Why Train for Strength If Size Is Wanted?

Training Bodybuilding
81

[quote]charlotte49er wrote:
why was this thread started[/quote]

Brick was high.

Brick the answer to your question is who are you looking at? Many of the new wave fitness trainers are prior athletes, or starting FITNESS trainers. Fitness as in general health not maximum size.

Most athletes have gained some muscle from training for their sport, so they would think you can train for function and gain size, and they are right the only problem is how much size and at what rate. But this is THEIR perspective what they see through their life. The same thing with a health person.

If you ask someone like Glass, he would think it’s a stupid theory, but he comes from years of competition bodybuilding training perspective. While glass is a great bodybuilding trainer he doesn’t make the most best athletic trainer because his goal is always size.

As you go up the scale in quality trainers you start to see people who understand different facets of training. And trainers that don’t try to push their goals on a client. CT is one of the best at it, which is why he consistently gets better at training everything from athletes to bodybuilders.

Your question can be reveresed and still just as damagine. If you said why do trainers tell their clients just train for maximum muscle and athletic performance will follow. And you would get the same answer you are looking at mediocre trainers who come from a bodybuilding background. That is THEIR perspective.

You can look at the threads and see endless comments confirming this. You can tell what crowd people belong to based on their comments. This is how you can tell most people’s comments won’t help because they’re geared towards their point of view of life, and not actual answer to questions.

82

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

I didn’t realize that 20-30 lbs of relatively lean mass in a year’s time was “a little bigger”. [/quote]

That’s good. For a beginner, 20-30lbs would probably be average across the board assuming their genetics don’t suck and they are serious about weight lifting.

Beginner gains should be coming almost no matter what unless someone is just screwed up on the very basics of lifting weights.
[/quote]

These were intermediates gaining that much. People larger than a large number of the more vocal posters on this board and ones who had gained 30-40 lbs since taking up lifting and were well past teenage growth spurts.

My point is that the program is weight training stripped down it its most basic and incorporates ALL of the things that bodybuilders have been doing for years but some of the keyboard warriors and armchair experts that like to see their avatar pop up wherever possible rant and whine continuously about how it doesn’t work because it wasn’t designed specifically with bodybuilders in mind.

83

Damn, after seeing threads like this, I’m reminded why most of the people I know that are serious about bodybuilding stay far away from forums.

You guys have crazy amounts of patience!

84

Has anyone but me noticed the guy that started this thread pushes another thread about how anyone interested in bodybuilding is “supposed” to train. I guess he’s basing this off his countless accolades he’s won in numerous bodybuilding contests. The guy has actually even memorized everything about Dorian Yates down to his underwear size. Make one comment about any program like 5/3/1, EDT, WS4SB, or anything else, and the guy totally flies off the handle like you’ve offended him in the worst way.

So why wouldn’t strenght related programs work for size? You have to get strong to lift big weights and you have to lift big weights to get bigger muscles.

This is why when I’m bored I get on these threads; they are so entertaining.

85

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

I didn’t realize that 20-30 lbs of relatively lean mass in a year’s time was “a little bigger”. [/quote]

That’s good. For a beginner, 20-30lbs would probably be average across the board assuming their genetics don’t suck and they are serious about weight lifting.

Beginner gains should be coming almost no matter what unless someone is just screwed up on the very basics of lifting weights.
[/quote]

These were intermediates gaining that much. People larger than a large number of the more vocal posters on this board and ones who had gained 30-40 lbs since taking up lifting and were well past teenage growth spurts.

My point is that the program is weight training stripped down it its most basic and incorporates ALL of the things that bodybuilders have been doing for years but some of the keyboard warriors and armchair experts that like to see their avatar pop up wherever possible rant and whine continuously about how it doesn’t work because it wasn’t designed specifically with bodybuilders in mind.[/quote]

I am not an expert on that type of training…nor do I even care about every possible way to lift a weight. My goal was to get big and get strong. I did both by listening to other people who had done both. That alone worked.

I have no argument with the point you were trying to make…I just wish every jackass who is so weak they won’t even post pictures of their apparent “expert experience” didn’t clutter up these threads.

86

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not an expert on that type of training…nor do I even care about every possible way to lift a weight. My goal was to get big and get strong. I did both by listening to other people who had done both. That alone worked.

I have no argument with the point you were trying to make…I just wish every jackass who is so weak they won’t even post pictures of their apparent “expert experience” didn’t clutter up these threads.[/quote]

I agree entirely. There are armchair experts on both sides of this argument, and that makes it even more frustrating to see threads like this pop up.

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not sure why rugby players and MMA trainers are even in this thread OR this forum.
[/quote]

Rugby players and martial artists can’t be recreational bodybuilders too?

The thread seemed to develop into a discussion of the relative merits of training for size and/or strength, and the differences, if any. I was just offering an opinion based on the fact that I have to cycle the two for my sport.
[/quote]

Are you fucking serious?

I used to train martial arts with the FULL understanding that my progress would be subpar in the gym as long as I was spending three night a week sparring.

It isn’t about whether you can do bodybuilding on the side. This is about making the most progress, not simply doing shit randomly just so you can say you did it.

Most of you won’t see much at all in the way of gains because you won’t pick a fucking goal and run with it. You are trying to be “super athlete who does MMA, boxes, runs marathons, does power lifting all while squatting on a fucking bosu ball”.

If you happen to be one of these “all over the fucking place” people, then either accept you will make lesser progress in EVERYTHING or just stay out of the way.

Unless you now get stopped regularly because of looking like a bodybuilder, I doubt anyone cares.[/quote]

Um, ok, theres no need to be a dick about it. Like your example of martial arts, I too train for rugby with a full understanding that it will hamper my gains in terms of bodybuilding. However, I by no means think that this makes my contribution to a discussion of bodybuilding invalid. I do both because I enjoy both.

I agree that to truly excel on a personal level at either I would have to sacrifice the other, but quite frankly, I don’t want to give up rugby because I enjoy playing and it’s good for my health.

How many people on the site actually regularly get stopped in the street because they look like bodybuilders? I’m interested in the opinions of everybody on this site (apart from the trolls), not just the truly freakish ones. It’s just a discussion, not like people are challenging the appeal of bodybuilding itself. Chill out, everybody here is (mostly)working towards the same goal. If you don’t consider everyone’s views valid, then ignore them. Or don’t post on an internet forum.

88

proffesor X i PM’d you regarding a certain subject i dont want to mention on this forum because its going to lead to more needless clutter in the thread. If you ever have the time to look at the PM please do so, I would really appreciate your advice.

89

[quote]bugeishaAD wrote:
Damn, after seeing threads like this, I’m reminded why most of the people I know that are serious about bodybuilding stay far away from forums.

You guys have crazy amounts of patience![/quote]

this isn’t about patience! we’re just releasing our pent up aggression and frustrations onto the laptop!!!

90

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]tap_u_out wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I have never trained with less than 5 rep sets, and I got plenty strong in my 1 RM. The only real difference I see with most BB and PL training is BB train to get strong in a higher rep range. BB might do 315 x 12 to failure and the PL trains 385 x 3, if both have the same 1 rm. Thats really about the only difference I see. [/quote]

Well said. Bodybuilding and powerlifting used to be thought of as very similar with only that difference.

The blame has to fall on the “functional strength bullshitters”. That is the only reason people started thinking you get huge by not worrying about strength at all. That and the retarded assumption that strength doesn’t count unless it is in a one rep max form tested event.[/quote]

I’ve done WS4SB and I’ve been on the 5/3/1 for 5 months now. My progress regarding strength has been phenomenal. It applies to everything I do athletically. To me strength is key. A lot of BJJ guys and fighters get caught up in “functional” mentality. They short change themselves. I kid you not, the 5/3/1 has been a blessing. I can tweak the assistance exercises anyway I want, for instance if I’m close to a competition and cutting weight I will reduce the volume. If I’m on off season i will increase volume. I get my conditioning in as well.

As an athlete I don’t benefit much from these “newer” versions of what a BBng routine is. However, with the 5/3/1 I get my strength, I can build muscle and keep conditioned.

Professor X, your posts are alway a pleasure to read…[/quote]

Your idea of “phenomenal” is not the same as everyone else’s.

Micheal Jordan was a great basketball player. He was just an “ok” baseball player. He picked a goal and stuck with it after being sure what he was most good at even though he tried his hand at both.

It seems some of you think you can do EVERYTHING and match the results of someone hell bent on achieving one goal. It ain’t happenin’.

No one is saying you are training wrong either. We are saying the goals of someone who is looking to be a bodybuilder on some level is NOT the same as someone trying to compete n fighting matches.
[/quote]

Thank God for that! We’ve seen plenty of “BBers” wanna be fighters in plenty of gyms… The results were, well… less than stellar…

91

There are lots of ways to get big or bigger. DC, WS4SB, volume training, 5x5, on and on and on. You can break down muscle with lots of controlled rep contraction and volume or heavier weights done more explosively and either more or less approaching failure. Machines and free weights and pullup bars and sled and wheelbarrels and ab wheels all work great.

The common denominator of bodybuilding and strength sports/powerlifting is consistency and great seperator of bodybuilding and other strength sports is diet.

You can get anything you want from your training, you just can’t get everything. Unless you do @fit. They rock, just ask them.

92

Goodness, I feel embarrassed to admit that at one point in time I used to spurt out the same misguided stuff that many here have…

Training for strength = Keep fatigue low, do things to make lifts continue to go up (improve weak links etc).

Training for size = Increase fatigue, make every muscle bigger (e.g. do more exercise selection)

You can get a balance between the two, but you can’t get the best of both worlds (at the same time), which is what Bricknyce is saying. Increase fatigue (bodybuilding) and you have to wait longer to recover; lower fatigue and you’ll be able to train movements more often and get stronger quicker, but not get as big as you could.

93

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Progression is most easily measured/gauged with increased weights.

Not all bodybuilders have trained the same to get their results.

You can be relatively strong and relatively small, and relatively big and relatively weak (emphasis on relatively).

I don’t like program’s like rippetoe/SS (too little volume) but sometimes you have to walk before you can run, and getting stronger as a focus can be a good thing for a young bodybuilder. frequency, linear strength (noob) gains, and all the rest.

Dante Trudell (DC) has said "THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE GREATEST STRENGTH GAINS OVER TIME WILL MAKE THE GREATEST SIZE GAINS OVER TIME ACCORDING TO THEIR GENETIC POTENTIAL’.

This seems like a nice summary of what is generally true for most people.

If the goal is bodybuilding, then yes you can train like a bodybuilder, but the idea is that they all train the same is flawed. I agree with the guidelines in Brick’s Bible thread, but some people DO respond with lower reps, less frequency, more/less intensity, etc. It’s an experiment. That said, training like a powerlifter or Olympic lifter if the goal is bodybuilding is irrational (not saying there won’t be some size gains, just not optimal).

94

Strong 80s here, but here is Tom Platz giving some insight (skip to 6:10) as to the difference in mindset between a bodybuilder and, say, a powerlifter. He talks about not counting reps or worrying about numbers (presumably this includes weight)- all of that is just a means to an end (stimulating the muscle to grow). of course, heavier weight (at a given rep range) does that job well, but it’s a means to an end.

95

Just out of curiosity Bricknyc, what are 3 of the more popular “bodybuilding” routines/systems that are the “right” way to train as opposed to “strength” routines?

96

As a post on here mentioned, 99% of the people here will not actually compete in bodybuilding. That being the case, is it really a productive use of time to hit the biceps “from different angles?” Is symmetry really all that important? What’s more, I would guess around 75% of the people who come to this or any site looking to “get big” are really doing it to improve sports preformance. But they don’t say “I want to get big to get better at football/hockey/wrestling.” They just say “I want to get big.” And that’s when the fighting starts between the bodybuilding crowd and the strength crowd. This is why the writers are all promoting strength-based routines. It’s a way to hedge their bet. For the kid looking to get big for football, a strength routine is appropriate. For the guy looking to get big for personal reasons and not to compete in bodybuilding, a strength routine is appropriate.

I do Olympic lifting. My workouts involve either the snatch or clean and jerk, a snatch or clean pull, and a squat or front squat. Sometimes I’ll do a Romanian deadlift or even a conventional deadlift. That’s it. That’s all there is to my routine. Nice and simple. I can do it in my basement, but I also go to a weightlifting gym. If you flex your biceps at my gym, we will laugh at you. If you come in wanting to build big pecs, we will laugh at you. We have many “bodybuilding refugees” who were fed up with not getting stronger but are now happy with their strength gains. We don’t care how big you are; all we care about is weight on the bar. Even that is secondary - what’s even more important is your technique. We don’t worry about spotters. But we’ve also noticed something interesting - as we gain strength and put weight on the bar, we also tend to look better. Shocking. If we miss a lift, we drop the weight and no one yells. There are no mirrors. We don’t post shirtless pictures of ourselves on Internet forums. That’s just strange.

97

Just take a look at a natural guy who benches 405 and guy that benches 225 for the same amount of reps. The 405 dude is much bigger and fuller and that should answer your question of if strength produces size.

Roiders will get results when lifting light for plenty of reps but all huge natural guys that i’ve seen are strong as hell.

From my own experience, strength produces size.

98

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, there can be a good reason to do that.

Yes, I know that everyone who knows what they are doing in bb’ing and are working seriously at it adds at least 2 lb of muscle a month, or at least 20 lb a year, and for example those who 5 years ago were already experienced and skilled have all added 100 lb of muscle since then.

Or at any rate to hear the talk of many, they are gaining all the time and at a good clip, yet – unless there was a change in drug usage – in fact it is not so unusual for say 3 or 6 months to go by without all that much change.

(If anyone denies this, refer to the previous paragraph: if each 3 or 6 months produced all that much change, then there would have to be cumulatively a gigantic increase over 5 years previously, this being referenced to a point of already having been training for years. I’m not comparing to just starting out, where of course there ought to be a really big increase over 5 years.)

So, if someone has noticed that in fact what he’s been doing seems to not be giving much progress, what in the world is wrong with trying something that is shockingly different and is reported to get one substantially stronger, and rapidly?

Anyone think there is no chance that a size increase will come with that? And given that progress hasn’t been so good lately, in our example, for them with ordinary bb’ing methods, why is it necessarily stupid to try Smolov for example?

Personally, Smolov Jr gave me a real improvement in the chest and rapidly, and that at age 47 and with considerably less PED’s than I’ve used before. Regardless of whether strength was a goal, it improved size. Probably out of being so different than anything I’d done before, and so intensively targeted to a given bodypart.[/quote]

Bill: As I wrote in some posts above and in my Bodybuilding Bible thread, there is NOTHING wrong with trying a strength routine to blast through a strength (and/or perhaps a size) plateau. It’s just–and again, as I’ve written repeatedly–that we had GURUS running around prescribing routines in articles in which they wrote repeatedly, “train for performance and size will follow,” implying that some people’s size worries would go away if they trained like athletes with TBT and upper-lower body splits.

To not be misleading, they could have wrote something like, “You might want to use this sort of routine to bust through plateaus you’ve experienced with your traditional bodybuilding routines.” [/quote]

Agreed.

99

[quote]RawMinded wrote:
Just take a look at a natural guy who benches 405 and guy that benches 225 for the same amount of reps. The 405 dude is much bigger and fuller and that should answer your question of if strength produces size.

Roiders will get results when lifting light for plenty of reps but all huge natural guys that i’ve seen are strong as hell.

From my own experience, strength produces size.[/quote]

What?

You might want to rethink what you’ve posted, for both basic grammar and logic.

100

[quote]jackreape wrote:
There are lots of ways to get big or bigger. DC, WS4SB, volume training, 5x5, on and on and on. You can break down muscle with lots of controlled rep contraction and volume or heavier weights done more explosively and either more or less approaching failure. Machines and free weights and pullup bars and sled and wheelbarrels and ab wheels all work great.

The common denominator of bodybuilding and strength sports/powerlifting is consistency and great seperator of bodybuilding and other strength sports is diet.

You can get anything you want from your training, you just can’t get everything. Unless you do @fit. They rock, just ask them.

[/quote]

FTW