Stronglifts for Hypertrophy?
Options
Replies
-
Did you look at the study I linked earlier? You are talking parts of the article out of context.
And by big assumption - the main assumption being that the strength routine v the hyper are very different in terms of volume/poundage and progressive overload over the time.
No, I haven't had time to go through everything yet. Its gonna take a while, you provided a lot of good info.
How am I taking things out of context? (btw, I know I'm just a guy on the other side of the comp, but I really am interested in expanding my knowledge and understanding of all this, not in being argumentative as so many here are). That particular article that I read is very clear that bodybuilders are better at building muscle and gives 10 reasons why. Reason #1 is "1. Higher Reps and Chasing the Pump" . Now, they don't talk about progressive overload, but I view that as a given, and I think thats a standard in both powerlifting and bodybuilding routines.0 -
I read all of Lyle's articles about a year ago, but I'll check it out again in a few. Time to put kiddos to bed.0
-
Did you look at the study I linked earlier? You are talking parts of the article out of context.
And by big assumption - the main assumption being that the strength routine v the hyper are very different in terms of volume/poundage and progressive overload over the time.
No, I haven't had time to go through everything yet. Its gonna take a while, you provided a lot of good info.
How am I taking things out of context? (btw, I know I'm just a guy on the other side of the comp, but I really am interested in expanding my knowledge and understanding of all this, not in being argumentative as so many here are). That particular article that I read is very clear that bodybuilders are better at building muscle and gives 10 reasons why. Reason #1 is "1. Higher Reps and Chasing the Pump" . Now, they don't talk about progressive overload, but I view that as a given, and I think thats a standard in both powerlifting and bodybuilding routines.
The 10 points are looking at other factors than rep ranges. Yes, bb'ers are better - it's what they focus on.
"Reason #1 - Powerlifters generally train in a low rep range (1-5 reps) while bodybuilders tend to favor a moderate rep range (6-12). The adaptations associated with these may explain at least part of the hypertrophic differences between these two classes of athletes."
It goes back to poundage and volume. A pure old school strength program has low volume and therefore low poundage - but then again, SL is not an old school strength program - you are comparing apples and oranges.
Hyper and strength routines may not have very different volume/poundage- it depends on each of the routines.
ETA: I would check that study - its just the abstract, but may help understand what I am trying to say.0 -
Did you look at the study I linked earlier? You are talking parts of the article out of context.
And by big assumption - the main assumption being that the strength routine v the hyper are very different in terms of volume/poundage and progressive overload over the time.
No, I haven't had time to go through everything yet. Its gonna take a while, you provided a lot of good info.
How am I taking things out of context? (btw, I know I'm just a guy on the other side of the comp, but I really am interested in expanding my knowledge and understanding of all this, not in being argumentative as so many here are). That particular article that I read is very clear that bodybuilders are better at building muscle and gives 10 reasons why. Reason #1 is "1. Higher Reps and Chasing the Pump" . Now, they don't talk about progressive overload, but I view that as a given, and I think thats a standard in both powerlifting and bodybuilding routines.
I don't... I think generally speaking that powerlifters are much smarter with their programming and progressive overload (I still know a handful of BBers who do not track progress, and train purely for "the pump" and end up looking the same year after year.)
HOWEVER, I would say there's been a much larger shift in the past few years with YouTube channels popping up, dual sport athletes, and more accessible information where they now discuss the importance of progressive overload more commonly, as well as how strength & hypertrophy are interrelated. The same can be said about the mass spread of flexible dieting over the past few years.0 -
Adding a note: in responding to specific points, the context (and my point) of my earlier posts may well be missing.
- for a beginner, it does not really matter - they just need get time under the bar (and I would not recommend them bulking anyway)
- for peeps that are not new - its primarily about poundage and volume.
- For more experienced lifters, a good routine will generally include a variety of ranges. Both strength and hyper rep ranges have advantages.
- Hyper rep ranges are generally preferential for volume as you can just do more reps and therefore get more poundage with less of a recovery issue and its quicker to do - so in that way its preferential.
- When comparing equal poundage - the strength and the hyper ranges have been shown to have no meaningful difference in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
In short, the routine as a whole needs to be considered, not just rep ranges.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Did you look at the study I linked earlier? You are talking parts of the article out of context.
And by big assumption - the main assumption being that the strength routine v the hyper are very different in terms of volume/poundage and progressive overload over the time.
No, I haven't had time to go through everything yet. Its gonna take a while, you provided a lot of good info.
How am I taking things out of context? (btw, I know I'm just a guy on the other side of the comp, but I really am interested in expanding my knowledge and understanding of all this, not in being argumentative as so many here are). That particular article that I read is very clear that bodybuilders are better at building muscle and gives 10 reasons why. Reason #1 is "1. Higher Reps and Chasing the Pump" . Now, they don't talk about progressive overload, but I view that as a given, and I think thats a standard in both powerlifting and bodybuilding routines.
I don't... I think generally speaking that powerlifters are much smarter with their programming and progressive overload (I still know a handful of BBers who do not track, and train purely for "the pump" and end up looking the same year after year.
HOWEVER, I would say there's been a much larger shift in the past few years with YouTube channels popping up, dual sport athletes, and more accessible information where they now discuss the importance of progressive overload more commonly, as well as how strength & hypertrophy are interrelated. The same can be said about the mass spread of flexible dieting over the past few years.
Agreed. If you look at the bb'ers, their routines incorporate both rep ranges. PL'ers also do as more muscle = more potential for strength. However, these are experienced lifters.
The main difference is the emphasis/balance as well as the selection of the lifts regarding what they need to bring up (the 'weak link').
Edited to take out double quotes...why does it keep doing that?0 -
Being a veteran in "gains", I'll have to agree here with Sara.Adding a note: in responding to specific points, the context (and my point) of my earlier posts may well be missing.
- for a beginner, it does not really matter - they just need get time under the bar (and I would not recommend them bulking anyway)
- for peeps that are not new - its primarily about poundage and volume.
- For more experienced lifters, a good routine will generally include a variety of ranges. Both strength and hyper rep ranges have advantages.
- Hyper rep ranges are generally preferential for volume as you can just do more reps and therefore get more poundage with less of a recovery issue and its quicker to do - so in that way its preferential.
- When comparing equal poundage - the strength and the hyper ranges have been shown to have no meaningful difference in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
In short, the routine as a whole needs to be considered, not just rep ranges.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Great info here, thanks for taking the time to lay it all out. Out if curiosity, is there a program you recommend for someone that wants to start bulking?
Rather, two people... one of them a beginner and one an intermediate lifter.0 -
Great info here, thanks for taking the time to lay it all out. Out if curiosity, is there a program you recommend for someone that wants to start bulking?
Rather, two people... one of them a beginner and one an intermediate lifter.
If you have a beginner, who is started lifting. Then I don't know if "bulking" out of the gate is the way you want to go.....
Any basic program like SL 5x5 will do fine for that person. They will benefit from all the "low hanging fruit" aspect of things, there muscles are being stimulated for once, the mind-muscle connection begins to develop, so their progression in strength can happen fairly quickly.
As you progress over the years, and your muscles become more "mature", then developing a decent split routine based around basic compound exercises will benefit you.
So you have to look at the two people differently, because they are at two different stages.
And honestly a beginner is just not ready for the kinda of workout routine that would be needed for someone who has been lifting 3+ (or 5+) years.....
Unless they are on some "gear"0 -
I read the linked article. I definitely don't have anything to back up what amounts to my intuition but I feel like a comparison of elite powerlifters and elite bodybuilders doesn't apply to 80% or 90% of the people out there.
I guess by definition it would only apply to the percentage of the population that are elite competitors in those two sports so it actually probably only applies to 1% of the people out there training.
I balked at the line about walking into the gym with no particular goal and just lifting until it "feels" right. That seems counter-intuitive to me. And perhaps it works! But I can't imagine that I, or many other people on this site, could benefit from such an unstructured approach.
I also think that their emphasis on use of machines and isolation movements also does not generally apply. That is, I'm not going to worry too much about hitting a single muscle (I can't think of any good examples) until I've benefitted all I can from hitting that muscle in a group as part of a larger compound movement.
Which is not to say I don't through in some curls here and there, they're just not the focus of my routine. I think once you're at the point where your GAINZ amount to one or two pounds a year then yeah, go nuts. At that point you're doing anything you can to progress and that may mean training every muscle individually.0 -
This leads back to my original question. What would be the difference between two identical people with one performing a hypertrophy based program and the other a strength based program on the same number of surplus calories.. Lets say each gain 15 lbs over 3 months.
In theory, a hypertrophy program would see a greater % of weight gain go to muscles due to the fact that muscle size is increasing.
The strength program isn't going to be as effective as the hypertrophy program for muscle size, so where does the extra weight go?
Just thinking out loud here..
This is an interesting question and I don't have a good answer, though I would guess that at the same calorie level, the powerlifter would gain more body fat. On the other hand, powerlifters tend to look different than bodybuilders, so the extra weight on the powerlifter may not go to body fat, but instead just get distributed more to core support, stabilizers, and tendon improvements. Would be a cool experiment if you could find funding.
I do know from experience that at my age and strength levels, doing a progressive 5x5 3 times a week plus a little hyper work would destroy me and I would be overtrained in less than 3 weeks.0 -
Can I throw something else in here?
What if, instead of considering powerlifters, we were looking at Olympic lifters? Not the people in the unlimited classes; the ones who have to make a certain weight.
Here's this dude:
Competes in the 105kg class. Doesn't look like a powerlifter, doesn't look like a bodybuilder. That's a strong dude.
If he cut down to bodybuilding levels certainly his weight would go down a bit but... I guess to answer your question, the weight is going somewhere. The calories are going somewhere. I don't imagine he's doing a six day split routine, yet he exhibits some degree of hypertrophy and probably some very dense muscle.
So maybe that's the answer then; density. The weight gains would go into denser muscles. Maybe?
0 -
keithcw_the_first wrote: »Can I throw something else in here?
What if, instead of considering powerlifters, we were looking at Olympic lifters? Not the people in the unlimited classes; the ones who have to make a certain weight.
Here's this dude:
Competes in the 105kg class. Doesn't look like a powerlifter, doesn't look like a bodybuilder. That's a strong dude.
If he cut down to bodybuilding levels certainly his weight would go down a bit but... I guess to answer your question, the weight is going somewhere. The calories are going somewhere. I don't imagine he's doing a six day split routine, yet he exhibits some degree of hypertrophy and probably some very dense muscle.
So maybe that's the answer then; density. The weight gains would go into denser muscles. Maybe?
I don't follow the point you're trying to raise. Are you suggesting weightlifting for hypertrophy? - I haven't had my coffee...
Klokov is a phenomenal athlete, and very aesthetic IMO. He trains nearly every single day for hours on end (even assistance work). Keep in mind, there is also a 99.99999% chance he isn't natural either.0 -
I am discussing this conversation with my wife now (who is doing Stronglifts). I made the point that even if its not the best program for hypertrophy, there are still numerous reasons to recommend it. Its very simple to perform and easy to remember (though there is a learning curve to get the lifts right). Its a pretty quick workout, at least until the weights get heavy. But, for bulking, even for a beginner, it would make more sense to change it to a 4 x 10 or something similar..
You need some sort of strength base to be able to fully reap the benefits0 -
I'm just saying I think there's a false dichotomy between getting strong and getting heavy. This dude is heavy, strong, and doesn't have that powerlifter sloppiness that sometimes happens.
Yes he's an Olympian and yes, he may be receiving assistance. But I think in the spirit of the linked article from T-Nation, that's par for the course in this mostly theoretical discussion.0 -
keithcw_the_first wrote: »I'm just saying I think there's a false dichotomy between getting strong and getting heavy. This dude is heavy, strong, and doesn't have that powerlifter sloppiness that sometimes happens.
Yes he's an Olympian and yes, he may be receiving assistance. But I think in the spirit of the linked article from T-Nation, that's par for the course in this mostly theoretical discussion.
Ah, ok gotcha.
There are some very aesthetic powerlifters out there as well however, especially in the lower weight classes:
Jessi Norris
Damien Pezzuti
Countless others....Many dual sport athletes such as the above
Tnation is mostly garbage articles... Rarely do they contribute quality now days.0 -
And in some cases, it will just come down to genetics, and how the body responds.
As with most any advice given on this site, you have to remember, "Your mileage may vary".
So what works for one person/athlete.....will not produce similar results in another person.
Once you get past the basics of lifting heavy things will get you stronger.
And when you look at certain athletes, like the olympian mentioned above, keep in mind, as BroScience pointed out....some sort of gear is playing into their physique.
The Ronnie Colemans and guys like them, are taking huge doses of Test and HGH
Your other physique models are taking other types of Test, just at smaller doses.
So I don't think you can dismiss that aspect when saying "heavy, strong, and doesn't have that powerlifter sloppiness that sometimes happens."0 -
I guess I assumed Olympians are tested pretty rigorously?0
-
keithcw_the_first wrote: »I guess I assumed Olympians are tested pretty rigorously?
Yes, they are tested.
But ppl who take that stuff, usually have a good idea of how long they have to be off of it so they can pass the tests.
Rob Riches, a physique model, he tested positive for drugs, and I think the reason why was because he got ahold of a drug different from what he was using...and didn't realize he needed to stop using it sooner than what he had been for his other drugs.
So then when he tested, he failed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2tSaeiEq0
Not to mention with some of these people (i.e. Lance Armstrong) they have some serious setups in the background to make sure they can take and pass the tests.....
Go take a look at some of the sites where they discuss various steroids, and see which ones do what....
Your tren, clen, HGH, dibol.....they all have their properties that allow for different aspects of your training to get certain results.
Go on Youtube and watch the various vids of Bostin Loyd
He says everything about his roids0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions