Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

I came across an interesting read on EFS today.

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/size_strength.htm

So this author makes a pretty convincing argument, so is the common mentality of "you must get stronger first, then you will put on size" the best advice?

Frankly I believe that gaining size requires the training of both strength and "bodybuilding" in tandom... best described as powerbuilding. I've never been a black and white guy. So questions about isolation vs compound, or equipped power lifting vs raw or even supplementation (which I'm pretty devoutly against but only based on the fact that most people don't have their crap in one sock enough to get any advantages from a predatory industry that deals in ignorance... even all supplementation is not bad, and it pains me to say that) all seem like asking "Should I sleep or should I be awake?" Stupid question since we recognize that both are appropriate and necessary in their own way.

haha.. I just got the EFS news letter with that in it... I feel that there is always more than one way to skin a cat and with lifting there is no exception when it comes to this. This article is almost like saying, "which came first, chick or the egg".

__________________
Yesterday is History, Tomorrow a Mystery, Today is a Gift, Thats why it's called the Present.

MONSTER: My Strength Endurance Journal, Part 2: The Strength Endurance Journal Returns <--NEW

BULKING: My 5X5 Journal

CUTTING: My CKD Max-OT Journal, My HST Cutting Journal

Exactly. But I know that I always see the "you can't bodybuild until you can lift such-n-such (arbitrary numbers)." Of course they need to get stronger, but they can't bodybuild until then? That seems a bit odd.

Conversely the bodybuilders who give me the "I don't care about being strong, I just want to be big." Really? Good luck then!

It seems to me he is neglecting a huge part of the equation. He is talking about two things "bodybuilding to gain mass, then powerlifting to gain strength" or "Powerlifting to build strength, then bodybuilding to build mass".

It is possible to do both, I dont see a reason why they need to be separated, depending on goals of course. In my personal experience the strong i am, the bigger I have gotten, but it doesn't necessarily happen in proportion. I know this is just me, and that doesn't reflect everyone, but my question is this:

If you believe bodybuilders dont need to increase their weights to get bigger, your saying that intensity alone is responsible for hypertrophy?

__________________
I don't do this for my family, my friends, women, accolades, pride, or ego. I do it for me and no one else, its just part of who I am.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he is saying exactly. I think maybe people need to be clear when they are speaking of themselves, lol, instead of making it sound like they have observed thousands of trainees to come to a conclusion.

Honestly I don’t really understand the logic of the central ideas in that article. Well, I understand what he is saying I just don’t understand WHY he is saying it. Sometimes I think people just want to get attention by saying the opposite of the generally excepted trend, lol, even if there is no real reason to be saying it.

If a person really only has size as their goal, and they ARE cabable of achieving that through primarily “hypertrophy” training, then good for them. I might think lot’s of size without that much increase in strength is silly but to each his own. For that person, I don’t understand why the point needs to be discussed about how they can get strong easy afterwards. You wanted to get big; you got big. Case closed. If your goals then change that is a different story. But to tell people, hey, get a bunch of jelly in your muscles without really increasing your max strength in proportion to that and then later you will find it easier to get strong….well, nice theory. I’ll believe it when he produces thousands of obvervations proving. But, in the end, what happens is what matters.

NOBODY likes the middle road. To me anytime someone presents any extreme viewpoint solidly in one end of the spectrum you can almost bet they are wrong. The answer to any goal tends to always be in the middle.

Bit I think so much has to do with mode of thought. We tend to "label" what we do as this or that and so that affects the outcome as much as anything else.

But here are is the BIGGEST problems with the argument in this article and in any article stating the opposite idea, and they are both related: All of these questions are dependent on the individual and their training state.

And problem two is a question of efficiency and, yes, genetics. The elite bodybuilder represents a VERY small proportion of the population. Just about everybody else falls under the "hardgainer" category to one degree or the other. Now, I hate the term hardgainer but the REASON I hate it is because people make seem like "hardgainers" are this very tiny group of ectomorphs. But really it's all relative. Most of us have bodies that will fight tooth and nail against building large amounts of energy expensive muscle. The body uses the path of least energy expenditure. So instead of the term hardgainer it would be more accurate, imho, to have the term "easygainers" for the very few lucky, and then "everybody else". Notwithstanding the fact that what works for the individual...WORKS. What matters is what happens, not my theories or ideas about what will happen

The question of what is more efficient is a little more complicated, though, to my mind. Assuming that someone, of course is working, more or less, in strength and hypertrophy range, or anerobic range, then every beginner who picks up a weight will have some period, longer or shorter, of "free strength". Some methods will develop max strength faster than others but at first just about anything is going to get some initial strength gains.

Why are 5x5 methods so popular? Because they are a perfect middleground for develping strenght AND mass for the person who is just past the novice stage...i.e. just past this period of "free strength". Doesn't matter really if it was "hypertrophy training" or "strength training" the middleground approach represents just the sort of change that will usually meet with a lot of growth AND strength for a while.

But here is where efficiency comes in. The idea that someone who has gained a whole bunch of apparent size from high volume high rep (presumable bodypart) training can just "switch" all that mass over to "strength" is ummm...a little misleading. Matter of fact it's almost simplified to the point of nonsense. If the adapatation NEEDED was a whole bunch of max strength it already would have happend, logically. Why didn't it happen? Because nervous system changes and FUNCTIONAL muscle tissue wasn't the only adpaptation needed to the type or training undergone. It all comes down to specific adaptations to imposed demands. You can't turn fat into muscle and you can't turn sarcoplasmic jelly (stored substrates) into strong contracting muscle. To some extent the body has to "readapt". Hell, that's one of the big problems with western periodization. One "skill" or adapation is being detrained or lost while the other is being trained. That's enough right there to put the serious cabash on that whole article.

But large amounts of non-functional "mass" retards strength ability and strength gain. People that really are interested in strength are wanting relative strength. To say that a whole bunch of hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake is somehow advantageous to gaining strength down the road…well let me just say that the 250 pound bodybuilder who starts training for strength is going to get his ass handed to him by others in his weight range who have been training for strength all along and until his relative strength is better, he really won’t be “strong” compared to people who are “really strong”. Which could VERY WELL mean a signicant decrease in body weight.

On the other hand, muscular strength will never retard your ability to hypertrophy if that becomes your primary goal. But I agree with you, Andrew, that giving arbitrary numbers as the strength gain before “mass” is probably a little much. When I really started primarily focusing on strength training I got smaller looking. I felt more dense, and I actually liked the way I looked better. But I think it comes down to more efficiency. And of course all rep ranges are always being used by me. But if I start getting the size bug whispering in the back of my head, I have to, quite frankly, do at least a little, ‘bodybuilding style’ training.

Mel Siff expains all this better, of course:

OPTIMUM, NOT MAXIMUM, HYPERTROPHY

In both Olympic lifting and powerlifting, optimal and not maximal
hypertrophy is a central feature of the game, unlike bodybuilding where it
does not matter whether one is relatively weak or strong with reference to
one's bodymass. All that matters is well-defined, symmetrical muscle bulk
in bodybuilding, but in the lifting sports, your size and impressiveness of
appearance earn you scant respect - all that counts is what you lift.

Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as
long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases
in strength and power. If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total
increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative
strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

This is a serious problem in contact sports such as football where the
common belief is that virtually any form of added mass is good for the game
(especially defensive players), whereas in reality it would be a lot better
if the added bulk was mainly solid, functional muscle which added strength,
power, speed and agility.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF HYPERTROPHY

Research from Russia even suggests that there are two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy (of the actual contractile
components) and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (of non-contractile proteins and
semifluid plasma between the muscle fibres), with the latter type of
hypertrophy being more in evidence in bodybuilding (Siff & Verkhoshansky
"Supertraining" 1998 Ch 1.12).

MUSCLE GROWTH & PERFORMANCE

To provide some more relevant information on this important and
controversial topic, I have included this fairly lengthy extract from
"Supertraining" (pp 58-60) for those who may be interested:

Other research has found that hypertrophied muscle fibres need a
significantly larger tissue volume to perform a given amount of work. With
the development of non-functional muscle bulk (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),
the increase in muscle mass outsrtips the development of the circulatory
system, resulting in decreased nutrition and oxygenation of the muscle,
slowing down the metabolic processes in the muscle and less efficient
disposal of metabolic waste products from the musculoskeletal system
(Zalessky & Burkhanov Legkaya Atletika 1981: 1-7).

Furthermore, adaptation occurs more slowly in connective tissue (such as
tendons and ligaments) than in muscle and any increased tension made
possible in the musculotendinous complexes by the increased muscle mass can
cause damage to these structures (Zalessky & Burkhanov, 1981). Thus,
excessive hypertrophy usually leads to slower muscle recovery after
exercise, deterioration in speed, speed-strength and speed, as well as an
increased incidence of injury.

THE ENERGY COSTS OF TOO MUCH HYPERTROPHY

This might suggest that all muscle fibre hypertrophy lowers work capacity.
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response to physical stress and does offer the
benefit of increased mitochondrial surface area, which provides for more
efficient energy processes than would an increased number of mitochondria.
With a rapid increase in loading, the size of the mitochondria continues to
increase markedly, but their number decreases and the concentration of ATP
drops, thereby diminishing the partial volume of the contractile myofibrils.

The resulting energy deficit soon inhibits the formation of new structures
and the decreased amount of ATP stimulates various destructive processes
associated with decrease in the number of myofibrils. This process is
referred to as irrational adaptation.

Growth of any living structure is related to the balance between its volume
and its surface area. When muscle hypertrophy occurs, the surface of the
fibres grows more slowly than their volume and, this imbalance causes the
fibres to disintegrate and restructure in a way which preserves their
original metabolic state (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990).

It would appear that light and medium increases in loading require less
energy, facilitate cell repair, minimise the occurrence of destructive
processes and stimulate the synthesis of new, non-hypertrophied cellular
structures. Medium loads applied with a medium rate of increase in loading
produce intense muscular development, the process in this case being
referred to as rational adaptation..

The fact that conventional isometric training improves performance in
static, rather than dynamic, exercise may be due to the different
structural effects of isometric training on the muscle fibres, muscle
cells, connective tissues and blood capillaries.

MORE ON OPTIMAL HYPERTROPHY

This work seems to corroborate the hypothesis referred to earlier that
there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy
(MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of
prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance
between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious. Thus, it
is not only prolonged cardiovascular training which can be detrimental to
the acquisition of strength, but multiple fairly high repetition sets of
heavy bodybuilding or circuit training routines to the point of failure may
also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres.

Therefore, it is vital to monitor regularly changes in muscular structure
and function alongside changes in size and mass. In most cases the taking
of biopsies is not possible or financially practical, so that indirect
assessment of the adaptive processes is necessary. Increase in hypertrophy
of a given muscle zone may be assessed from muscle girth and skinfold
thicknesses at that site, while factors such as relative strength, maximal
strength and the strength deficit (see Ch 1) serve as useful indicators of
functional efficiency.

INDISCRIMINATE WEIGHT TRAINING

Bosco (1982a) cautions against the indiscriminate use of resistance
training that typifies much of the 'cross training' prescribed with weights
and circuits by Western personal trainers and coaches. He emphasizes that,
although heavy resistance training serves as a powerful stimulus for the
development and hypertrophy of both ST and FT fibres, the invaluable role
played by FT development can be impaired by the accompanying growth of ST
fibres, because the latter appear to provoke a damping effect on FT
contraction during fast movement.

This is due to the fact that, during high speed shortening of muscle, the
sliding velocity of ST fibres can be too slow and therefore, may exert a
significant damping effect on the overall muscle contraction. He concludes
that the central role played by the storage and release of elastic energy
by the connective tissues of the muscle complex should never be ignored in
sport specific training programmes.

Dr. Mel Siff

Sorry this post is super long. I wanted to just get it across and not have to come back and post on it a bunch more. BTW, I want to point out that when he talks about cardio and super high rep circuits and such as being detrimental he uses the word PROLONGED. He is not saying there is not advantage to it.

This all reminded me of another thread:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...pump-9642.html

I thought that some non math-oriented individuals (like myself) may be confused by this statement by Siff:



What he is talking about is strength-to-weight ratio. There is also power-to weight ratio but he mentions a 1RM so we'll stick to a simple strength formula. You strength-to-weight ratio is simply your 1RM (for a given movement) divided by your body mass.

So, if you weigh 200 pounds and you have a 1RM of 220 lbs (good for you) then your relative strength is 1.1. THEN, if you increase your body weight by 15 pounds but your 1RM increases by 5 lbs...your relative strength goes down to 1. Doesn't seem that bad but if that represents a TREND, then you can see that all that a bunch of that body weight ain't doing nothin for you in terms of strength.

^^ Thats ok if thats your thing i guess, personally i'd rather be lighter and stronger, not heavier and weaker ... but to each his/her own.

Is that what I said? I mean, I agree with you.

Well, if he was just meaning to be contrary he would certainly not be the first person to do so... I don't think his point is to just disagree with people, but rather to present another way of looking at this "age old problem." I actually rather appreciate his willingness to swim upstream a bit. While I don't necessarily think we are looking at an either/or scenario I think that it might help someone to see that there are opposing views.

Even teaching getting someone that there is always someone with the opposite belief goes a long way towards getting people to think for themselves.

Andrew, if I had really believed just being contray was his only motivation I wouldn't have bothered to write so much. If I didn't have any respect for contrary points of view I would ignore them and not work so hard to get my view across.

Maybe a couple of people will actually try to read and consider what I said, so that is good enough for me. Points of view for the SAKE of different points of view in a learning context? The biggest problem people have is separating the wheat from the chaff. If just reading a bunch of points of view taught you how to think we'd all be professors. Yes, everyone has something to give. But you have to learn a lot before you are able to learn what is relavant and what is complete crap.