I was just thinking about training for hypertrophy vs. mainly strength training and a question occured to me. When training for strength, how is it possible for the muscle to remain the same size but get stronger? Does something happen to the muscle fiber itself, and/or the CNS?
Stength training and muscle fibers?
- Thread starter VIPER
- Start date
I think it's the ability to recruit more muscle fibres and also the decrease in GTO inhibitions and there's more to it but i can't remember.
on a sidenote- can anyone tell me the porpotions of myofibrillar hypertrophy compared to sarcoplasmic. Now myofibrillar means you still grow but not as much as sarcoplasmic. What are the porpotions then? 5:1
If this is even possibly quantified
on a sidenote- can anyone tell me the porpotions of myofibrillar hypertrophy compared to sarcoplasmic. Now myofibrillar means you still grow but not as much as sarcoplasmic. What are the porpotions then? 5:1
If this is even possibly quantified
You can grow larger and lose fat at the same time. Muscular mass is more important than neuro efficiency for strength. It might be possible to get a little bit stronger without getting bigger but not that much but it's possible to demonstrate some great strength on exercices like Deadlift and Squat. You can see some skinny guy who lift heavy weight because they are suited to thoses lift, have a powerfull CNS, very high skills and intermuscular coordination. But you'll never see a skinny guy curl a big weight for reps, because skills are low, there is no intermuscular coordination in a strict curl, only muscular mass and CNS efficiency play a role.
Example :
Andrzej Stanaszek weights 50kg and bench 180kg
Laszlo Meszaros HUN weights 115kg and bench 317.5kg
Laszlo is 2.3x heavier and lift 1.76x heavier. Both are champions and both have a super CNS efficiency but the difference is muscular mass.
Heavy class Powerlifters carry more fat, so there is strong relation between muscular mass and strength when CNS efficiency is maximum. With twins, the relation would be linear.
Example :
Andrzej Stanaszek weights 50kg and bench 180kg
Laszlo Meszaros HUN weights 115kg and bench 317.5kg
Laszlo is 2.3x heavier and lift 1.76x heavier. Both are champions and both have a super CNS efficiency but the difference is muscular mass.
Heavy class Powerlifters carry more fat, so there is strong relation between muscular mass and strength when CNS efficiency is maximum. With twins, the relation would be linear.
Obviously it is possible to get a lot stronger without adding mass, as if you even look at your example of Stanaszek, he has stayed at ~50kg for a number of years now, and his numbers increase (even without taking into account that hes actually using equipment now)[b said:
and the while the comparison of Laszlo and Stanaszek shows that the increase of strenght with BW is not linear (hence the use of formulas like Wilkes, Malone etc) but if you look at Stanaszek he is potentially higher BF than Laszlo. Of all the people in the IPF that are constantly questioned about being on Drugs its Laszlo.
He'll never bench 200kg (if there is no new super equipment).[b said:
And as I said bench press is a poor example, because there is intermuscular coordination but also skills, it's not easy to do a "perfect bench press". Maybe he also progress because he uses better drugs or more powerfull drugs.
Take the Strict Curl (no intermuscular coordination, nearly no skills). To my knwoledge, the Heaviest men and strongest men can curl ~110-115kg. This guy curled 113kg at a Bodyweight of 500 pounds and carry a lot of fat.
But if we look at competitor :
123 lb. J. Wilcott 110
132 lb. J. DelBonis 135
148 lb. R.Nesbitt 130
165 lb. Pilon Stephane 180
181 lb. Lou Cortezzo 190
198 lb. D.Sauri 165
220 lb. D. Rousseau 205
242 lb. S.Belanger 200
275 lb. K.Brown 225.5
The heavier men lift heavier ! at a BW of 123lbs Wilcott Curl 110 and Brown can curl 2 heavier and weight 2.2 heavier ! Cortezzo lift 1.7x heavier than Wilcott and weight 1.5x heaiver. The relation between BW and Strength is strong. The low class weight aren't that strong on curl ! I cannot bench 180kg and weight more than Stanaszek but I can strict curl as much as Wilcott (who probably have good leverage to lift that much at his bodyweight).
It's why I don't think that neuro efficiency plays a so important role.
Considering Stanaszek has had like 1-2 competitions (at euro/world level) with a shirt, 200 is still a distinct possibility. Claiming steroids for Stanaszek's improvements ignores all his hard work he has done to improve his lifts, and probably rather insulting to him
Your reducing the concept to a single joint, and finding an exercise to do so. Neurological efficiency at one muscle one joint is rather simple, 100% or not. For something with little skill component like the curl, muscular size is about the most important component. But most movements that we train for strength in (except the sad federations that do curls..) are multijoint full body exercises (bench is full body
) are very neurologically based, as they are a complex movement of multiple joints, large quantities of muscles that must be fired at the correct time.
So obviously its a touch more complex than claiming that its all muscular size and little neurological involvement.
Your reducing the concept to a single joint, and finding an exercise to do so. Neurological efficiency at one muscle one joint is rather simple, 100% or not. For something with little skill component like the curl, muscular size is about the most important component. But most movements that we train for strength in (except the sad federations that do curls..) are multijoint full body exercises (bench is full body
) are very neurologically based, as they are a complex movement of multiple joints, large quantities of muscles that must be fired at the correct time.So obviously its a touch more complex than claiming that its all muscular size and little neurological involvement.
Aaron, ok the point what to show that : intramuscular coordination is not very important if not small guys would lift much more on the curl but they cannot even with a "super CNS". Maybe that intermusucular coordination plays a more important role and thus it's why some small guys can lift a lot on compounds movement. But I believe that others factor like "technique" (positionment, breath, how to use equpiment etc) and leverages, morpho type, also play a big role.
Baoh yes I realy don't care at all about drugs I just know they work well... too well.
Baoh yes I realy don't care at all about drugs I just know they work well... too well.
Does the person with the largest arm flexors and largest trapezius win the Strict Curl competition? Do you think the IFBB pro with the largest arm flexors could "walk on" and simply dominate the sport, as his muscle mass would be greater than those of the usual competitors? I'd wager against it.[b said:
My points with the ergogens are this:
1) There is no super-drug that the elite have that the common man doesn't have access to, save for things that are directly designed to evade specific issues of a doping test, and even those specially designed drugs are not super-powerful wonder elixers. THG, etc. are NOTHING compared to the effectiveness of Test and Tren, or even D-bol and M1T, in terms of muscle mass gained and strength produced, provided a similar training program and diet.
2) These drugs have a marked effect, yes, but they only add to what you do in the gym and what you do in the kitchen. You don't just get handed significant gains in exchange for taking them. There are many people, especially frat boys, who will use a lot of test and d-bol this semester, but work out on whim, party, and not eat enough. They will gain five to ten pounds of primarily fluid on their cycles, and lose that and maybe more when they come off, as the other requirements have not been met. They are not magic. To imply that they are such a major causative agent in being elite is ignorant. Just as ignorant as the average individual who looks at Ronnie Coleman and says something to the effect of, "Yeah, well, if *I* took as much steroids as he does, I could be that big, too."
Nonsense.
I guess you are on drugs. I'm natural and know the difference between juicers and naturals. You'll very rarely see 18'' lean arms on natural lifters but it's common and even 'small' for "hard juicers". I don't say you don't need to train if you are on juice I say it's easier to make progress.
If Lee Priest (short forearm - good leverages and probably a powerfull CNS) wanted to won a strict curl competition I bet all my money he could win, because his muscular mass is huge. Curl is not a very hard movement to learn, a few month doing low reps curl and he would be ready.
For movements like Squat and Deadlift and Bench press that's another thing but Tom Platz was not too bad at Squat and Ronnie can deadlift some weights. BBs couldn't come and win all powerlifting competitions. Maybe they could win competitions on single joint exercices.
If Lee Priest (short forearm - good leverages and probably a powerfull CNS) wanted to won a strict curl competition I bet all my money he could win, because his muscular mass is huge. Curl is not a very hard movement to learn, a few month doing low reps curl and he would be ready.
For movements like Squat and Deadlift and Bench press that's another thing but Tom Platz was not too bad at Squat and Ronnie can deadlift some weights. BBs couldn't come and win all powerlifting competitions. Maybe they could win competitions on single joint exercices.
Closed minded, only when presented with a dearth of facts
"you are strong, you must use drugs"
or
"you know about drugs, so you must be on drugs"
Hes also claiming one of the greatest lifters in the world (multi time world champion and world record holder, the vast majority of hte lifts done raw) is only advancing because of drugs. An awfully big claim, with absolutely nothing as proof other than his opinion.
Typical responses of someone who uses the fallacies of[b said:
"you are strong, you must use drugs"
or
"you know about drugs, so you must be on drugs"
Hes also claiming one of the greatest lifters in the world (multi time world champion and world record holder, the vast majority of hte lifts done raw) is only advancing because of drugs. An awfully big claim, with absolutely nothing as proof other than his opinion.
I do use various ergogens to help achieve my goals.[b said:
"I'm natural and know the difference between juicers and naturals."
That's a pretty neat superpower, duuuuuuude.
What you fail to realize is that I, unlike you, have been able to observe the situation from both the standpoint of the natural lifter AND the enhanced lifter.
"...but it's common and even 'small' for "hard juicers"."
No, it isn't. Most juicers, hard (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean) or otherwise, do not attain 18-inch lean arms. Again, you lack perspective.
Plenty of guys can take 2 grams of test a week, along with 8-10 ius of GH, as well as Humalog, and reach a whopping 175 with raging gyno, fat stomachs, and gargantuan fifteen-inch arms. I know because I have seen it happen.
"I say it's easier to make progress."
This depends on the level, relative to the starting point, the individual has attained before using.
Could Flex Wheeler win a Curl competition against the current standard competitors? Lee Priest may be good at it, with the proper training, but many others would be poor. You should watch pros train. Most of the time, if you know what truly good form is, you'll be left shaking your head. Try to catch Paul Dillet actually training, and then get back to me.
Ronnie focuses on powerlifts, and -IIRC- competed in it early on in his lifting career.
Tom Platz squatted for reps. College kids smash his 1RM everyday.
Just because someone is more accomplished than you are at performing a feat of strength does not mean they are necessarily good at it. It just means you need to get out more.
Likewise, if someone is bigger than you, perhaps you are simply less determined than that person is.
Again:
"I'm natural and know the difference between juicers and naturals."
I guess you determine it by whether or not the person is stronger, bigger, and/or leaner than you are.
That's easy.[b said:
Some want to get where they could eventually go, but faster. This is your average user.
In my case, I'm not satisfied by what I am, and seek to go a step further than my endogenous hormones allow. This is a smaller group of users.
Others have occupations or social lives that revolve around what the results of using AAS, such as those who are involved with competitive athletics (sometimes for scholarship or pay), "debt retrieval specialists" (lol), and so forth. Another smaller group of users, relative to the first.
I choose to use for the same reason I choose to train- to become more than I was/am. That's why I study what I study, too. I have an interest in self-improvement, even when outside observers see no lacking, as my standards are far more strict.
Since I have held two perspectives on the matter, I both see why people would use and see why people would not use.
Another issue:
"Just do it naturally."
Very few of the actions and activities you partake in are truly natural. For some reason, people don't often realize this, and I wonder why.