Could I tweak ICF 5x5 for a bit of hypertrophy?

[Sl0an]

Do you guy thing it would be ok for me to change the rep ranges of the second workout of the week to 3x8?

I'm looking for mostly hypertrophy gains but I understand I have to build the foundation first.

Example;

Week 1:

A 5x5
B 3x8
A 5x5

Week 2:

B 5x5
A 3x8
B 5x5

And so on?

[SuffolkPunch]

5x5 IS a hypertrophy routine. Sets across - 25 hard reps will do just as much for muscle growth as 3x8

[batman37]

If you lack foundation, building the foundation WILL give you hypertrophy...

[Sl0an]

5x5 IS a hypertrophy routine. Sets across - 25 hard reps will do just as much for muscle growth as 3x8

Thankyou sir I did not know that, repped

If you lack foundation, building the foundation WILL give you hypertrophy...

Well that makes me sound stupid *facepalm* I figured building the foundation was getting the strength to start hypertrophy, You've probabily guessed I'm new to this got a lot of research to do, thankyou. Repped

[GymFreak25]

5x5 IS a hypertrophy routine. Sets across - 25 hard reps will do just as much for muscle growth as 3x8

Are you referring to only ICF 5x5?, cause stronglifts is a 5x5 and its considered a strength routine and not hypertrophy.

[SuffolkPunch]

Are you referring to only ICF 5x5?, cause stronglifts is a 5x5 and its considered a strength routine and not hypertrophy.

A pyramid scheme would tend to sacrifice volume in favour of a peak performance in the final set (i.e. motor pathway training). Perhaps this is what you mean by a "strength" vs. a "hypertrophy" routine.

But ICF5x5 has sets across - like I said 25 hard reps, all using around 75% of 1RM.

[GymFreak25]

A pyramid scheme would tend to sacrifice volume in favour of a peak performance in the final set (i.e. motor pathway training). Perhaps this is what you mean by a "strength" vs. a "hypertrophy" routine.

But ICF5x5 has sets across - like I said 25 hard reps, all using around 75% of 1RM.

So basically, a program like stronglifts is better for hypertrophy than a program like starting strength because it has 5x5 sets across as opposed to 3x5?, and ICF 5x5 would be better for hypertrophy than stronglifts because it is also 5x5 but has more volume in the form of exercises?

[SuffolkPunch]

Not necessarily.

Total volume is very strongly correlated with muscle growth BUT volume is not just about total number of reps, intensity also factors in.

If someone gains 30lbs in their first year on starting strength, how can we say its not a hypertophy program?

The difference between that and a "BBer" program is that the muscle is mostly gained on the quads, hips, glutes - not the pecs and biceps and other visible muscles.

The difference between programs is mostly down to which muscles you decide to target. Powerlifters target the chain of muscles used in a squat/dead/bench. Bodybuilders target visible muscles.

90% of your strength comes from how much muscle you carry - which is why I hate pigeon-holing programs as "strength" or "hypertrophy", especially purely by the rep range they employ.

[GymFreak25]

Not necessarily.

Total volume is very strongly correlated with muscle growth BUT volume is not just about total number of reps, intensity also factors in.

If someone gains 30lbs in their first year on starting strength, how can we say its not a hypertophy program?

The difference between that and a "BBer" program is that the muscle is mostly gained on the quads, hips, glutes - not the pecs and biceps and other visible muscles.

The difference between programs is mostly down to which muscles you decide to target. Powerlifters target the chain of muscles used in a squat/dead/bench. Bodybuilders target visible muscles.

90% of your strength comes from how much muscle you carry - which is why I hate pigeon-holing programs as "strength" or "hypertrophy", especially purely by the rep range they employ.

Ah ok, so your saying that a program like stronglifts is better for bodybuilding than starting strength because it has rows which target visible muscles more like the back and biceps and not because it is 5x5 instead of 3x5?, and ICF is better for bodybuilding than stronglifts because it has more isolations for those visible muscles correct?.

[SuffolkPunch]

Its very simple, look at which exercises a routine has and how much workload goes into each one. That will determine how much that particular muscle grows. SS only trains bench 1.5 times a week compared to a "BB" program which would almost certainly train it more often or with more volume per day.

Yes, ICF is designed for visible mass - hence the choice of additional exercises besides the main compounds.

[GymFreak25]

Its very simple, look at which exercises a routine has and how much workload goes into each one. That will determine how much that particular muscle grows. SS only trains bench 1.5 times a week compared to a "BB" program which would almost certainly train it more often or with more volume per day.

Yes, ICF is designed for visible mass - hence the choice of additional exercises besides the main compounds.

Alright thanks, and im guessing all pros is just as balanced as ICF in terms of bodybuilding since your doing all the exercises 3x a week?

[SuffolkPunch]

Alright thanks, and im guessing all pros is just as balanced as ICF in terms of bodybuilding since your doing all the exercises 3x a week?

In terms of exercise choice yes - although it doesn't have the shrugs which I am a big fan of.

ICF has a higher overall workload and more aggressive progression pattern so it requires more eating and therefore more potential fat accumulation.

[GymFreak25]

In terms of exercise choice yes - although it doesn't have the shrugs which I am a big fan of.

ICF has a higher overall workload and more aggressive progression pattern so it requires more eating and therefore more potential fat accumulation.

So if you were to eat enough in order to keep up with the progression on ICF, you would gain mass faster on that program than in all pros?

[SuffolkPunch]

So if you were to eat enough in order to keep up with the progression on ICF, you would gain mass faster on that program than in all pros?

Most likely - but would probably have more fat to deal with.

[GymFreak25]

Most likely - but would probably have more fat to deal with.

Hmm, i always thought that since you gain muscle weekly that the mass gains on both those programs would come at about the same rate, with ICF giving faster strength gains.

[SuffolkPunch]

Hmm, i always thought that since you gain muscle weekly that the mass gains on both those programs would come at about the same rate, with ICF giving faster strength gains.

That doesn't make sense because if the mass gains were the same, the strength gains would be also in the long term.

Strength gains from motor pathway training dissipate easily. This is why powerlifters run a peaking routine in preparation for a contest. No point trying to stay 'peaked' all year round.

[GymFreak25]

That doesn't make sense because if the mass gains were the same, the strength gains would be also in the long term.

Strength gains from motor pathway training dissipate easily. This is why powerlifters run a peaking routine in preparation for a contest. No point trying to stay 'peaked' all year round.

Oh, so the faster you gain strength, the faster you gain mass as well?

[PaulRivers]

Hmm, i always thought that since you gain muscle weekly that the mass gains on both those programs would come at about the same rate, with ICF giving faster strength gains.

Yeah, that's what I remember the author of one of the programs (ICF or All Pro's) saying - that both would give you similar mass at the same rate, but ICF would get you strength faster.

[SuffolkPunch]

Oh, so the faster you gain strength, the faster you gain mass as well?

In the long term yes

As I said, 90% of your strength comes from how much muscle tissue you carry. The other 10% is motor pathway training that - as I mentioned - is subject to fluctuations