strength vs size, volume vs weight, and total cals (long)

few things

1) strength is strength, hypertrophy is hypertrophy. there are many components that make up an increase in strength, hypertrophy is one of them. you can get stronger with better CNS control and improved technique for example. And you can do that at any rep range. And you can hypertrophy muscles at any rep too. It`s always baffled me as to why people thing strength training doesn`t build bigger muscles. does TypeIIb muscle somehow act different than TypeIIx muscle when you stress it?? Key takeaway is increasing hypertrophy will increase strength. increasing strength does not always mean an increase in hypertrophy.

2) Your muscle fiber count is genetic. rep range will NOT grow new fiber. It will simply make existing fiber change. There is some literature that suggests muscle fiber can change it`s type. so like typeIIx can change to typeIIb. But I`ve never seen anything indicating resistance training creates new fibers.

3) the 2 types of hypertrophy are prob far more closely linked than people realize. again, i get back to why people seem to think typeIIx muscle is somehow soo different from TypeIIb that they work utterly different when placed under the same kind of stress. To me its far more likely that the `hypertrophy rep range` of 8-12 is because the body has far more typeIIx fibers so they just have far more overall growth potential by trying to target them specifically. this also explain why people seem to think different body parts respond differently to rep ranges. target the fiber type that most numerous. but your strength muscles can grow large too. This is why any proper growth template has components that cover both `strength and size` rep ranges.

4) when cutting the weight u lift stays the same, what is normally reduced though is volume. so less reps per movement, but still as heavy as normal.

I would not reduce load on a cut. I think that's a mistake honestly. I would reduce volume (or frequency if needed) if necessary while keeping load the same, and that's assuming you need to make any changes.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-1.html

Regarding neurological adaptions, I think Lyle (as usual) nails it here. See section on rate coding:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/reps-per-set-for-optimal-growth.html
[/quote

That's some good reading! Thanks for the link.

few things

1) strength is strength, hypertrophy is hypertrophy. there are many components that make up an increase in strength, hypertrophy is one of them. you can get stronger with better CNS control and improved technique for example. And you can do that at any rep range. And you can hypertrophy muscles at any rep too. It`s always baffled me as to why people thing strength training doesn`t build bigger muscles. does TypeIIb muscle somehow act different than TypeIIx muscle when you stress it?? Key takeaway is increasing hypertrophy will increase strength. increasing strength does not always mean an increase in hypertrophy.

2) Your muscle fiber count is genetic. rep range will NOT grow new fiber. It will simply make existing fiber change. There is some literature that suggests muscle fiber can change it`s type. so like typeIIx can change to typeIIb. But I`ve never seen anything indicating resistance training creates new fibers.

3) the 2 types of hypertrophy are prob far more closely linked than people realize. again, i get back to why people seem to think typeIIx muscle is somehow soo different from TypeIIb that they work utterly different when placed under the same kind of stress. To me its far more likely that the `hypertrophy rep range` of 8-12 is because the body has far more typeIIx fibers so they just have far more overall growth potential by trying to target them specifically. this also explain why people seem to think different body parts respond differently to rep ranges. target the fiber type that most numerous. but your strength muscles can grow large too. This is why any proper growth template has components that cover both `strength and size` rep ranges.

4) when cutting the weight u lift stays the same, what is normally reduced though is volume. so less reps per movement, but still as heavy as normal.

This is a little over my head, but after reading about muscle types, I think I got the gist of it. Gotta let it sink in a bit though...

It is pretty accurate, but does not mention the visual size gain from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy Which is different that fiber hypertrophy. Still, the difference is overstated and overthought for\by beginners. Lift some heavy chit in the 5-12 rep range, eat enough, sleep enough, and you will get bigger and stronger.

I find this REALLY interesting...

Now, in the muscles we’re interested in from a sports or bodybuilding standpoint, the body will generally use recruitment to increase force production up to about 80-85% of maximum force output (in the lab, this is measured with Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction or MVIC, which is effectively 1 rep maximum weight). Beyond 80-85% of maximum, it uses rate coding.


...


I should note that even at lower intensities, as the individual goes to fatigue, eventually all muscle fibers will end up being recruited. But they won’t have been recruited until fairly late in the set (e.g. the last few repetitions).

Makes sense based on how sports and such train their athletes.

I'm kind of thinking out load here, so bear with me. I know there's no such thing as a perfect routine. But I also know that I'm analytical enough and obsessive enough to continually over think things.

And so I bring you this thread. I've done a bunch of reading, and I'm trying to tie all the bits and pieces together. Here is the cliff notes of everything I've read:

- lower reps emphasize strength gains (generally accepted numbers seem to be in the 4-8 range)
- higher reps emphasize growth of new muscle tissue (6-10 reps seems to be the general consensus here)
- anything over 12-15 reps seems to be overkill, for lack of a better word... more than that and you'll see diminishing returns based on the time/effort you put in.

Before I go on, is that pretty accurate? Any issues with that? I assume those numbers assume 3-5 sets?

Pretty accurate. 12-15 reps or higher will work on muscular endurance, so things like competitive rowing, rock climbing, running, or any sport with repetitive movements will get benefit from muscular endurance training.

Now, a little background/perspective for you, in case it skews the conversation at all...
I'm not sure what the distinction is between a beginner lifter and an intermediate, so that kind of grays the conversation for me. From an experience standpoint, I'm probably a beginner. I did stronglifts most of last winter, and am currently doing full body workouts focusing on compound lifts 4 days a week. But physically I've always been above average - I'm stronger and faster than the "average" person, I can push myself harder/further, I pick up skills faster, I recover faster, etc. etc. So part of me says, "Just pick a beginner routine and do it." While another part of me says, "Figure out a routine that is more suited to your ability."

My first question has to do with strength gains. I've seen a lot of people talk about strength gains being neurological, not muscular... in that your body learns how to move more weight, rather than your muscles get stronger and allow you to move more weight. Is that true? Is there any significant muscle change that comes with added strength? Does this depend on how advanced a lifter you are?

True yes. Muscles can get "harder" from strength training. But remember that types of lifting may denote someone strong in one way, but not another. For example, someone may be able to deadlift 300lbs, but may have an issue of deadlifting a 300lbs rock off their lawn. Technique does make a difference which is why many smaller guys may be able to out lift bigger guys with the same type frame.

Next, for muscle growth (new tissue) to occur, a calorie surplus is required. I'm ignoring the relatively small gains that can be made by certain people under certain conditions... but generally speaking, for steady, longer term gains, a calorie surplus is required, correct? Can't build a house without the lumber, right?

Correct. To add muscle is to add weight and to add weight you need a surplus.

So for someone doing bulk/cut cycles, whose goals lie in both their strength-to-weight ratio AND simply looking better...
If strength gains are largely (if not entirely) neurological, and mass gains are largely physical, does it make more sense to do a high volume/low weight routine (by it's nature more geared towards muscle growth) during a bulk than it does during a cut? And conversely, does it make more sense to do a low volume/high weight on a cut?

Volume is important for muscle growth, but to encourage hypertrophy the muscle still has to be overloaded. If not, then long distance runners would probably have huge legs if they were on a calorie surplus.
Bulking/cutting has more to do with nutrition and calories than really anything else.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Bulking/cutting has more to do with nutrition and calories than really anything else.

Right... bulking = putting on weight, which requires a surplus. Cutting = dropping weight, which requires a deficit. But...

The purpose of bulking is to put on muscle. Putting on muscle requires (if I understand things correctly) hypertrophy, which most people agree happens in the 8-12 rep range.

So if you're bulking to put on muscle, doesn't it make sense to do a program centered on sets of 8-12 reps? A 5x5 program would be less effective if size was the primary goal?

Correct because you need enough reps for time/tension.

Similarly, if you're cutting and on a deficit, you can't add new tissue. So a growth program would be inefficient, correct? However, you can work on neurological response (what Lyle refers to as rate coding in the link SS posted above).

Although I guess I'm making an assumption here. The same way you can condition/grow muscles with training, can you also condition rate coding?

Accordingly yes. Whenever I did a cut cycle, I lowered my rep count and kept the weight high.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

bump

No idea but you sound like one hell of a guy.

That comment, with your picture.. really amused me haha

I don't mean that in a horrible way!
x