Strength vs Size for Nattys

Training
41

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Somewhat tangential I suppose, but I think a huge source of confusion on this subject is people confusing strength with the amount of weight you are moving, or as I like to think of intrinsic strength v. extrinsic strength.

Bear with me.

I’m pushing 275 for a triple. Join a PLing gym and there’s a top bench press coach there who modifies my hip drive, my arch, hand positioning, shortens my ROM, etc. and in no time I’m pushing 315 for a triple. This is not the same as being intrinsically stronger at the micro level as far as the progressive overload necessary to force hypertrophy. If anything you may have forced yourself to be more efficient at the movement inducing less breakdown of the muscle fibers and a stronger firing of your nervous system to move the new PR up.

Improving intrinsic strength though is absolutely a part of muscle growth. So what you can only do 25lb for 4 sets of 8 on DB curls with 5 sec negatives and a 2 sec contraction at the top. 6 weeks later if this is 4 sets of 8 with 30s, or 4 sets of 12 with 25s still, you are much stronger and will see growth. If you one day decide to throw up 45s for 4 sets of 8 with no squeeze or slow contraction does it mean you’re stronger? Well, who really knows now?

And whether you like it or not, fight or flight mode makes us naturally seek tweaks to our form to become more efficient as we pile on more and more weight. It’s why it’s so crucial to maintain “BBing” form if your goal is growth.

Hope this makes sense. This is also something I have thought about WAYYYY too much :p[/quote]

While he may be far from a respected coach (he’s only a former Mr Olympia), Samir Bannout used to stress the difference of benching as a powerlifter and benching as a bodybuilder.

I hung around powerlifters for a long time, and definitely chased #s, but didn’t get all caught up in the ‘tricks’ (this isn’t a negative terms, I just didn’t know what else to use) and techniques to improve the amount of weight I was lifting. Maintaining bodybuilder-like lifting methods, albeit constantly trying to get stronger gave me a very considerable strength level for when I actually refocused my training on muscle stimulation over weight lifted.

Whitacre reps with 600 lbs, BUT, that’s solely the result of years and years of training. I’ve pointed this out before, but he’ll be the first one to tell you how ‘not-strong’ he is -lol (such a humble dude).

S

42

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Getting the idea out of my head that there was “bodybuilding training” and “powerlifting training” really went a long way in getting me both bigger and stronger. There is far less of a dichotomy than many think, and getting stronger will help you get big, while getting bigger will help you get strong. [/quote]

Amen. While everyone loves to divide people into two camps and declare that there’s a controversy over who’s method is better, I think anyone who’s been lifting for a few years reaches this same conclusion.

To develop strength and size, you need to spend some time doing both styles of training, and whether you follow a “lift heavy, then do hypertrophy work” philosophy (as T3hPwnisher describes later in that quoted post) or whether you concentrate blocks of training on each goal(i.e. block periodization) is entirely up to the individual, and is based on personal preference, training history, etc. Just do both, keep training economy in mind, and quit being dogmatic in the gym.

Personally, I’ve found that training for strength and size compliment each other in unexpectedly awesome ways. Of course, often the only way to break a plateau is to focus on the opposite goal for a while - get bigger by focusing on strength, or get stronger by focusing on size - but others have already touched on that earlier in this thread.

What I’ve found, in addition to the plateau-breaking benefits of “going outside your comfort zone,” is that really feeling certain muscles contract during hypertrophy work can help with form when training for strength, and that training for strength really helps bring intensity to the hypertrophy work.

For instance, after spending a while doing leg isolation work, I can now really feel the tension in my hamstrings at the bottom of a squat. Not only does this make me feel more confident that I’ll be able to rebound out of the hole, but it also serves as a form check - if I don’t feel massive tension in my hamstrings, then I didn’t sit back far enough.

The same goes for my lats during the deadlift and bench - I never really felt them until I spent many months pounding away at them with isolation exercises, and shortly afterwards both lifts were much more stable. I also had a lot of trouble “feeling the groove” during a bench press, but lots of chest/shoulders/triceps isolation work has really helped me feel what path the bar should follow during a bench, and has consequently led to fewer missed benches.

I can’t comment much on hypertrophy, because frankly, I’m not that big, but I will say that focusing on the big 3(+ OH press) brought an intensity to my hypertrophy work that was previously lacking. The temptation to fart around during hypertrophy work, especially in inexperienced lifters, is very strong (at least it was for me, haha), but there’s something about having a spine-crushing weight on your back that forces you to FOCUS and squat that weight like you mean it.

This intensity, at least for me, was completely missing from size work until I spent more than a year training purely for strength. And while the mental focus during size work is on isolating a muscle, rather than maxing a weight on a movement, the mental and psychological shift was hugely beneficial for me.

There are valuable lessons from each style of training. Do them both.

43

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Somewhat tangential I suppose, but I think a huge source of confusion on this subject is people confusing strength with the amount of weight you are moving, or as I like to think of intrinsic strength v. extrinsic strength.

Bear with me.

I’m pushing 275 for a triple. Join a PLing gym and there’s a top bench press coach there who modifies my hip drive, my arch, hand positioning, shortens my ROM, etc. and in no time I’m pushing 315 for a triple. This is not the same as being intrinsically stronger at the micro level as far as the progressive overload necessary to force hypertrophy. If anything you may have forced yourself to be more efficient at the movement inducing less breakdown of the muscle fibers and a stronger firing of your nervous system to move the new PR up.

Improving intrinsic strength though is absolutely a part of muscle growth. So what you can only do 25lb for 4 sets of 8 on DB curls with 5 sec negatives and a 2 sec contraction at the top. 6 weeks later if this is 4 sets of 8 with 30s, or 4 sets of 12 with 25s still, you are much stronger and will see growth. If you one day decide to throw up 45s for 4 sets of 8 with no squeeze or slow contraction does it mean you’re stronger? Well, who really knows now?

And whether you like it or not, fight or flight mode makes us naturally seek tweaks to our form to become more efficient as we pile on more and more weight. It’s why it’s so crucial to maintain “BBing” form if your goal is growth.

Hope this makes sense. This is also something I have thought about WAYYYY too much :p[/quote]

While he may be far from a respected coach (he’s only a former Mr Olympia), Samir Bannout used to stress the difference of benching as a powerlifter and benching as a bodybuilder.

I hung around powerlifters for a long time, and definitely chased #s, but didn’t get all caught up in the ‘tricks’ (this isn’t a negative terms, I just didn’t know what else to use) and techniques to improve the amount of weight I was lifting. Maintaining bodybuilder-like lifting methods, albeit constantly trying to get stronger gave me a very considerable strength level for when I actually refocused my training on muscle stimulation over weight lifted.

Whitacre reps with 600 lbs, BUT, that’s solely the result of years and years of training. I’ve pointed this out before, but he’ll be the first one to tell you how ‘not-strong’ he is -lol (such a humble dude).

S[/quote]

Probably impossible to knew for sure, but do you think his heavy lifting helps, hurts, or is an insignificant factor for his bodybuilding success?

44

I agree with pretty much all thats been said, but as far a BBer’s benching more, probably true in the gym, but ask them to stop the bar on they’re chest for 2 sec, brfore pressing, and i think it might change that senario. i think a lot/most high level BBer’s did, and or particapated in some form of PLing during they’re career. A base in the big 3 is good for everyone.

45

[quote]"How important is progressive overload for bodybuilding?

This is a tough one. I have a good perspective on this as I’m a strength guy first but have spent my recent years basically bodybuilding.

Powerlifting is all about your total, or what you push on meet day. Progressive overload is obviously huge.

Bodybuilding requires a lot more reps and volume and other qualities, such as the pump and hitting the muscle from multiple angles. A 600-pound bench press does not guarantee pecs like Arnold.

If anything, powerlifting can build a decidedly unbalanced physique, since the focus is so squarely focused on load and finding the absolute best leverages to move it.

So the question becomes, how strong is enough?

A college lineman needs a strong squat to play his position. But if he can already squat 600 pounds, would he better at his sport if he can squat 700? Or would his time be better spent working on other demands of his position, like footwork or blocking?

The same applies to bodybuilding. If you can dumbbell press 120-pound dumbbells for 8-12 clean reps, getting a good stretch at the bottom and contraction at the top, would you build bigger pecs by straining through a few reps with the 140’s?

That’s where progressive overload has its limits, 'cause like football, the goal of bodybuilding isn’t to see how strong you are. In bodybuilding, progressive overload is just one of many tools.

So for best results, a mix of progressive overload and other techniques is best, especially as you get more advanced and simple progressive overload quits working.

Beginners, however, should make progressive overload number one. They should be slaves to their training logs just like a powerlifter because it’s still the most direct route to increasing muscle size."

-Dave Tate[/quote]

46

Nice find Majin.

47

Progressive overload for me was the key early on, I started noticing that as soon I focussed on progressive overload I got bigger and looked better.

I’ve been training with Josh Bryant and we’ve done both sides of the spectrum ( heavy focus on progressive overload and more traditional bodybuilding )… I still thrive most on the heavy programs but that’s probably because of my average strength. The ‘heavy’ programs under Josh aren’t pure limit strength programs: Train Big3(4 including ohp) like a powerlifter, add assistance like a bodybuilder…

Dave Tate’s post above really makes a good point: can’t shoot a canon out of a canoe

48

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
This is something I’ve thought about quite a bit, as well. Granted, I’m not claiming to be pushing amazing numbers like some of you other guys on here. The most I’ve put up bench-wise anytime recently was 250 for 3x5 a number of months ago when I was doing SS. Something I would like to add on the subject as to why BB training could possibly end up greatly benefiting one’s strength is that BB training creates a very solid foundation from which to produce force.

To give an anecdote about what I mean: A ways back when I was still messing around in the gym and not training with focus I was able to put away 225 for 8 solid reps. My weight at the time was probably around 180 or so. I eventually hit a plateau where I just couldn’t get 225 up for more than 8-9 reps and could barely push any weight heavier.

I talked to one of my bigger buddies and he said something that, albeit simple, was very striking to me. He said, “Well, man, there comes a time when the weight you’re pushing puts too much stress on your joints/tendons/etc. and you just have to let yourself grow before going for more on your lifts”. Now, I know there are world-class powerlifters who lift many times their body weight, but for many of us naturals and all-around gymrats, I think lifting for size can and will carry over to great strength gains.

I believe that it’s just that: a bigger base from which to create power. Really, how many guys do you see in the gym who weigh 160-190 benching in the 300’s? Sometimes training BB style to help those muscles grow, rather than solely training the CNS, can help when you go back to powerlifting in the future. Just speculation.[/quote]

I think another aspect that often gets overlooked is genetics. At some point some people are just genetically gifted at some things and not others. I lifted in high school in the mid to late 90’s and peaked bench at 285 weighing 144. I only sporadically lifted between then and 2011, but every time I did, I would be benching 275 within a month. Now since training more focused, I can hit a double at 315 weighing 150. Yet, I don’t train as hard as many others who never reach that. I am “off the couch” good at bench press. I know people who are “off the couch” runners who can go months without running and can do a sub 18 minute 5k without training.

49

Necromancing and trolling all at once. Well done.

50

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
I think another aspect that often gets overlooked is genetics. At some point some people are just genetically gifted at some things and not others. I lifted in high school in the mid to late 90’s and peaked bench at 285 weighing 144. I only sporadically lifted between then and 2011, but every time I did, I would be benching 275 within a month. Now since training more focused, I can hit a double at 315 weighing 150. Yet, I don’t train as hard as many others who never reach that. I am “off the couch” good at bench press. I know people who are “off the couch” runners who can go months without running and can do a sub 18 minute 5k without training. [/quote]

Agreed 100%. I’m on the opposite end of the genetic continuum. Compared to the average wannabe BBer (though maybe not so much the guys on here) in the gym, I think I look pretty damn good. I’m 5’8", 185lbs, 16" arms, decently wide lats and delts, and lean enough to have abs. Most people think I can put up 315 for reps on the bench from looking at me. People are surprised to find out that my best is a measly 255 TnG, though I can consistently hit a 5 plate deadlift. I know many ordinary looking guys who can outbench me.

Conversely, I’ve seen a number of fairly unimpressive looking guys benching 300+.

I will say, though, that I have noticed a number of BBers with quite outstanding bench numbers (and mediocre squat/DL numbers), and that most of the PLers I know who kill it on the bench seem to look much bigger than the guys who are really good at squatting and DLing (but suck at benching), even if they’re in the same weight class. So while it doesn’t hold true for everyone, I think there’s definitely a connection between benching big and looking huge.

51

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
I think another aspect that often gets overlooked is genetics. At some point some people are just genetically gifted at some things and not others. I lifted in high school in the mid to late 90’s and peaked bench at 285 weighing 144. I only sporadically lifted between then and 2011, but every time I did, I would be benching 275 within a month. Now since training more focused, I can hit a double at 315 weighing 150. Yet, I don’t train as hard as many others who never reach that. I am “off the couch” good at bench press. I know people who are “off the couch” runners who can go months without running and can do a sub 18 minute 5k without training. [/quote]

Agreed 100%. I’m on the opposite end of the genetic continuum. Compared to the average wannabe BBer (though maybe not so much the guys on here) in the gym, I think I look pretty damn good. I’m 5’8", 185lbs, 16" arms, decently wide lats and delts, and lean enough to have abs. Most people think I can put up 315 for reps on the bench from looking at me. People are surprised to find out that my best is a measly 255 TnG, though I can consistently hit a 5 plate deadlift. I know many ordinary looking guys who can outbench me.

Conversely, I’ve seen a number of fairly unimpressive looking guys benching 300+.

I will say, though, that I have noticed a number of BBers with quite outstanding bench numbers (and mediocre squat/DL numbers), and that most of the PLers I know who kill it on the bench seem to look much bigger than the guys who are really good at squatting and DLing (but suck at benching), even if they’re in the same weight class. So while it doesn’t hold true for everyone, I think there’s definitely a connection between benching big and looking huge.[/quote]

Agree here. I have never seen a guy that looked huge and thick front and back that didn’t have a respectable bench/ dead. I know there are exceptions, but when someone has a bigger than average bench or dead… they usually look the part.

52

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Agree here. I have never seen a guy that looked huge and thick front and back that didn’t have a respectable bench/ dead. I know there are exceptions, but when someone has a bigger than average bench or dead… they usually look the part.[/quote]
I will agree with the second part, not the first. Anyone throwing up huge bench numbers almost always fits the look, but I see plenty of guys with a big chest and arms that can only do 225 for a few reps.

53

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Agree here. I have never seen a guy that looked huge and thick front and back that didn’t have a respectable bench/ dead. I know there are exceptions, but when someone has a bigger than average bench or dead… they usually look the part.[/quote]
I will agree with the second part, not the first. Anyone throwing up huge bench numbers almost always fits the look, but I see plenty of guys with a big chest and arms that can only do 225 for a few reps. [/quote]

We must have a different definition of big haha.

54

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Agree here. I have never seen a guy that looked huge and thick front and back that didn’t have a respectable bench/ dead. I know there are exceptions, but when someone has a bigger than average bench or dead… they usually look the part.[/quote]
I will agree with the second part, not the first. Anyone throwing up huge bench numbers almost always fits the look, but I see plenty of guys with a big chest and arms that can only do 225 for a few reps. [/quote]

We must have a different definition of big haha.[/quote]

I see plenty of big guys that can’t lift heavy weight. But people that lift heavy weight are usually big to go with it. Then again, I lift at University of Colorado Rec Center, so a lot of lifters are doing it for show muscles.

55

“Looking big” has a lot to do with leannness, muscle shape, proportions and lighting. Not to mention a guy with decent genetics will “pump up” more during his workout than another one. Add a cap turned sideways (and/or a haircut) to make your melon look smaller and the visual effect can be quite surprising.

1morerep on this site is fairly small but his wide clavicles, muscle shape and proportions allow him to look way bigger once fully pumped up. If he turns around you’ll see a lack of mid back thickness though and thats a giveaway for those who’ve put some time into this. And bingo, he weighs around 158 pounds at 5’7" when very lean. While thats great for his height, thats not a lot of LBM, and it shows, he’s claimed he struggles to bench 250!

A contest bodybuilder’s goal is to look great under the lights on game day, no more no less.

“Trained strength” on the basic lifts or variants in the 8-12 rep range after a period of “peaking” for the test is still a fairly decent indicator of overall muscle MASS, biomechanical advantages notwithstanding.

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Agree here. I have never seen a guy that looked huge and thick front and back that didn’t have a respectable bench/ dead. I know there are exceptions, but when someone has a bigger than average bench or dead… they usually look the part.[/quote]
I will agree with the second part, not the first. Anyone throwing up huge bench numbers almost always fits the look, but I see plenty of guys with a big chest and arms that can only do 225 for a few reps. [/quote]

We must have a different definition of big haha.[/quote]

I see plenty of big guys that can’t lift heavy weight. But people that lift heavy weight are usually big to go with it. Then again, I lift at University of Colorado Rec Center, so a lot of lifters are doing it for show muscles. [/quote]

56

There’s a big difference between “can’t lift heavy” and “doesn’t lift heavy.”

57

[quote]gregron wrote:
There’s a big difference between “can’t lift heavy” and “doesn’t lift heavy.”[/quote]
And yet, my statement was still correct, hence the use of the phrase “can’t lift heavy.”

58

[quote]gregron wrote:
There’s a big difference between “can’t lift heavy” and “doesn’t lift heavy.”[/quote]

Very true.

59

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
There’s a big difference between “can’t lift heavy” and “doesn’t lift heavy.”[/quote]
And yet, my statement was still correct, hence the use of the phrase “can’t lift heavy.”[/quote]
I find it difficult to believe that you know lots of “big” guys (subjective term I know) that CAN’T lift heavy (another subjective term). I’ve never seen someone who I considers big (not fat guy) who couldn’t lift heavy, some just choose not too because they can reach their desired goals without it and incur less risk of injury.

An average height (5’10-5’11) “big guy” is what to you? Maybe defining big guy will help here.

60

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
There’s a big difference between “can’t lift heavy” and “doesn’t lift heavy.”[/quote]
And yet, my statement was still correct, hence the use of the phrase “can’t lift heavy.”[/quote]
I find it difficult to believe that you know lots of “big” guys (subjective term I know) that CAN’T lift heavy (another subjective term). I’ve never seen someone who I considers big (not fat guy) who couldn’t lift heavy, some just choose not too because they can reach their desired goals without it and incur less risk of injury.

An average height (5’10-5’11) “big guy” is what to you? Maybe defining big guy will help here.[/quote]
220+lbs with obvious less than 15% body fat, can’t even do a 1.5x body weight bench, which isn’t that impressive.