Alternating between strength and hypertrophy

[supramax]

Hey all,

Not entirely new to these forums as I've been a lurker on and off for a time. Let's get to business.

For the past 6 years I've been engaging in aerobic exercises with some weightlifting as I used to be super fat and I hit a low of 12%BF up from an ugly 35-40%BF and it worked to help me diet, but then strength training became a greater focus these past two years and the results are real. I am currently 5'10.5", 228lbs kind of on the end of my bulk and am a little over 26% BF, I went from a starting 185lb bench to a 365lb bench of 2 reps, a 225lb squat to a 550lb squat for 4 reps, and a 300lb deadlift to a 535lb deadlift for 2-3 reps. I did gain size from strength training, but not as much size as I would have liked- I do more than just the three main lifts obviously and really only reserve those for days (or weeks) that I feel I'm mentally prepared, as I try to engage every muscle I can throughout my training weeks, including quads and biceps femoris. At this point I was thinking of doing more hypertrophic exercises. Note that I have s****osis of lower back so the lift I do the least often especially these days is the deadlift.
Now let me explain my training regimen, I already combine endurance (the first two to three sets of my exercises which I hit at least 10 but may work to 20 reps) with strength (towards the end where I reserve no more than 8 reps, but usually peak to 6). I also reserve 15-30 minutes at the end of my workout for a mix of cardio- 10 min of moderate walking (followed by an occasional max treadmill sprint for 30 sec to a min), combined with 10 to 20 min of something else of my choosing such as moderate to intense elliptical, bike, hand bike, open stride, etc.\
I try to reserve one two or even three days a week for rest.
I was thinking of alternating every week or every two weeks to just focus on one or the other instead of having the weird mashup I'm accustomed to. Anyone have any suggestions? I wanna make it count the most before my bulk finishes and then have something to go by for the future.

Thanks all.

PS- I'm 24 not 49, I don't know why it says I'm twice as old as I am. But I'm sure the age matters in regards to metabolic function in this case

I do a Reverse Pyramid style daily undulating periodization that employs 8-12, 3-5 and 5-7 rep days. I've read that strength and hypertrophy gains could be twice as much as a standard periodization scheme over an 8 or 12 week period (can't remember which). I've also read (Schoenfeld) that the difference is minimal. I couldn't care less, because I love lifting this way. The bottom line is that every workout is like a vacation from the previous one and like a vacation, looked forward to. Here's an excellent link on DUP and what it's not: http://www.jmaxfitness.com/blog/why-...-method-sucks/

[Farley1324]

Here's an excellent link on DUP and what it's not: http://www.jmaxfitness.com/blog/why-...-method-sucks/

That author is wrong or lying.

" The trouble with traditional linear periodization is that some of the adaptations that occur and the progress that you make in each mesocycle are lost by the time you come round to that mesocycle block in your next training block. For instance, let’s say that (in theory) you manage to go from 4 sets of 10 squats with 100kg (220 pounds) in the first week of your training block to 4 sets of 12 with 105kg (230 pounds) in week 6. You then increase load and drop reps through the next 6 weeks, and then do the same again during the final mesocycle. By the time you come round to your higher rep, lighter load meso again, your squat strength in that rep range may well have dropped down to what it was right at the very beginning. So while you do make improvements, by neglecting a particular rep range and loading range for so long afterwards, you don’t make many real long-term improvements. "

That is flat out wrong, only question is does he just not know what he's talking about or is he lying to push his agenda?

[WolfRose7]

I do a Reverse Pyramid style daily undulating periodization that employs 8-12, 3-5 and 5-7 rep days. I've read that strength and hypertrophy gains could be twice as much as a standard periodization scheme over an 8 or 12 week period (can't remember which). I've also read (Schoenfeld) that the difference is minimal. I couldn't care less, because I love lifting this way. The bottom line is that every workout is like a vacation from the previous one and like a vacation, looked forward to. Here's an excellent link on DUP and what it's not: http://www.jmaxfitness.com/blog/why-...-method-sucks/

But DUP stems from Eastern weightlifters... And as such is no natty at all.
Must be worthless

[jk202]

That's a stupid statement.

He trains plenty of naturals and his training his science based

This

[Farley1324]

I don't recent cheaters.

Who cheated? In what? What rule was broken?

[WolfRose7]

Who cheated? In what? What rule was broken?

[supramax]

That author is wrong or lying.

" The trouble with traditional linear periodization is that some of the adaptations that occur and the progress that you make in each mesocycle are lost by the time you come round to that mesocycle block in your next training block. For instance, let’s say that (in theory) you manage to go from 4 sets of 10 squats with 100kg (220 pounds) in the first week of your training block to 4 sets of 12 with 105kg (230 pounds) in week 6. You then increase load and drop reps through the next 6 weeks, and then do the same again during the final mesocycle. By the time you come round to your higher rep, lighter load meso again, your squat strength in that rep range may well have dropped down to what it was right at the very beginning. So while you do make improvements, by neglecting a particular rep range and loading range for so long afterwards, you don’t make many real long-term improvements. "

That is flat out wrong, only question is does he just not know what he's talking about or is he lying to push his agenda?

Of course, you know more about linear and DUP than the guy who wrote The Dup Bible.

Edited to remove ad hom, even if it was true.

[Farley1324]

Of course, you know more about linear and DUP than the guy who wrote The Dup Bible.

Edited to remove ad hom, even if it was true.

I know that the excerpt I quoted is wrong.

Maybe before writing "the dup bible" he should have learned about why linear periodization is popular. Pro tip, it's not because, as he claims "you don’t make many real long-term improvements."

So does he not know what he's talking about, or is he lying to push his pet program?

I don't recent cheaters.

Who cheated? In what?

Why are you making up ad hominem lies in an attempt to discredit good work?

[DJRipa]

Hey all, I appreciate the responses.
I am almost all natty, save for two months of creatine loading and use, I began in July and stopped in September of this year. I may consider finishing the container as I still have a little bit. I definitely think hypertrophy training of my lower back muscles would help stabilize that area with mild s****osis.

I'm also wondering if any of y'all have the best approach in your workouts to trimming down without losing much strength/ muscle mass for when I decide to start cutting. The process doesn't have to be a fast one. I don't mind taking many many months to get to my goal BF of 12%

[Farley1324]

Hey all, I appreciate the responses.
I am almost all natty, save for two months of creatine loading and use, I began in July and stopped in September of this year. I may consider finishing the container as I still have a little bit. I definitely think hypertrophy training of my lower back muscles would help stabilize that area with mild s****osis.

I'm also wondering if any of y'all have the best approach in your workouts to trimming down without losing much strength/ muscle mass for when I decide to start cutting. The process doesn't have to be a fast one. I don't mind taking many many months to get to my goal BF of 12%

...creatine is 100% natural.

And it's perhaps the most proven supplement there is. Take creatine monohydrate 3-5 grams a day, every day, in any beverage, at any time of day, no loading, no cycling.

Aim to lose 1 or at most 2 lbs of bodyweight per week on average, keep protein up (the old 1g per lb of bodyweight per day is still enough). Routine doesn't necessarily have to change.

[supramax]

Hey all, I appreciate the responses.
I am almost all natty, save for two months of creatine loading and use, I began in July and stopped in September of this year. I may consider finishing the container as I still have a little bit. I definitely think hypertrophy training of my lower back muscles would help stabilize that area with mild s****osis.

I'm also wondering if any of y'all have the best approach in your workouts to trimming down without losing much strength/ muscle mass for when I decide to start cutting. The process doesn't have to be a fast one. I don't mind taking many many months to get to my goal BF of 12%

I do believe that creatine is considered natty. I tried it a while back and it makes me feel sick. I want density, anyways, not water retention. Try this for your lower back. It's a wonderful exercise: https://www.t-nation.com/training/th...xercise-period

Losing body fat is more about eating than anything else. I don't know how well it would work in a calorie deficit type diet, but in prolonged bed rest studies, isometrics has been proven to prevent muscle loss.

[OldFartTom]

Creatine is "natty". What people mean by non natty are some illegal drugs we can't discuss (forum rules!)

Be aware though about 25% of people are low-zero responders to creatine, so if after a good long attempt (at least a month or more) you see nothing much and have been using correctly (like fruit juice to assist absorption etc) then sorry... join me in the 25% club The flip side is that 75% of people do respond, so if it is working and doesn't upset your digestive system, keep using it.

Edit: if you are 5'10" and 228 lbs at 26% bf, you must have a lot of muscle. That's some impressive work. Also why endurance first and strength work after? Why not strength first??

[rlefebvr]

Yeah, sadly Creatine does nothing for me either. It's the only supplement I have ever tried.

Although for some reason, it does help when I play hockey. Go figure.

[Gaston40]

I could really get into this, but I don't want to get banned.
Suffice it to say (and ignoring the financial aspect which is what this site is all about), I take advice from nattys.

Guess my advise for how to get a strong deadlift is much better than Coan...

[supramax]

Yeah, sadly Creatine does nothing for me either. It's the only supplement I have ever tried.

Although for some reason, it does help when I play hockey. Go figure.

I never had the chance to see if it did anything for me, because it made me feel ill. I know that if an iron supplement makes you feel ill, it's because the body has adequate iron levels and rejects the supplementation. I don't know if the same applies to creatine.

[WolfRose7]

Guess my advise for how to get a strong deadlift is much better than Coan...

****. Coach me senpai

[LukeEverhart]

People act as though if you are natural you can only train a certain way and that is not entirely true.

It depends on someone’s experience and how well they recover. Recovery isn’t the same for every natural.

The thought process of many people today is that if someone has an above average physique or trains in a way that is out of the norm they must be enhanced. And that is precisely because people think natural athletes can do considerably less than what they actually can. In other words the potential of a natural is greater than what most people think. I think more people limit themselves and hinder their progress because this type of thinking.

Yes, this!
The number of comments on both forums and on youtube claiming "fake natty" re physiques that are eminently attainable by naturals is ridiculous. In the same vein, the number that dismiss training routines as beyond the scope of natural recovery when similar approaches & volume have a pedigree going back to the 1950s as doable and yielding success is unfortunate & has relegated many a trainee to barely scratching their potential.
Another consequence of the thinking is the recent trend of confusing strength training with hypertrophy training, or substituting the one for the other; due, in part, to the fear of not being able to recover (or spiraling into overtraining) from the much greater volume that optimal hypertrophy training involves relative to strength training protocols.

[LukeEverhart]

I am currently 5'10.5", 228lbs kind of on the end of my bulk and am a little over 26% BF, I went from a starting 185lb bench to a 365lb bench of 2 reps, a 225lb squat to a 550lb squat for 4 reps, and a 300lb deadlift to a 535lb deadlift for 2-3 reps. I did gain size from strength training, but not as much size as I would have liked-

An unfortunate understanding of what constitutes a "bulk" is pretty pervasive. A bulk should never be to over 16%BF (for men, that is) and ideally a point or two lower than that. There are sound reasons for this.
As bodyfat rises a slew of anabolically adverse effects ensue:
*insulin resistance increases, a component precursor to full blown anabolic resistance
*additionally, aromatase from elevated bodyfat converts testosterone into estrogen, giving you a double whammy of anabolic adversity
*there are more but this is a post not an article

In the golden era (Schwarzenegger, Nubret, Zane, et al) a "bulk" was actually about 12%-13% BF. The bulk was relative to stage/competition appearance in the single digits (high single digits in those days but single nonetheless).
It was an abiding rule never to bulk so much you lost complete sight of your abs. This wasn't pure vanity but intelligent training, both in terms of maintaining some visual feedback on training progress and in maintaining optimal hormonal health to recover and respond to the training.
For amateurs who aren't benchmarking against a stage weight/BF level, the looser 15%-16% threshold is a healthy, practical ceiling.

[etet1919]

Yes, this!
The number of comments on both forums and on youtube claiming "fake natty" re physiques that are eminently attainable by naturals is ridiculous. In the same vein, the number that dismiss training routines as beyond the scope of natural recovery when similar approaches & volume have a pedigree going back to the 1950s as doable and yielding success is unfortunate & has relegated many a trainee to barely scratching their potential.
Another consequence of the thinking is the recent trend of confusing strength training with hypertrophy training, or substituting the one for the other; due, in part, to the fear of not being able to recover (or spiraling into overtraining) from the much greater volume that optimal hypertrophy training involves relative to strength training protocols.

You don't believe you can combine the two; implement a 5x (6-10) average, on a mostly compound-exercise 1-2x/week volume body part split.....to "balance" both strength and hypertrophy together? I'm not suggesting this for the novice lifter, but maybe someone who has years of weightlifting experience. I'm curious; you seem to have a lot of knowledge and I would welcome your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

Edit: I realize I probably didn't give enough detail. I meant something similar to german volume training, but using differing angles for the same muscles(groups); some body parts 1x/week and legs and/or chest 2x/week. Keeping within a 6-10 rep range and going as close to failure as possible (give or take a few sets, using RPE). In order to prevent muscular imbalances, someone would have to change chest, back and shoulder training frequencies.

[Gaston40]

You don't believe you can combine the two; implement a 5x (6-10) average, on a mostly compound-exercise 1-2x/week volume body part split.....to "balance" both strength and hypertrophy together? I'm not suggesting this for the novice lifter, but maybe someone who has years of weightlifting experience. I'm curious; you seem to have a lot of knowledge and I would welcome your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

Edit: I realize I probably didn't give enough detail. I meant something similar to german volume training, but using differing angles for the same muscles(groups); some body parts 1x/week and legs and/or chest 2x/week. Keeping within a 6-10 rep range and going as close to failure as possible (give or take a few sets, using RPE). In order to prevent muscular imbalances, someone would have to change chest, back and shoulder training frequencies.

Push
Bench press 5x10
Incline press 5x10
Seated shoulder press 5x10

Pull
Deadlifts 5x10
Barbell row 5x10
Pull ups 5x10
Pull overs 5x10

Legs
Squat 5x10
Walking lunge 5x10
Bulgarian squats 5x10
GHR/leg curl 5x10

[Farley1324]

Push
Bench press 5x10
Incline press 5x10
Seated shoulder press 5x10

Pull
Deadlifts 5x10
Barbell row 5x10
Pull ups 5x10
Pull overs 5x10

Legs
Squat 5x10
Walking lunge 5x10
Bulgarian squats 5x10
GHR/leg curl 5x10

Which is the strength part?

I don't recent cheaters.

Who cheated? In what?

Why are you making up ad hominem lies in an attempt to discredit good work?

[S4lm9vvMn]

i think one of Layne Norton's programs has both strength and hypertrophy built into each week. Can't recall the name of the program.

[etet1919]

[QUOTE=Farley1324;1571699491]Which is the strength part?QUOTE]

I really like way you took the time to summarize and simplify the stickies; your post should be posted somewhere else included, so people won't ask you needless questions and can make clear decisions on where to start.

The strength part is the number of sets, the compound exercises, the low- moderate rep range, the rest intervals (which weren't mentioned, but easily manipulated), the actual WEIGHT being used (not mentioned...relative to individual and RPE). I know that 6-10 rep range is not the same as ~5 max, but that's the "balance of hypertrophy and strength" this thread is trying to debate or analyze.

Btw, your summary of Fierce 5 looks like a good mix/balance of the above mentioned!

I'm very curious about Layne Norton's workouts now....Thanks S4lm9vvMn and supramax.

[supramax]

i think one of Layne Norton's programs has both strength and hypertrophy built into each week. Can't recall the name of the program.

Daily undulating periodization, aka 'DUP', has separate hypertrophy, power and strength workouts in the same week. Some schemes have endurance days also and some schemes concentrate on just two facets.

[health4life24]

Using a pyramid rep scheme allows you to incorporate strength and hypertrophy training. Been doing it for years with the goal of adding size and building muscle and it has worked very well.

Regularly utilizing 1-3 rep ranges, 5-6, and of course 8-12 for hypertrophy, sometimes even 15 or higher. For all exercises, not just the main compounds.

[Farley1324]

Using a pyramid rep scheme allows you to incorporate strength and hypertrophy training. Been doing it for years with the goal of adding size and building muscle and it has worked very well.

Regularly utilizing 1-3 rep ranges, 5-6, and of course 8-12 for hypertrophy, sometimes even 15 or higher. For all exercises, not just the main compounds.

This is also pretty simple to do with 5/3/1. The most popular template, actually, has sets of heavy set of about 5, might have one or two heavy sets of 1-3, and backoff sets of 10-across in the same workout...and the way a lot of guys run it, might have a set of 15-20 of the main lift in addition (the old FSL as a single set AMRAP)

[WolfRose7]

This is also pretty simple to do with 5/3/1. The most popular template, actually, has sets of heavy set of about 5, might have one or two heavy sets of 1-3, and backoff sets of 10-across in the same workout...and the way a lot of guys run it, might have a set of 15-20 of the main lift in addition (the old FSL as a single set AMRAP)

Not to mention all of RTS based stuff.

Heavy single, high rpe back off usually a triple, then lighter back offs with the same or greater reps.

Is just the powerlifting focused variant of Healths hypertrophy and strength reverse pyramid/down set method

[BDStraining]

Get stronger across all the rep ranges- optimal in every sense.

[supramax]

Get stronger across all the rep ranges- optimal in every sense.

Absolutely. Speed variations, some rest pause micro sets and plus set finishers are icing on the cake.

[supramax]

... Who cheated? In what?

Why are you making up ad hominem lies in an attempt to discredit good work?

Every time I click on this thread, the page jumps to Farleys' post. I've administrated a number of forums, so I know a bit about what goes on, but I'm not quite sure about this phenomenon.

I guess I better respond, though, since the questions, the last one being fallacious, have been asked multiple times. It's called 'trolling', btw.

Let's cut to the chase. It's completely obvious that the guy takes (to use grubs' vernacular) Vitamin S. He represents his physique as attainable by natural means and it's a lie. That is my objection.