Quick point:
The fact that large people are strong is really a moot point. Hypertrophy will necessarily lead to strength. So if a guy is big he will necessarily be strong as well. The converse is NOT true, as illustrated by a myriad of olympic lifters.
So training for size will make you strong while training for strength MIGHT make you big.
-Zulu
I’ve got to chime in with the “old man of the forum” AKA Char D.
One of the things that has always kept me going in the gym is that it’s an individual sport. I don’t have to compete with anyone but that skinny, wasted away white boy in the mirror. Getting to know what works for ME is what it’s all about.
Sure, we need a training stimulus…
Sure, we need the proper diet…
Both of them put together will be better than just one, though, and good genetics ain’t gonna hurt anyone.
Why does this all sound like a very remedial thread? Why am I actually responding?
Back to the FAQ’s to all of you!
Im gonna argue the strength thing here. You dont see skinny guys that are really strong. If you can squat 700 and bench 500 you are gonna be pretty big. I wasted a lot of time trying to do bodybuilding type workouts. I dont mean Muscle and Fitness. I mean true Poliqiun and Ian King muscle building programs. Ive gained more in the past nine months training purely for strength than at any other time in my life. If you get really strong, you are gonna be big. Unless you are the one in a million 165 lbers that benches 500 lbs.
I was going to say almost the same thing TImbo said - training is the stimulus, but growth occurs outside of the gym. If you have a PERFECT lifting program, but aren’t eating enough, you’re not going to grow!
WOW…what a great thread Greekdawg! You are so money and don’t even know it! I agree with you that doing compound movements such as squats, deadlifts, bench press, dips, push press etc are the way to go. Shoot…it wasnt too long ago that I was one of “those” guys who spent 2+ hours in the gym doing god knows what with every muscle group (cable this, cable that)…what a waste of time. Ever since I switched to shorter workouts using compound movements, my physique has improved drastically. I agree with you in that its the stimulus in the gym that gets the ball rolling so to speak. BUT…it is post-workout nutrition and rest where one sees the most gains. I think it is safe to say that it just isnt one thing that makes us grow, and it is pretty futile to attempt to do so. I think we can ALL agree that its a combination of dedication in the gym (going balls out) AND solid nutrition. Everyone who has responded has made points that i agree with. All in all, I think that shorter workouts (60-75 minutes) using compound movements with solid post workout nutrition is the key to great success. I dont know…just my two cents. EVERYONE here has made same valid points…GREAT THREAD!
75 minutes is a short workout?
shorter than 2 hours
I would think that 60 minutes would be the utmost maximum. If you need to do more then do it later in the day in an extra workout.
Goldberg…there are certain days where it does actually take me 75 minutes to complete my workout (mainly leg days). The 75 minutes includes a 15 minute moderate cardio session. However for the most part, the majority of my workouts only take me 60 minutes. Any way you look at it…75 minutes IS shorter than the 90-120 minute gym sessions most guys do!
Originally, I was going to argue that the length of the workout is the topic of another thread, but I now see that it’s definitely a necessity to this particular discussion.
Part of the optimal stimulus is creating the optimal hormonal environment. That is, maximizing the anabolic milieu and diminishing or minimizing the catabolic milieu. While we want to believe that cortisol is the hormonal devil of sorts, it definitely serves a function. Perhaps totally annhilating it would totally annhilate any results! The ratio of anabolic to catabolic hormones is likely the key playa.
Zulu made a good point in regard to hypertrophy: sarcolemma vs. myofibrillar, non-functional vs. functional. GD brought this up earlier. However, increases in cross-sectional area are correlated with increases in strength.
GD, I do want to again commend you on your thought-provoking statements. My next question is not only what the stimulus is for skeletal muscle hypertrophy but the physiological response behind it…
I gotta agree with Goldberg and others - however, there is a fine line between training to get strong and training to get maximally strong (which includes a whole lot of eating, right Goldberg?)
During season (I’m forward in rugby), I train purely for strength and consequently put on size - I usually get up to about 225 pounds, but I am training and eating for maximum strength, i.e. I don’t care what I look like.
In the off season, to satisfy my ego, I train more for looks - I still go for strength, but my diet restrictions seem to throw up some barriers.
Basically what I’m saying is that training for strength is the key to 80% of gains(agreeing with the point of this thread), but to reach specific aestheic goals or maximal strength goals (a.k.a. powerlifting), diet comes heavy into play. That is, to reach that final 20% of the spectrum you are building on.
Great points that everyone has made on this thread.
One point that I would like to emphasize is the time under tension:
This is a commonly over-looked factor in most trainees routines. If you are looking specifically for muscle hypertrophy, TUT is one element that can assist you in your efforts to put those slabs of meat on that torso. If you haven’t attempted a change in your SOM/tempo yet, give it a try. Your body will respond favorably.
"
This is a commonly over-looked factor in most trainees routines. If you are looking specifically for muscle hypertrophy, TUT is one element that can assist you in your efforts to put those slabs of meat on that torso. If you haven’t attempted a change in your SOM/tempo yet, give it a try. Your body will respond favorably. "
I disagree. I think the best way to gain a lot of muscle is moving a lot of weight at high concentric speeds and minimizing the eccentric portion while trying to maximize total volume.
-Zulu
Tony G-not to be mean, but who cares what other people do. who cares if some loser trains for two hours. Many have said that work done after anabolic hormones have diminished is a waste of time and can cut into recovery. 45-60 minutes should be the max in my opinion.
Train long, not hard.
-Zulu
I gotta go with my man Goldberg on the time factor. Part of the thing about strength training is its so darn short and sweet. Wow today I left after 1 hour. My “gym buddy” was like what? Thats it? (I’m not kidding he said this) “You need at least 5 sets of 3-4 exercises for a total of 15 sets for biceps!!” I had to laugh in his face. Then I went home and chugged a shake.
If you are working out for 2-3 hours in the gym how hard (more importantly how smart) are you working?
The TUT thing kinda goes out the window…it’s really to be used for sub-maximal loads. When I ever I lift heavy this shit goes slow, especially when I approach my max. I think it’s overrated. Is that going to be thing that catapults your physique by 20lbs of muscle? From what I know I thought all eccentrics were to be controlled, pause at the bottom ,and all concentrics were to be driven up as fast possible for.
I want to reiterate my point earlier and I think we should discuss cleary the point that strength training leads to new tissue growth…
Timbo,
No problem…I like starting shit (hehe) always in a positive way though
I have a couple things to say here.
One, I completely agree with what Goldberg has stated about “willing” yourself to get bigger and stronger no matter how unscientific this might be. Without that drive to succeed, you won’t get anywhere.
Two, I also agree with Goldberg that I had almost been “wasting my time” to a point with hypertrophy oriented routines; it wasn’t until I took up powerlifting, and specifically Westside protocols, that I began to achieve my size goals (especially in my upper body). Whether this is because of a genetic predisposition or not, it’s been the case for me and many others.
Finally, I used to be super-anal about getting my workout done within 45-60 minutes. My stopwatch was in action at all times, and when an hour had gone by, it was time to wrap things up no matter what. I now can take as long as an hour and a half to an hour and forty-five minutes at times due to certain training protocols and the sheer amount of people that lift with me. Guess what? It hasn’t seemed to hurt me a bit, as I have continually seen the best gains of my life in both size and strength. It am truly beginning to feel more and more that it all leads back to Goldberg’s first point: If you want it bad enough, and you are completely convinced that you can do it from a mental standpoint, it will happen.
I think the author’s arguement falls into the right-training - wrong training trap.
Both training ‘methods’ contribute to bodybuilding objectives and need to be periodized in some way.
I jumped into weight training wanting to get bigger at 155 pds.I was completely sold on heavy duty training and was strict with it for 3 years. I went to 175 pounds and absolutely got stuck there for a couple years.
I said screw it, tripled my training volume, added a few more calories, and in a matter of two years have gone to 215 pds.
I am NOT stronger in most exercises than I was at 175!!!..BUT… CAN handle more total work than I ever could at 175.
That sucks…you gained 40 lbs with no strength improvements?
This is a good thread…keep it coming…
Zulu, (Same Zulu as from former WeightTrainer board?) would you care to elaborate on your idea. I agree with quick concentrics, and higher volume for hypertrophy - but why minimize eccentrics? Isn’t it the eccentric part of the lift that leads to the microtrauma that signals muscle to repair and grow larger?