Hypertrophy and Strength - Not so Different

[Pitysister]

i don't have any answers...but i would be interested in others..."now" answers i've honestly never had anybody tell me that my cns is fried not my muscles...of course i don't have anybody knowledgeable in real life to talk to about this kinda stuff. i do have a cousin who is a strength coach at some university....in...ohio i think...but that would be it. and i have not talked to him in like 20 years

[Eric3237]

That's another side of the coin, Pity, where people dwell only on muscular recovery.

[iron_worker]

I wasn't trying to offend you. I'm always just trying to bring to light the other side of the coin.

I'm an engineer, I question everything. Its what I do. I'm sorry if I pissed you off. Just trying to spark some discussion, not wars.

But anyways, to answer your question: no, no one has ever told me that. However, anyone you talk to that frequents the gym semi-regularily is all about the 3x8-10. There is no real "pros" that I talk with on regular basis so I get most of my information from here and I thank guys like you Eric and others that are very knowledgable and share that knowledge with everyone.

Anyways, sorry to sound like I was trying to undermine.

Carry on with the good conversations,

IronWorker

[Eric3237]

It's just that it is a little annoying to have the whole notion of how people view CNS fatigue blamed on one comment I made years ago. This stuff is all over the forums to this day and I haven't made the statement again for years.

I wouldn't be able to ask such questions if I hadn't been quilty of making these assumptions in the past, testing them, and coming up with different views. I was never too much of a regurgitator but I'm even less of one now. But the other side of the coin you talked about is about the ONLY side that has been illuminated on the typical bodybuilding forum...the discussions of years past should bare that out. People go on and on about CNS fatigue, muscle recovery, all of that without really the slightest notion of what would happen in their own training if they did something out of the box. What I am talking about IS the side of the coin that is hidden from the view of most who rely on reflected knowledge.

Keep in mind, however that I am taling about the opposite of what this thread is about. The CNS stuff when most people talk about it is in relation to failure training and post failure training based on high volume and denstiy protocols. I am talking about maximal training and why people avoid that who claim to be interested in strength. Just to clarify....5x5, 3x5, 5x3, 3x3 is not exactly maximal training. It is still relying on the volume mindset rather than the intensity mindset.

[iron_worker]

You don't think a 3x3 is strength training? Hmmm, I would have thought that'd be getting pretty close. So would you say that you would define "pure strength training" as warming up to a heavy single/double/triple and then maybe some work after that? Just trying to get what exactly is your view of pure strength oriented training.

IronWorker

[Eric3237]

I said it's not exactly "maximal" training. The words I use are very purposeful It is not maximal training at least not in the way that I mean. "Strength training" is a much more general term and can mean all sorts of things. There are too many different strength qualities to define "pure strength work" And even absolute strength can be effected with other parameters than just maximal intensity work.

You can call anything strength traing depending on how it relates to your needs and goals. And you can call some things more "maximal" than others. But my philosophy when it comes to maximal work is that which involves intensity over volume. While 3x3 is heavier than 5x3 is heavier than 3x5 is heavier than 5x5 they are all related in a quantity first aspect.

But no, am not using the term pure strength but maximal training. And certainly warming up to a series of singles, doubles, or triples, would be in my view maximal training but of course there are other ways.

I have said before that many people use "intensity" as a catch-phrase more than anything else. They say intensity is important but their training doesn't reflect that. Becasue if intensity IS the most important criteria for the development of absolute strength then it is REGARDLESS of any other parameter we associate with resistance training. So, in that view, 3x3 is not viewing intensity as the sole most important parameter. In that setup, 9 reps in three sets is as important as weight on the bar. So intensity is only given importance in relation to volume.

That could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Keeping aside how your would approach such things on a continuing basis (just viewing one workout in a vacuumn) it may mean that working up to your heaviest set of 3 could be more useful than your "3x3". OR, does this intensity relationship mean "heaviest"? I say certainly not unless you want to lift like crap all the time.

So another aspect of it that is very important to me is the notion of quality over quantity. How many quality reps can you do at a given intensity? And lets supposed that intensity is at least 85% or above and spending plenty of quality time in the 90% or above range.

[iron_worker]

Alright, thank you for the clarifications.

IronWorker

[Kane]

Just to go with Eric's original questions...I've heard of the 'frying your cns' 'you'll burn out' and 'don't use singles often' all that kind of stuff. So I'm familiar with it. However you could also say that I'm somewhat familiar with the other side of the coin also.

[Ross86]

I've heard of it too. What is the purpose of a deload?

[Kane]

From what I know, a deload is used to dissipate fatigue you've accumulated.