Training for STRENGTH vs. SIZE

[ChairmanWaffle]

Fairly sure the first option is better , per this thread: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1&pagenumber=1

[SuffolkPunch]

From this when training for Mass

is it better:

To go close to failure from the first set of an exersize and take the hit on the subsequent sets
i.e having to lower the weight in order to get the desired rep range.

Or to leave "enough in the tank" to achieve the reps at the same weight over the sets.

Also:
When is a novice no longer a novice?


Thanks for the post.

Either strategy can work although I would stay away from maximum exertion (concentric failure) most of the time and especially in lifts like squat and deadlift. In the first example, exertion is generally higher so you will need less sets to achieve the same effect. I actually prefer sets across with the same reps for novices because adding more sets is not such a jump in workload and it forces over exuberant lifters to avoid failure most of the time.

A novice is someone who can make progress from one workout to the next under ideal circumstances (which is something most don't achieve without coaching). If this sounds hard to measure, it is - but you can get a reasonable idea from the TABLES on exrx

[nightanole]

Nuckols Just posted his meta findings that while men gain the same amount of muscle regardless of rep range as long as the sets are taken to near failure, women do not respond very well to high rep work. I find that kind of funny because high rep work is what most "you are women so you are special" trainers throw at them.

I got mum doing trap bar farmers carries...

[SuffolkPunch]

Nuckols Just posted his meta findings that while men gain the same amount of muscle regardless of rep range as long as the sets are taken to near failure, women do not respond very well to high rep work. I find that kind of funny because high rep work is what most "you are women so you are special" trainers throw at them.

I got mum doing trap bar farmers carries...

That's an interesting article

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/st...raining-women/

However, only one of the studies comparing high-load and low-load training was done with women. It found that women training with higher loads (6-10RM loads) gained way more muscle than women training with lower loads (20-30RM loads). This stands in stark contrast to similar studies performed on men, suggesting that women may respond to normal, heavy-ish training the same way men do (mostly doing sets of 5-15 reps), but may not respond as well to low-load training.

I think we'd need more research on this since it's only one study. This was with untrained subjects so we can't blame previous training habits although maybe cultural influences come into play - such as women not being expected to lift heavy objects etc. So there is more potential for strength improvement from heavy training.

It also seems to contradict the idea that women have a higher proportion of type I fibers. In the past, this has been one justification for recommending high rep training. Very interesting though.

[CadenceEast]

Thanks! This really helped confirm that I am doing what I need to be doing. I've been doing a 4-6 rep Progressive overload workout program. I have been seeing increases in size and in strength so I know its working I just wasn't sure if I was doing the best workout program for max gains.

I appreciate you breaking it down.

[LadyCecilia]

Wow, this was concise and really informative! I'm just starting off myself and have been exercising only by practicing with weapons (European longsword, axe, buckler, etc). I've wanted to get more size in places other than mostly my shoulders. This is a good start! Thank you!

[Dyzzthetic]

Thank you really much! I'm a novice training for only a year now. I did A LOT wrong - till the last 2-3 Months, were i really started to build my gains and strength.

I'm always very Thankful to learn new things and get some tips. I think, working out with lower weights/for a week with pretty low weights and max out the reps till failure is really great! I feel the burn, the burn which makes me happy, because after that it feels like i really worked out the muscle! I let my ego fall and started from the bottom!

[LaserCop1988]

^ Remember the number of sets is per bodypart not per exercise. So if you had 10 sets total and 2 exercises (say overhead press and lateral raise), you could do:

3 x overhead press
2 x lateral raise

twice a week.

As I mentioned in my OP, high weight and low reps reach a limit in terms of fatigue produced and the strain on your connective tissue etc.

Thanks so much, SP.

Question: Do you see any additional benefit to what I've seen called a "powerbuilding" approach, doing a few sets at a lower rep range followed by a couple of sets at a moderate volume for the goal of both strength and hypertrophy? I'm a novice several months into a 3x5+ (AMRAP on the last set as in Greyskull LP) total body routine, and in light of all of the recent meta-analyses and breakdowns I've been seeing by Schoenfeld, Israetel, etc. have considered simply adding a 2x10-12 to my compound lifts after the 3x5's (maybe dropping the "AMRAP" third set?)

I'd definitely appreciate your thoughts on that. Thanks again.

[SuffolkPunch]

^ I don't think its something you need to worry about until you are an intermediate. A lot of novice routines could be called powerbuilding routines - because they utilise the powerlifts and a fairly low rep range.

Later on you might have to compromise by not doing back squat too often - and not doing deadlift at all if your goal is principally focused on bodybuilding. If you retain the powerlifts then I would say you are a powerbuilder by definition.

[Plateauplower]

I would add in the first post that aside from bigger muscles and neurological adaptations, leverages are a BIG part of the strength equation. While the insertion points, limb lengths, and anatomy of bone structure are not going to change for an individual, they matter a LOT in terms of strength for specific movements. Many people want to have big numbers on certain lifts, and try to compare themselves to others, which is nonsensical in that some people are just at a mechanical advantage for certain lifts. A short person with orangutan arms and short torso/legs is likely to excel in deadlift compared to a longer torso person with T-Rex arms just due to mechanical advantage. The T-Rex arm person would likely be better at Bench.

[SuffolkPunch]

^ Totally agree. Some people are just beasts out-of-the-box like Greg Nuckols who deadlifted 4 plates first time he tried deadlifting. I mostly tried to focus on the things you can do something about but anyone who has strength related goals needs to know these things too.

[EjnarKolinkar]

in light of all of the recent meta-analyses and breakdowns I've been seeing by Schoenfeld, Israetel, etc. have considered simply adding a 2x10-12 to my compound lifts after the 3x5's (maybe dropping the "AMRAP" third set?)

Everything we do in the gym comes at a cost to other things. And the problem is you're talking about chopping up a program that is working just to add some volume by removing a key part of the program's stimulus. You seem excited to listen to Israetel, here are some excepts from a chat on novice training:

"Is sets of 3-5 reps with lots of rest and really, really good technique really going to get me jacked?" "YES!"

"You have to take beginners and ease them away from the temptation of doing too much."

"Why would you put your body through that(higher volume)? Much more proclivity to learn poor technique."

"Once technique becomes the limiting factor you have really hamstrung yourself"

Excerpts from: http://www.jtsstrength.com/articles/...ion-beginners/

Novice lifters hope to gain 2% more muscle now, when they should be more concerned with setting themselves up for the 30% coming in the long run. Folks worry about leaving something behind, instead of what they might miss out on. Novices should be concerned about laying a proper foundation of skill/technique, basic strength, and developing a deep love of lifting. But that isn't flashy enough so they go for a program change and oops, no miraculous size advancement. The novice starts program hopping delaying their progress further. They often fuel a loop of novelty, lack of consistency, and lack of progress that turns into a viscious cycle.

[Mamer4]

This is great clear information for a newbie like myself.

Im struggling to progress with some exercises especially the bench press, I would love to know should I add the weight and do less reps or keep going with the high reps and no/lower weights until I finally get strong enough to do the full set/reps plus increase weight?

My goal is most definitely gaining muscle and changing my body shape/appearance. I'm female, 38, 6ft and 142bs (have put on 2lbs in the past few months) Programme is as follows, thanks so much for looking.

Monday:

Bench Press (2 warm up sets) 8 x 10-12

Incline Dumbell Press 5 x10-12

Cable crossover 5 x 10-12

Tricep rope pushdown 5x 10-12

Close grip push up 3x to failure


Wednesday:

T-bar row (2 warm up sets) 8 x 10-12

Inverted low cable row 5 x 10-12

Seated bent over flye 6 x 15-20

EZ bar bicep curl 6 x 6-8

Seated incline bicep curl 6 x 6-8


Friday:

Barbel squat (2 warm up sets) 8 x 10-12

Hex bar Deadlift 5 x 10-12

Hip thruster 5 x 10-12

Seated overhead press 5 x 10-12

Lateral raise 5 x 20

Upright row 5 x 12-15

[SuffolkPunch]

^ Hi, I'm not going to do program critiques in this sticky thread. However, if you are interested in methods of managing progression, have a look at this:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=174402191

[Mamer4]

Thanks very much I totally understand that, thanks for the link.

[bLinkMoore]

Fantastic post. I hope that the people who need to see this see this ASAP

[KMShep]

Thanks for the info, I’m gonna try this tomorrow (leg day)!

[swsko]

So if I understand correctly, running any full body workout for beginners for less than a year (novice level) which is mostly 3x5 will result in both strenght and seize gain if the trainer is eating at a sufficient surplus ?

[SuffolkPunch]

So if I understand correctly, running any full body workout for beginners for less than a year (novice level) which is mostly 3x5 will result in both strenght and seize gain if the trainer is eating at a sufficient surplus ?

No.

Spoiler!

I'm kidding, yes.

[HondaGoSkrrt69]

Great read. Reminds me to adjust my training routine, so thank you for that!

[FireHawk09]

SuffolkPunch,
I’m 30, and I am just in the beginning stages of wanting to start into getting stronger. I have had soo many questions about what you have just explained in this topic. You have answered all my questions on how many, how heavy, and in which fashion to do so if you have trouble move up in weights. I’m 175 lbs and very active but have always wanted to be stronger than I am now. This was a huge help thanks!

[shivajames999]

Strength over Size any day. Hey, I am looking For some best in house workout and diet plans. Looking for some plan recommendations.

[Mountaintop12]

Depends what high reps is. I view high reps as 18+. 1 to 5 low. 6 to 17 mid range.

I rarely go above 18 unless it's push ups.

[anonymous]

Strength over Size any day.

True. And if you want bigger muscles, just go for strength in a "hypertrophy specific rep range". But STRENGTH is the way to go.

Depends what high reps is. I view high reps as 18+. 1 to 5 low. 6 to 17 mid range.

I rarely go above 18 unless it's push ups.

A good example why simply saying "low" or "high" reps is misleading. Everbody has a different interpretation.

For me, 1-4 reps is low, 5-10 is moderate, 10+ is high.
I rarely go above 10 reps per set, besides calf work

I'd say, whatever you do in the "moderate" rep range is great for hypertrophy and contrary to popular pumping routines, the LOWER the better.

[cancell]

Great thread - thanks to the OP. Can you answer this question - which of the training methods would one use to improve their endurance?

For example: does the guy training to swing a bat harder, for a longer period of time, train for size or endurance? I'm guessing size, since it focuses on volume.. yes?

[SuffolkPunch]

I'm no expert on sport specific training but I do know that the #1 rule is always specificity - if you want to swing a bat harder, swing a bat a lot.

It's explosive power you are after which (apart from the muscle tissue you have), is mostly about motor pathway training - coordinating the fibers to fire in the right sequence to produce peak power output. Perhaps using a heavier bat would help - or mimicking / breaking down the movement using machines or free weights. There must be a lot written about this by people with more experience than me.

I don't imagine endurance is that important if it's baseball you are talking about - and endurance training can conflict with speed/power to some degree but again, I'm no expert but just be wary of these issues before deciding to train for endurance you don't need.

[etet1919]

Great thread - thanks to the OP. Can you answer this question - which of the training methods would one use to improve their endurance?

For example: does the guy training to swing a bat harder, for a longer period of time, train for size or endurance? I'm guessing size, since it focuses on volume.. yes?

Just a couple of ideas for batting practice: go regularly to a batting cage; practice wood chops on the cable machines at the gym; focus on technique and explosiveness when doing the aforementioned; look into a routine such as SS (Starting Strength) to build strength in the major lifts...

[yuliangolodnykh]

This is gold. Thank you!

[Sam12221]

Awesome thanks.

[healthvice]

great info, very helpful