Scott Abel - Max Load Training?

I read this article by Scott Abel, http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/max_load_training_in_the_real_world

The article is kinda interesting, but Im wondering is his though that more power is better based on any scientific proof?

Its kinda obvious to say that the lighter weight you use, the more work you can do per time, but if that weight is too light it wont cause any overload.

Ive heard that moderate reps are best for size, because they allow a fair amount of protein degredation, as well as a large amount of work to be performed. I can accept this reasoning as means to train moderate intensity/volume, but where does this author get that more power leads to more size?

Also, he states that lifting for max strength is a waste of time when hypertophy is the goal. I completely disagree, because you will need to raise you max strength substantially to get big, especially if your all natural.

Thats all i have to add, anyone know this author’s reasoning for the article, or have any sources that makes what he’s saying accurate?

bump

[quote]dankid wrote:
I read this article by Scott Abel,

Its kinda obvious to say that the lighter weight you use, the more work you can do per time, but if that weight is too light it wont cause any overload.

Ive heard that moderate reps are best for size, because they allow a fair amount of protein degredation, as well as a large amount of work to be performed. I can accept this reasoning as means to train moderate intensity/volume, but where does this author get that more power leads to more size?

Also, he states that lifting for max strength is a waste of time when hypertophy is the goal. I completely disagree, because you will need to raise you max strength substantially to get big, especially if your all natural.

Thats all i have to add, anyone know this author’s reasoning for the article, or have any sources that makes what he’s saying accurate?[/quote]

I personally don’t like trying to convert lifting to mathematical equations in an attempt to justify training systems. They rarely hold up in the real world.

With that said, just by taking a look at Abel’s track record it’s pretty obvious that the guy knows his stuff. So, regardless of why his programs work, they do.

His reasoning is most likely an attempt to persuade trainees to do his program (the more people that do your program and are successful with it the more notoriety that you get, plus many trainers just really like helping others reach their goals).

As far as lifting for max strength, I agree it can be beneficial for hypertrophy. Really, muscle size has less to do with what type of program you’re doing and more to do with how you’re doing that program (are you using progressively heavier loads, is your nutrition up to par, are you getting enough sleep, etc…).

In all actuality nutrition is really the single most important component IMO. Contractile tissue accounts for something like 30% of muscle cross sectional area. The other 70% is made up of blood vessels, sarcoplasm, and other cellular materials. Diet dictates this to a much higher degree than what set/rep scheme you’re following, or what your rep tempo is, or how frequently you’re training.

The article did have the logical flaw you mentioned, in that what matters is the biological response to the training parameters.

However, I recommend you use the Authors link to read all of his articles. (There are about 6.) You’ll get a better idea of what he believes.

I don’t think he says that ALL max strength training is a waste of time.