Which do you believe is resposible for more strength gains, CNS stimulation or Muscle

[lilmikey]

Don't tell me it is his muscle that is mainly responsible for moving the weight. It is his CNS!

You are right that the CNS is the dominent factor, however, the muscle is the thing responsible for moving the weight. The CNS simply determines how the muscle present is utilized.

 

[powerlifterjay]

I do understand it. After reading ya'lls stuff i realize i definitly understand it. How you do extra work to make it stronger (your CNS) is beyond me. So my advice is to research your ass off and really find how to make your CNS as powerful as the europeans. And then you will lift more. Make lifting really complex!

Solid, you had a good question i just never compared them.

Deciever, i would bet that George Halbert was 245. He looked 250. But i would definitly say between 240 and 250. Iam sure his people would deny that in order to keep the validity of his lift. But i know what i weigh and i knwo my porportions. But his lift is valid cause he weighed under the limit, thats what the rule allows. I lifted at 240 also. Its the WPO!

 

[Deciever]

that must be incredibly unhealthy to drop so much. I know i dropped 9 lbs over a span of 2 weeks, a lb or two of fat i would guess, and a lot of water. And i lifted decent, but not nearly what i was capable of. Than again i only had 2 hours to replinish... its the USAPL!

 

[solidj55]

WOW, we have some smart bros on this board, thanks for all the great info, BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO TRAIN THE CNS!!!

 

[Arioch]

Without dwelving into the shear intricacies that this topic exhibits I think it's a safe generalization that the CNS [in simple terms] contributes more to strength than hypertrophy although both are crucial.

I will ask you once again to support this. I avoid generalizations, because I usually wind up being wrong.

If the guy is going to start eating less he can still make great strength gains using what I mentioned previously.

If he starts eating more he can make even better gains.

What about cross sectional size VS Strength? Or is this not pertinent

Cross sectional area still includes non-contractile elements. This is one of the problems of quantifying everything in two simple categories. Sarcoplasmic hypertrohpy contributes to muscle size, but little to strength. Specific training programs can enhance or limit this effect. And this type of conflict can alter the weight vs. bodymass or pcsa wrt two individuals.

Furthermore, since someone brought up OL'ers, there is also the factor of skill demands, and the quick lifts place far more demands on the cns wrt rfd and rate coding than the powerlifts. This is another problem with stating how much one contributes to strength. It also depends on the lift as well.

The Bulgarians are a closed circle arguement. Does the selection process prior to training have an effect on the ability to do well under their program? Of course. Can their results be considered typical, or applicable to all athletes? Of course not. The closer one is to meeting the selection criteria of the Bulgarian program will have an effect on not only how well one responds to their program, but the effects the program has on them wrt cns/hypertrophy.

And it is only the lighter lifters who are relatively thin. Look at Weller, Kurlovich, Chemerkin, Alexeev, etc.

Louie has a speed day, as well as using the repetition method for enhancing muscle mass wrt most assistance exercises. To paraphrase either Lou or Tate: 'You want to lift big, you need to get big'.

 

[ZZuluZ]

"If he starts eating more he can make even better gains. "

Irrelevant. I never disputed this.

"Sarcoplasmic hypertrohpy contributes to muscle size, but little to strength."

Forgive my ignorance but can sarcomeric hypertrophy not be measured?

"
I will ask you once again to support this. I avoid generalizations, because I usually wind up being wrong. "

The strongest people on this planet have optimized neural efficiency at the expense of hypertrophy. Look at all the great powerlifters. Does ronnie coleman stand a chance against any of them?

The only way you dispute this is if you claim that Ed Coan [for example] has more hypertrophy than Ronnie Coleman has neural efficiency, which is doubtful.

In any case I don't see how we could in any way quantify this! We're using apples and oranges.

If we can find how much strength is a resultant of hypertrophy than we can decided how big of an impact the nervous system is. Whether it is possible to do this, I do not know but I suspect it is. So is it?

[My head hurts]


"BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO TRAIN THE CNS!!!"

I don't see what the problem is...

-Zulu

 

[Arioch]

Irrelevant. I never disputed this.

Neither did I. What I did say was that both are important, and the conflux of the neurophysiological system is so far beyond our present understanding that we cannot make the call.

Forgive my ignorance but can sarcomeric hypertrophy not be measured?

Yes, but this is yet another example of things being more complex. And it contributes to PCSA, which means that PCSA is not a truly accurate measure of strength secondary to hypertrophy.

The strongest people on this planet have optimized neural efficiency at the expense of hypertrophy. Look at all the great powerlifters. Does ronnie coleman stand a chance against any of them?

Once again, anetodal evidence. Measured the CNS of the strongest people on the planet? Some of us have. Some people have low CNS recruitment, and move like a tortise. They still lift large weights. CNS is not optimized.

I am asking you to support your statement. Please supply evidence.

If we can find how much strength is a resultant of hypertrophy than we can decided how big of an impact the nervous system is. Whether it is possible to do this, I do not know but I suspect it is. So is it?

Nope. We are still not sure if motor units are positively synchronized through training. Enoka has been trying to prove this for 20 years, and he is much more knowledgeable than I, or anyone else here, on the subject. He still has only theories, depsite having more than 100 papers published on the subject.

My position is that we do not know enough to say, and we have not come close to making enough of the type of measurements we need to even to generalize.

Considering the problems we have with IEMG and MVIC analysis, even deep EMG analysis, we still have so much ground to cover in terms of making an accuarate assessment it is pathetic.

 

[ZZuluZ]

I cannot support it other than anecdotally I'm afraid. And even then I cannot link between correlation and causation.

Seems perhaps we're having a semantic argument here. I'm [perhaps falsely] assuming the CNS to be responsible for all strength gains not associated with cross sectional size.

-Zulu

 

[Arioch]

Well, then one has to decide where to draw the line between CNS, PSNS, etc. Don't worry, this goes on all the time.

No one else can really decide yet either.

But that is the beauty of research, we keep learning.

 

[strongestsurvive]

Lately in the past few years of powerlifting it has been moving away from CNS stimulation and muscle strength but has gone to equipment. I personally know of a guy who can't bench 500 pounds with out a shirt and when he wears a shirt can hit 750 at 275 pounds body weight. Also a persons leverage, body mechanics, pain tolerance and tendon strength must also be considered.