the struggle begins. At this point, which is the majority of most athletes competetive career, both are being developed, but neither system is dominating the other. Gains will generally be made in different areas at different times.
Elite athletes who have come close to achieving their genetic limit wrt the amount of muscle they can gain will also make most of their gains through neural factors, such as motor unit recruitment, rate coding, etc.
I am actually working on something related to this right now, and it is occupying most of my spare time. Will post an excerpt from it next weekend.
Novices will make most of their gains through CNS adjustments.
After the beginner gains stop, and reality hits, then the struggle begins. At this point, which is the majority of most athletes competetive career, both are being developed, but neither system is dominating the other. Gains will generally be made in different areas at different times.
Elite athletes who have come close to achieving their genetic limit wrt the amount of muscle they can gain will also make most of their gains through neural factors, such as motor unit recruitment, rate coding, etc.
I am actually working on something related to this right now, and it is occupying most of my spare time. Will post an excerpt from it next weekend.
Arioch, this obviously isn't a very scientific question but don't you think on average that neural gains are far superior to gains elicited from mass?
I'm sure cross sectional size VS Strength would be an interesting comparison.
I've heard of people weighing 150 pounds bench near 500.
To see whether neural efiiciency or hypertrophy is more significant in terms of strength I think relative strength is a good indicator. And relative strength tends to diminue when gaining mass.
I also forgot the mention how training antagonistic muscles together is beneficial. Ex: Doing Rows and then Benching will make you bench more.
Hyperridiation is also a very interesting concept everyone should incorporate [most already do without knowing it].
GVT was also based on some kind of neurological rebound effect but I have NFI how that works.
-Zulu
I'm sure cross sectional size VS Strength would be an interesting comparison.
I've heard of people weighing 150 pounds bench near 500.
To see whether neural efiiciency or hypertrophy is more significant in terms of strength I think relative strength is a good indicator. And relative strength tends to diminue when gaining mass.
I also forgot the mention how training antagonistic muscles together is beneficial. Ex: Doing Rows and then Benching will make you bench more.
Hyperridiation is also a very interesting concept everyone should incorporate [most already do without knowing it].
GVT was also based on some kind of neurological rebound effect but I have NFI how that works.
-Zulu
Arioch
New member
It is hard to say, and varies from individual to individual.
Further complicating the issue are types of gains. Specific gains in fast twitch fiber are extremely productive, gains in sarcoplamic hypertrophy, which are still gains in hypertrophy, are useless for the PL'er except for the added leverage increased mass provides.
Based on absolutely no scientific evidence, as there has never been a study done comparing the two, I would say they are of equal imporatnce. If the fibers are not sufficient to do the job, no matter how strong the signal from the motoneuron, not a whole lot will happen. You can send signals all day long, but if there are not enough receivers (fibers) or the fibers are not sufficient to the task, nothing happens. The reverse is true as well. As in most things, some sort of balance must always be struck, but the balance point is different for everyone.
Furthermore, it is complicated by training deficiencies as well. And nutritional deficiencies are included in this. There are always things that we should have done in the past that are limiting our abilities in the present. Past training mistakes, micro or macronutrient deficiencies, injuries, etc. all keep us from coming close to our genetic potential, so until optimization of training and diet is every truly achieved, the best we can do is to say 'this is what we think is important at this point.'
Some athletes will achieve an incredible strength:bodyweight ratio, some will be as big as a house and lift a freakin' bus. The first athlete will have, as a general rule, better CNS/PSNS optimization, where as the second obviously has greater hypertrophy, but is not as strong, pound for pound. Both could have done things differently, and probably have done even better. Both probably still can progress, but have limited time to do so before the aging process takes it toll, but even this is getting easier to work around, to a degree.
There are gender differences as well, but I am not going to get into that right now.
Further complicating the issue are types of gains. Specific gains in fast twitch fiber are extremely productive, gains in sarcoplamic hypertrophy, which are still gains in hypertrophy, are useless for the PL'er except for the added leverage increased mass provides.
Based on absolutely no scientific evidence, as there has never been a study done comparing the two, I would say they are of equal imporatnce. If the fibers are not sufficient to do the job, no matter how strong the signal from the motoneuron, not a whole lot will happen. You can send signals all day long, but if there are not enough receivers (fibers) or the fibers are not sufficient to the task, nothing happens. The reverse is true as well. As in most things, some sort of balance must always be struck, but the balance point is different for everyone.
Furthermore, it is complicated by training deficiencies as well. And nutritional deficiencies are included in this. There are always things that we should have done in the past that are limiting our abilities in the present. Past training mistakes, micro or macronutrient deficiencies, injuries, etc. all keep us from coming close to our genetic potential, so until optimization of training and diet is every truly achieved, the best we can do is to say 'this is what we think is important at this point.'
Some athletes will achieve an incredible strength:bodyweight ratio, some will be as big as a house and lift a freakin' bus. The first athlete will have, as a general rule, better CNS/PSNS optimization, where as the second obviously has greater hypertrophy, but is not as strong, pound for pound. Both could have done things differently, and probably have done even better. Both probably still can progress, but have limited time to do so before the aging process takes it toll, but even this is getting easier to work around, to a degree.
There are gender differences as well, but I am not going to get into that right now.
Similar threads
