Want to Gain Strength, Not Mass

Training Powerlifting
21

[quote]Kuz wrote:
j23t wrote:
IRoNStaLLion wrote:
hey guys,

i want to get as strong as i possible can while minimizing mass gains… can any one help me out?

Train the CNS!!

No offense, but what exactly would that even mean? I’ve been on this site for a while and when people throw around terms like “training the CNS”, I have no idea what they mean by that. lol[/quote]

My assumption would be the he meant you can do things such as overloads (taking 120% of 1RM on bench at a static hold) or balistic movements, for example.

Maybe not, but that’s how I’m interpretting that response until corrected.

22

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Everyone here understands the difference between sports specific training and bodybuilding. However, this board is a bodybuilding forum regardless of how many seem to be trying to change that. If someone logs on who isn’t playing any sports while acting as if muscle is bad, there is a problem. Perhaps they need to find Jarod’s Subway forum.[/quote]

It’s okay Prof. I’m with you. I lift to get strong AND big. Muscle mass is always an asset to me.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is more that I keep hearing “functional strength” being thrown around lately as if gaining muscle is a bad thing. Some of the posts from these people indicate that many actually believe that arms measuring over 19" is a bad thing or “useless” as one other poster wrote. When asked about where these people are who are gaining all of this muscle yet not gaining strength, they don’t seem to be able to follow the discussion.
[/quote]
There’s a difference between gaining and gaining optimally. Yes, you gain strength by gaining muscle mass, and gaining LBM is very hard in itself, but bigger strength gains come from focusing on that specifically (like using ME and DE work etc.) - and you know that.

[quote]
Everyone here understands the difference between sports specific training and bodybuilding. However, this board is a bodybuilding forum regardless of how many seem to be trying to change that. If someone logs on who isn’t playing any sports while acting as if muscle is bad, there is a problem. Perhaps they need to find Jarod’s Subway forum.[/quote]
And this is a “Strength sports” part of that board. And, why did you take the original post as saying that muscle is bad. The guy simply stated he wanted to minimize mass gain, which can be interpreted as wanting to improve relative strenght. Why do you have to play a sport/compete in order to have that as your main goal?

24

C’mon don’t we all know we are really here to cut fat and have a good chest an ab look?

Why would one want to be strong but not big as well? Are you an undercover spy stationed in Somalia and need to blend in but keep the ability to take someone down?

25

[quote]slotan wrote:
And, why did you take the original post as saying that muscle is bad.
[/quote]

I didn’t, which is why I referenced what someone ELSE stated in another thread. That post wasn’t directly related to the poster who started this thread.

Also, you statement that bigger strength gains come from focusing on strength alone[quote]There’s a difference between gaining and gaining optimally. Yes, you gain strength by gaining muscle mass, and gaining LBM is very hard in itself, but bigger strength gains come from focusing on that specifically (like using ME and DE work etc.) - and you know that.[/quote] are the same goals most have when gaining muscle. I still don’t understand why anyone would seperate the two concepts. You don’t get much bigger without focusing on strength gains. The only real difference would be food intake. Who is attempting to gain muscle with no focus on strength increases?

26

[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
Kuz wrote:
j23t wrote:
IRoNStaLLion wrote:
hey guys,

i want to get as strong as i possible can while minimizing mass gains… can any one help me out?

Train the CNS!!

No offense, but what exactly would that even mean? I’ve been on this site for a while and when people throw around terms like “training the CNS”, I have no idea what they mean by that. lol

My assumption would be the he meant you can do things such as overloads (taking 120% of 1RM on bench at a static hold) or balistic movements, for example.

Maybe not, but that’s how I’m interpretting that response until corrected.[/quote]

Training the CNS usually refers to training with very low reps and heavy weight, but keeping overal volume low. Someone might train with 6 sets of 2 reps on their major lifts, instead of say 10 x 3. Because the training volume is low, the body isn’t stimulated to produce more muscle, but rather uses its existing muscle more effectively.

If this guy has a genuine reason to keep in a weight class, then fair enough. If, however, he is one of the growing number of people who use the term “functional strength” as an excuse to not have to eat and get bigger (ie I’m 150 lbs but I’m strong - Respect my authoritar!!!), then he is deluding himself.

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:
T-Quinn wrote:
Mass nowaday seems more like a disease, no one wants a part of it.
Lets give thanks to the body fat % idea for screwing with so many minds.

I seriously don’t get it. I have one guy in another thread basically saying that big muscles are “useless” and non-functional. I don’t understand where this shit is coming from but I have a hard time believing some skinny guy is looking at some rocked out 250lbs ripped bodybuilder and actually thinking they are weak or that they can’t “function”. [/quote]

I don’t think that big muscles are useless Prof X but for some sports, adding lot of mass (even if mostly lean mass) fast as in some bodybuilding-type bulking phase is counterproductive.
I train and play competitive rugby back in France and as far as MY sport is concerned, for the vast majority of players, adding more than 10 pounds A YEAR without hurting your functional performances (explosivity, speed, resistance) is almost (I’ve seen exceptions I confess, mostly teen-agers…)impossible. That doesn’t mean you can’t add more mass and still perform, that just mean that you have to add this mass more gradually. To simplify it, + 20 lbs in a year, no way, over 3 seasons, why not (by the way, that would still be a huge feat knowing that it’s very very very hard to gain muscle in-season). With a 2-month off-season, it would represent adding 20 lbs of lean mass in 6 months without losing one in-season… Man, that’s quite a feat :slight_smile:
I think (hope) that the guy that started this thread wasn’t focusing on mass for that kind of “athletic” worries…
If it isn’t the case and if he really think he wouldn’t benefit even a few pound lean mass whatever the sport he pratices… Only God can help hime…

28

[quote]Professor X wrote:
slotan wrote:
And, why did you take the original post as saying that muscle is bad.

I didn’t, which is why I referenced what someone ELSE stated in another thread. That post wasn’t directly related to the poster who started this thread.

Also, you statement that bigger strength gains come from focusing on strength aloneThere’s a difference between gaining and gaining optimally. Yes, you gain strength by gaining muscle mass, and gaining LBM is very hard in itself, but bigger strength gains come from focusing on that specifically (like using ME and DE work etc.) - and you know that. are the same goals most have when gaining muscle. I still don’t understand why anyone would seperate the two concepts. You don’t get much bigger without focusing on strength gains. The only real difference would be food intake. Who is attempting to gain muscle with no focus on strength increases?[/quote]

you can have this thread but dont dare use my posts out of context to talk shit. …

muscle is great… . I wouldnt mind a bit more. …

what it seems you have a problem understanding is adding muscle for muscles sake does not equate to better preformance… . in some instances its going to lower it… . for instance if you weighed 160 and squatted 400 thats 2.5 times your bodyweight… . but if you add 40lbs of muscle and your squat goes up lb for lb with your weight gain then your ration decreases to 2.2… . thats not a relative improvement… . improvement in size but not in relative strength. …

or functional strength. …

do not respond as I will not re-read this thread or carry the ridiculous arguement into another topic… . I would have prefered the other one to have been conducted with much more attention to what each person was writting and no quoting out of context. …

29

[quote]Professor X wrote:
slotan wrote:
And, why did you take the original post as saying that muscle is bad.

I didn’t, which is why I referenced what someone ELSE stated in another thread. That post wasn’t directly related to the poster who started this thread.
[/quote]

Ok, I didn’t get that; I though you were talking about the original poster.

[quote]
Also, you statement that bigger strength gains come from focusing on strength alone There’s a difference between gaining and gaining optimally. Yes, you gain strength by gaining muscle mass, and gaining LBM is very hard in itself, but bigger strength gains come from focusing on that specifically (like using ME and DE work etc.) - and you know that. are the same goals most have when gaining muscle. I still don’t understand why anyone would seperate the two concepts. You don’t get much bigger without focusing on strength gains. The only real difference would be food intake. Who is attempting to gain muscle with no focus on strength increases?[/quote]

To answer your last question directly, I’ve seen quotes by pro BBers who claim they don’t care how much they lift, just care how big they are. Many regular people are also interested only in how they look naked, not in Squat and Bench numbers.

Regarding why/how should we separate the two concepts, in my humble opinion:

It is true that both for strenght and mass gains you need to focus on weight progression. But, one will be using different programs/parametars for those goals, even though the main goal in both will be adding the weight to the bar; for instance (5x3 vs 4x8). Of course, there are a few golden schemes that are good for both (like 5x5).

Apart from the fact that lower reps/higher intensity train the CNS, yada, yada… total training volume also has to be considered. If a workout has plenty of volume, you simply won’t be able to eat less - if you do, you’ll burn out.

But, the biggest difference between strenght and mass is this: when training strenght, your main goal should be to AVOID FATIGUE, so you can apply as much stimulus to the CNS without burning out (cluster sets, ladders). But, when training for mass, your goal is to GENERATE FATIGUE, with short rest periods, slower negatives, rest-pause etc., because you grow when body is “repairing” itself.

From expirience, first approach can also build mass, if total volume and food are up too. Second approach will also build strength, to a degree. If one has a legitimate goal, strenght and/or mass, one approach will be better then the other.

30

[quote]slotan wrote:
To answer your last question directly, I’ve seen quotes by pro BBers who claim they don’t care how much they lift, just care how big they are. Many regular people are also interested only in how they look naked, not in Squat and Bench numbers.[/quote]

I have seen those same mag articles and most are complete bullshit. Most of those pro’s are stronger than anyone you would see regularly working out in a gym and their context is strictly within their goals not being that of a powerlifter. It doesn’t mean they lift light weights and suddenly got 20" arms. If I made the statement that I am working on form more and not really concerned about the weight, it would be equally informative to add that my bench is well over 400lbs for working weight. I thought most people were aware of the “liberties” they take in those articles.

[quote]
Regarding why/how should we separate the two concepts, in my humble opinion:

It is true that both for strenght and mass gains you need to focus on weight progression. But, one will be using different programs/parametars for those goals, even though the main goal in both will be adding the weight to the bar; for instance (5x3 vs 4x8). Of course, there are a few golden schemes that are good for both (like 5x5).[/quote]

True, but the basic concept is still the same and I truly think many are being confused by this. They don’t understand the NEEDED focus on strength even if their goal is bodybuilding. I see more newbies than ever jumping into the gym the first time and lifting weights that most girls should be able to handle, all while they claim, “I am just trying to tone”.

31

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
what it seems you have a problem understanding is adding muscle for muscles sake does not equate to better preformance.[/quote]

No one mis-understands this. Do you play any sports? You aren’t that muscular yet you are concerned about “performance”? Unless you are specifically training for a sport, worrying about a decrease in performance is, needless to say, stupid as shit. The chances of you putting on soooo much muscle that you can’t move are slim to none, especially since you seem to be afraid of weight gain to start with.

32

[quote]Professor X wrote:
True, but the basic concept is still the same and I truly think many are being confused by this. They don’t understand the NEEDED focus on strength even if their goal is bodybuilding.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m saying. So, what’s the argument here?

[quote]
I see more newbies than ever jumping into the gym the first time and lifting weights that most girls should be able to handle, all while they claim, “I am just trying to tone”.[/quote]

When I’m talking about different approaches to strength and size, I mean of people who alredy put some time in to build a basic foundation.

Just as doing 1-3RM attempts is wrong and useless for a newbie, so is doing split routines and high volume for mass. But, for someone advanced, that could be the proper way to go.

On the other hand, it puzzles me why you think that focusing solely on strenght, using methods like multiple singles and clusters or ME and DE work, is somehow inferior to wanting to gain mass. Or maybe I’m not understanding your position correctly?

33

why? and what are your goals, and what sport???

34

[quote]slotan wrote:
On the other hand, it puzzles me why you think that focusing solely on strenght, using methods like multiple singles and clusters or ME and DE work, is somehow inferior to wanting to gain mass. Or maybe I’m not understanding your position correctly?
[/quote]

You aren’t. We aren’t in disagreement here other than the fact that you seem to think that strength goals, in the absence of gains in muscle mass, would lead to greater gains in strength. Unless I misunderstood you, the person who works on both would see greater progress overall.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one mis-understands this. Do you play any sports? You aren’t that muscular yet you are concerned about “performance”? Unless you are specifically training for a sport, worrying about a decrease in performance is, needless to say, stupid as shit. The chances of you putting on soooo much muscle that you can’t move are slim to none, especially since you seem to be afraid of weight gain to start with.[/quote]

I dont play any sports Im not huge but Im training strength with the “if I get bigger out of its then thats fine by me” approach… . Im not spending hours devoted to pumping my guns or heaps of isolation exercises and atm I eat as much food as I can fit in to my schedule and budget. …

36

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No one mis-understands this. Do you play any sports? You aren’t that muscular yet you are concerned about “performance”? Unless you are specifically training for a sport, worrying about a decrease in performance is, needless to say, stupid as shit. The chances of you putting on soooo much muscle that you can’t move are slim to none, especially since you seem to be afraid of weight gain to start with.

I dont play any sports Im not huge but Im training strength with the “if I get bigger out of its then thats fine by me” approach… . Im not spending hours devoted to pumping my guns or heaps of isolation exercises and atm I eat as much food as I can fit in to my schedule and budget. …[/quote]

So, in other words you aren’t that serious. That falls right in line with what has been said. There are many of you out there lately acting as if size is a bad thing when the truth is, this is just your justification for lack of focus or intensity in the gym. I don’t spend “hours pumping my guns”. You claimed that gaining size reduced performance…when the truth is, you aren’t even fucking performing! You aren’t playing sports and aren’t even apparently that motivated. That is why your comments about “functional strength” are retarded.

37

Obviously everybody knows that you can only build ‘functional’ strength by trying to touch you head to your feet and endless exercises named after Eastern religions everyday. Oh yeah, and giving all of your wages to the latest fitnees guru over the internet.

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, in other words you aren’t that serious. That falls right in line with what has been said. There are many of you out there lately acting as if size is a bad thing when the truth is, this is just your justification for lack of focus or intensity in the gym. I don’t spend “hours pumping my guns”. You claimed that gaining size reduced performance…when the truth is, you aren’t even fucking performing! You aren’t playing sports and aren’t even apparently that motivated. That is why your comments about “functional strength” are retarded.[/quote]

sorry I replied to this topic again I thought it was the other thread… . but whatever… . damages done. …

just because Im not going to compete in anything any time soon doesnt mean Im not serious about my training… . I just dont see why I should train specifically for size when atm strength is more my goal… . some size will come with that strength if I continue eating for it but that size will definately help my strength and not any other way around… .

I dont know about you but I put on more mass on my arms training with half the weight I train now and in fact my arms have got smaller and denser lately through complete neglect of any pumping high rep exercises… . they are not less strong for having gotten smaller but are much stronger than before. …

39

[quote]Teej wrote:
Obviously everybody knows that you can only build ‘functional’ strength by trying to touch you head to your feet and endless exercises named after Eastern religions everyday. Oh yeah, and giving all of your wages to the latest fitnees guru over the internet. [/quote]

I will have to use that excuse next time someone asks me to help them move.

“You know, I would help you carry that king sized mattress down 3 flights of stairs, but my muscles aren’t ‘functional’”.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You aren’t. We aren’t in disagreement here other than the fact that you seem to think that strength goals, in the absence of gains in muscle mass, would lead to greater gains in strength. Unless I misunderstood you, the person who works on both would see greater progress overall.[/quote]

Ah, now I finally get it. Indeed, focusing both on mass and strenght work, either concurrently or sequentially, will produce greatest gains in absolute strenght. You have improved CNS function + increased cross-sectional area = big and strong guy.

I am, however, arguing from another point of view: there are some techniques/protocols that are very useful when training for strenght but not of much value when wanting mass predominantly, and vice versa.

For example, for a BB, a good approach might be to work up to a heavy 3-5RM weight and then perform multiple sets with lighter weight, EDT style. Powerlifter might need more heavy rep work (3x3 or 5x1) and some speed work instead. These are the differences that I’m talking about.

Which approach is best? That, of course, depends on person’s goals. In all sports with weight classes, it makes sense to try to become stronger without much additional mass. But, even if someone’s not competing, I consider improving relative strenght a valid goal. It is just something I like, not necessarily better or worse. It also may be that person really isn’t that strong for his/hers current size, so focusing on that area makes sense, before moving on to hypertrophy phase.

On the other hand, I saw you posts in the other thread in the pictures forum - and I agree. With 215kg deadlift, Wolverine is strong for size and would most likely benefit with period of focusing on mass, maybe similar to Staley’s approach I mentioned before. Or focusing on his squat for a while, but that’s another issue.