Training for STRENGTH vs. SIZE

[AkiraFudo]

Inb4100000th post

[Elramos26]

Good read. Bump

[bullybot]

MYTH: Low reps is for strength, high reps is for size.

Once beyond the novice stage, you will find that you need more and more volume to keep the results coming. THIS is where problems with lower rep sets will make themselves apparent.

What's the definition of novice stage/how do I know if I am past it? Thanks

[SuffolkPunch]

What's the definition of novice stage/how do I know if I am past it? Thanks

Novices can make progress in their lifting every workout or every week. Intermediate progress is slower. Note that this assumes you are doing everything correctly. There are many other reasons why you might not progress as quickly as you can.

There are some exrx strength standards tables (google it) which can give an idea on expected strength levels for different levels. There is obviously some debate about this but they can be viewed as broad averages for athletes.

[machine54]

Thanks for the post lots of good info. I want to build strength and am not focusing on size as I am actually trying to lean out for more definition.

[SuffolkPunch]

Thanks for the post lots of good info. I want to build strength and am not focusing on size as I am actually trying to lean out for more definition.

Definition = muscle size + low bodyfat.

So you should still target hypertrophy training - but then reduce calorie intake too.

[DieLardo]

Good read, gone are the days when I used to go heavy as fook and only manage 4-6 reps max per set. Injuries are much less now and growth far better

[Pilot5299]

[QUOTE=SuffolkPunch;1545945481]MYTH: Low reps is for strength, high reps is for size.

Although this contains a grain of truth, it leads to wrong thinking - the classic problem we get on this forum is the legion of novices who don't want to do novice routines because they contain 5 rep sets ... which are "for strength" not "for mass". This is (mostly) incorrect.

Strength and size are intertwined and it's worth taking a few minutes to understand how...

1) What is SIZE? - this is easy enough, it's how big the muscle is. A larger muscle contains more fibres (myofibrils) and more fluid (sarcoplasm). Note that these two components tend to stay in the same proportions to one another regardless of whether the muscle shrinks or grows - and regardless of how you train.

2) What is STRENGTH? A simple measure is the peak force a muscle can produce. This will determine how much weight you can lift in a 1-rep-maximum effort attempt for a simple movement.
There are actually 2 components to strength:
- The size of the muscle - more fibers means more ability to contract and produce force. Size is the most important factor for strength.
- Neural factors - how well your brain coordinates the firing pattern of all the fibres in your muscle (or lots of muscles together in the case of a complex movement).


Hey guys, Suffolk Punch, When talking about strength you say you measure it by a 1-rep-maximum in a single movement, but do you think this is the best way to measure strength? Can't some people have more or less of different types of muscle fibers? Can genetics play a role in this? Also with the single movement this is a high-velocity muskuloskeletal movement which can be considered very dangerous and a risky way to "measure" strength. I personally do not know the best or correct way to measure pure strength but to me, one rep maximums in a ballistic movement doesn't seem the most effective or safest. What do you guys think about how strength is and has been measured by one rep maximums?

[TolerantLactose]

Also with the single movement this is a high-velocity muskuloskeletal movement which can be considered very dangerous and a risky way to "measure" strength. I personally do not know the best or correct way to measure pure strength but to me, one rep maximums in a ballistic movement doesn't seem the most effective or safest. What do you guys think about how strength is and has been measured by one rep maximums?

You're not training for strength or size with these kinds of movements.

[SuffolkPunch]

Hey guys, Suffolk Punch, When talking about strength you say you measure it by a 1-rep-maximum in a single movement, but do you think this is the best way to measure strength? Can't some people have more or less of different types of muscle fibers? Can genetics play a role in this? Also with the single movement this is a high-velocity muskuloskeletal movement which can be considered very dangerous and a risky way to "measure" strength. I personally do not know the best or correct way to measure pure strength but to me, one rep maximums in a ballistic movement doesn't seem the most effective or safest. What do you guys think about how strength is and has been measured by one rep maximums?

To me, strength is the ability to produce force - so maximum strength is the maximum force you can produce.

I mentioned that this should be in a 'simple' movement in an effort to rule out technique which can make a huge difference in a complex lift like a squat. Researchers will test strength using something really simple like a max effort leg extension - with thigh strapped down to prevent cheating.

Yes, fiber types (which are genetically determined) make a difference - those with more slow twitch will simply not be as strong. You have to compare yourself to yourself to gauge progress if you are training for strength.

Ballistic movements exhibit power (force*velocity) rather than peak strength (just force) which is slightly different. Again, stick to simple movements where you can apply force throughout the entire range of motion (for example a deadlift, not a power clean) - and then you can use enough resistance to prevent excessive speed development so it's strength not power you are measuring.

[Nwlifter]

When talking about strength you say you measure it by a 1-rep-maximum in a single movement, but do you think this is the best way to measure strength?

That 'is' strength. Total maximum force.

Can't some people have more or less of different types of muscle fibers?

Yes, we all vary in our muscle fiber 'speed endurance' characteristics. Which is mostly influenced by previous training. But that matters not for 'strength'. How fast a fiber can contract doesn't alter it's force potential. Force potential of a fiber is directly correlated with it's 'size', the number of fibrils within the fiber, this determines how many crossbridges in parallel that can attach. The only reason faster fibers produce more 'force' is they usually are larger. A fast fiber can produce more 'power' (speed strength) due to it being able to contract literally 'faster'. But pure strength/force is determined by size.

Can genetics play a role in this?

Genetics for fiber type is a 'starting point', training influences them the most (listen to some Andy Galpin podcasts, the number one researcher in this field currently.
https://renaissanceperiodization.com...ounded-debate/

Also with the single movement this is a high-velocity muskuloskeletal movement which can be considered very dangerous and a risky way to "measure" strength. I personally do not know the best or correct way to measure pure strength but to me, one rep maximums in a ballistic movement doesn't seem the most effective or safest. What do you guys think about how strength is and has been measured by one rep maximums?

1RM, fast? Ballistic?
1RM is sloooow, cannot be ballistic and max strength.

But unless you need to know your 1RM, no need to ever risk it anyway if it concerns you, as far as muscle hypertrophy is concerned.

[ezio6]

Good day suffolk punch, thanks for the thread, very informed and gain more knowledge by this thread! Im just wondering about progressive overload, what is the minimum frequency of weight progressive overload in your opinion? Is it weekly? Monthly? Daily? Thanks

[SuffolkPunch]

Good day suffolk punch, thanks for the thread, very informed and gain more knowledge by this thread! Im just wondering about progressive overload, what is the minimum frequency of weight progressive overload in your opinion? Is it weekly? Monthly? Daily? Thanks

Kind of off topic - may be better to start a new thread. But it depends on the experience level. Novices can add weight every week or even every workout.

[mjacketss]

Thanks for sharing us yours precious time to create this post, its so informative and the content make post more interesting. really appreciated.

[nancyedwards]

\i strongly agree that both size and strength go hand in hand. I believe the biggest factor is fat. Many "Bulk up" carry more water weight than a leaner person

[ECGordyn]

Adding to the discussion Mike Israetel's recent lecture that there actually is a notable difference between the two styles of training, mainly for intermediates and above. I'd agree with Suffolk that for novices strength is size and size is strength, but novices going for lifelong training could benefit from knowing the differences in order to set themselves up for their long term goals.

[TonedJordan]

Adding to the discussion Mike Israetel's recent lecture that there actually is a notable difference between the two styles of training, mainly for intermediates and above. I'd agree with Suffolk that for novices strength is size and size is strength, but novices going for lifelong training could benefit from knowing the differences in order to set themselves up for their long term goals.

Would you mind posting a TL;DR please? I am in China and can not access YouTube due to vpn currently down !

[SuffolkPunch]

^^
A lot of my knowledge comes from Dr. Mike so this is no suprise for me at least

Summary:
- more advanced -> more differences between size and strength
- Beginners can do both at the same time! 5-10 reps, it's all good
- MOST of the following applys more to advanced lifters seeking to optimise their particular goal
- optimised strength or sport specific training -> loading differences
- neurologically, you should be closer to the rep range you compete in
- size increases can translate into strength improvements but it takes time - longer if differences in rep ranges are larger
- size training needs more volume hence it's harder with lower reps due to buildup of fatigue and stress on connective tissue
- hypertrophy training can be done when more fatigued - not so reliant on perfect technique
- MAV for strength training and heavy weights may not be high enough volume for muscle growth. So advanced lifters may have to accept hypertrophy stops when training for peak strength
- strength = increases in load, hypertrophy = increases in volume. There comes a point where you can't have both
- strength specific to exercise - less variety
- hypertrophy benefits from more exercises - assuming you need the total volume
- concurrent training for strength and size is possible for more advanced lifters with alternating mesocycles focusing on one thing at a time

[TonedJordan]

^^
A lot of my knowledge comes from Dr. Mike so this is no suprise for me at least

Many thanks, much appreciated!

I have read through his articles on his website last year, I can’t remember the website name but he breaks down each muscle group, talks about minimum sets per week, maximum sets per week, how to find it and also the concept of increasing volume over time until you reach the tipping point at which you need to deload and start off at a lower volume again.

So what he is essentially saying in the video is that there is a certain point where you will have to start specializing, ultimately confirming the idea that high reps is better for size later into your lifting career, as the volume needed would be too high to sustain a low rep, heavy weight routine.

So it’s not necessarily that the high reps themselves are considerably better for size, just it’s easier to maintain high volume with higher rep sets due to less tax on the CNS, less concern about break down in form and lifting technique etc. Assuming I have understood the information correctly.

[SuffolkPunch]

I think he's generally right in that higher reps can accommodate more volume. But I have heard anecdotes from experienced powerlifters that if they switch to unusual (i.e. higher) rep ranges, it taxes them a lot more than the rep range they are most used to working in. So there is an element of adaptation.

Also, it's not CNS that fatigues. General systemic fatigue is something different. Read: https://mennohenselmans.com/cns-fatigue/

[VicDumbbells]

So it’s not necessarily that the high reps themselves are considerably better for size, just it’s easier to maintain high volume with higher rep sets due to less tax on the CNS, less concern about break down in form and lifting technique etc. Assuming I have understood the information correctly.

No. Most folks who review scientific data associated with training agree that a well designed higher volume program will produce more hypertrophy than it's lower volume counterpart. There is very likely a distinction between strength and hypertrophy training.

The key is that at the early stages of training strength vs hypertrophy is not very relevant as the trainee has limited skill, stamina, strength, etc. Beginner programs are so effective because folks learn training movements and to train the whole body frequently. For someone like me who beyond basic health and fitness is only interested in size and symmetry the time on a beginner program was still very well spent.

[BeginnerGainz]

Random albeit related question:

How do the different training styles influence myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, if such a factor can be influenced at all.

[Elucid99]

Thanks, lots of info!

[SuffolkPunch]

Random albeit related question:

How do the different training styles influence myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, if such a factor can be influenced at all.

IIRC, your choice of training *probably* doesn't influence it - but different people do get varying levels of one vs. the other.

Article here:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sa...ophy-relevant/