Oh yeah, and you say how easy it is to just bulk as big as you can get, but you appear to be a smaller guy who has never had too much fat. I can tell you, for a guy who came down from 280, bulking just for the sake of adding lbs no matter if its fat or muscle isnt something I am comfortable with. I worked my ass off to get rid of the fat that kept me from doing the things I have wanted to for most of my life so I think I will stick with the being picky and eating clean.
[quote]Eickst wrote:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy versus myofibrillar hypertrophy.[/quote]
What do these terms mean?
[quote]boss99er wrote:
Is it possible to see gains in strength but not see gains in muscle mass??? If it is possible, where are the strength gains coming from. […]
[/quote]
Of course it’s possible. For example, do you think strength athletes like olympic weightlifters have no control how to maintain their mass while getting stronger? There’s a little something called weightclass, you know.
Sometimes, the combination of genes, nutrition and overemphasizing low reps can lead to something like this:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=767349
Very nice guy, very interesting thread.
[quote]boss99er wrote:
I know you cant cut and bulk at the same time[/quote]
Sure you can. It’s called body recomposition.
[quote]boss99er wrote:
Eickst wrote:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy versus myofibrillar hypertrophy.
What do these terms mean?[/quote]
Ignore those two terms.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ah_dut wrote:
you can get more neurologically efficient (read better at performing said movements) to gain strength, while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?
This is true. “Learning” how to do an exercise will result in the weight you use for it increasing. This will manifest as a strength gain and is especially apparent in a beginner. Yes, size of muscle fibers do go along with strength. That means that while you may see SOME strength gain without an increase in size, eventually that will cease unless you gain more size to support more strength. [/quote]
To add on to this, I believe that a lot of “beginner gains” are not really a result of the trainee actually getting stronger, just learning how to display existing strength in the form of weightlifting movements.
You see it all the time with athletes when they start lifting for the first time. They’re naturally pretty strong, they just don’t know how to display that strength in a squat or bench press so they are destroying PR’s every time they step in the gym for the first couple of months, with very little gain in actual performance.
After that period however, they’ll get into the phase where the muscles are getting stronger, not just more coordinated in a weightlifting movement.
[quote]boss99er wrote:
Eickst wrote:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy versus myofibrillar hypertrophy.
What do these terms mean?[/quote]
That if you say them enough, you can actually get people to believe they actually mean something despite the fact that nothing backs it up but a theory and a rat study.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
boss99er wrote:
Is it possible to see gains in strength but not see gains in muscle mass??? If it is possible, where are the strength gains coming from. […]
Of course it’s possible. For example, do you think strength athletes like olympic weightlifters have no control how to maintain their mass while getting stronger? There’s a little something called weightclass, you know.
Sometimes, the combination of genes, nutrition and overemphasizing low reps can lead to something like this:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=767349
Very nice guy, very interesting thread.[/quote]
He he…you’re full of shit.
[quote]boss99er wrote:
Here is something i have always questioned. I see all of these programs that are geared toward strength and I see programs that are geared toward hypertrophy. I always thought these went hand in hand. Is it possible to see gains in strength but not see gains in muscle mass??? If it is possible, where are the strength gains coming from.
Can someone clear this up for me??? I have been told that I dont eat enough at 2800 cals a day to see any gains, but yet my numbers keep going up. Thanks in advance for clearing this up.[/quote]
i think its all up to the person. if you take two people that have been say, deadlifting for 4 years…perfect form and have been training really hard at it but one outweighs the other; the heavier one ‘should’ be putting up bigger numbers.
that’s not always the case as we all know…the gyms are full of people (unlike us) who don’t know how to do things correct.
i see this all the time b/c im a ‘skinny’ dude but have correct form in everything i do. so i always get the looks from people who are bigger with shit form like they can’t figure it out.
well i’m sure most of them figure it out a few weeks later when they slip a disk and can’t walk upright for 2 months.
Size and strength are related, but not perfectly, and differing from one person to another.
YOU cannot get stronger unless YOU get bigger than YOU currently are.
Even if that is only slightly bigger.
Even if that is still not big relative to others.
Even if someone smaller than you is stronger.
Even if the adaption is primarily neurological / motor learning.
For YOU to get stronger than YOU are then YOU have to lay down some mass in your muscles even if that is just a litte.
For you to get better at endurance, however, this is not the case, if you take up marathon activity you can lose muscle mass and improve in that kind of performance.
It is possible for you to develop X amount of strength and different amounts of muscle mass, however, and size. Depending on how you go about it.
If you are carrying a bit of fat, then it can also look like you are staying the same/losing mass but getting stronger.
The leverages caused by the lengths of the limbs and the connection points can also play a factor in differences between people of similar builds.
I’d imagine there are differences in neural drive “safety limitations” between individuals as well.
Someone mention body recomposition. Is this the idea that over time you may not lose or gain lbs, but as fat is burned, muscle is put on??? I think I am at the point where my body doesnt really want to weigh any less, it just needs to redo the makeup of that weight. For my height, 6’2", I dont think I should really weigh any less than my current 200-205. I would have no problem seeing the numbers on the scale go up if that means I can see more muscle coming on.
[quote]boss99er wrote:
Someone mention body recomposition. Is this the idea that over time you may not lose or gain lbs, but as fat is burned, muscle is put on??? I think I am at the point where my body doesnt really want to weigh any less, it just needs to redo the makeup of that weight. For my height, 6’2", I dont think I should really weigh any less than my current 200-205. I would have no problem seeing the numbers on the scale go up if that means I can see more muscle coming on.[/quote]
NO NO NO
The two are hardly related.
You can lose fat and not put on muscle.
You can gain muscle and not lose fat.
What you said is like saying, if you eat more of your dinner you must therefore eat less dessert.
[quote]Eickst wrote:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy versus myofibrillar hypertrophy.[/quote]
Check out Bruce Lee’s routine and his height/weight compared to his relative strength.
I remember reading somewhere that he could hold a 135lb on a bar straight out with his arms parallel to the ground. Probably not many if any people at all could do that with their own bodyweight. I think he was 5’7" 135 lbs.
Talk about a conflicting thread. It seems that there is a big line down the middle of this issue. I know you can do one at a time faster, like you can build muscle faster if you dont worry about gaining fat, and you can lose fat faster if you dont gain muscle, but there is no place in the middle where you can do both slowly???
Now dont get me wrong, I am on the side that says to do one at a time, but lately I have just been curious on if this is possible to do both if you eat at a maintenance level over a longer period of time. I guess I just want discussion on it.
What about like Sandow, Zass and Saxon. I’m not sure about Saxon but Zass and Sandow were well under 200 lbs. Sandow was 190 and could bent press 270, and Zass was about 180 something (I think) and could deadlift close to 500lbs. Saxon wasn’t massive either and he had insane lifts.
Plus what about Pavel? I heard he’s 180 and deadlifts like 405?
Sorry for jacking the thread, but I just find stuff like this interesting, and it’s also part of my workout philosophy.
Is it really possible then to gain strength without putting on too much size?