Will HST turn you into a huge....

<div>
(quadancer @ May 28 2006,17:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Being 52, I don't care if I can lift a dump truck; I just wanna LOOK like I can lift a dump truck.</div>
the only problem with this is that at one point someone will ask you to lift a big dump truck because you look like you can
biggrin.gif
 
I grew too much with HST and became too heavy for my real love: mountain bike marathons. It is no fun lugging 100 kilos up big mountains in the Alps. I switched to 5 x 5 and keep the calories in check. I keep losing body fat and my strength remains constant which is what I like. I went from 100kg down to 88kg and I will stop at 80 kilos.

If you do HST correctly, you WILL get BIG and STRONG.
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Jul. 27 2006,19:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you ask that question you're probably overthinking things.  Bodybuilding is not rocket science.  The guy who makes the largest strength GAINS winds up larger.  Gaining strength has always been my main objective, and the added muscle always accompanies my strength gains, even though my size gains are slowing down considerably and not keeping up with my strength gains.  That's what happens when you approach your genetic limits.  

Look at quadancer's post in this thread, for instance.  He says he doesn't care about strength, BUT he made strength gains and...surprise surprise...he's larger now.  Despite the fact that HST seems to focus on size and not strength, I view it strictly as a strength program.  The bigger my strength gains at the end of a cycle, the bigger I am.</div>
I think stevejones has hit the nail on the head here. I don't understand how people can think that muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength are unrelated!!! It is true that two identical muscles with the same CSA (cross section area) can lift different amounts based on neurological functions (basically the strength trained muscle 'knows' how to recruit more muscle fiber into the lift, even though the untrained muscle has the same amount of fiber.) Which is why there are some small power-lifters who can really heave up the weight, they are squeezing the maximum amount of force possible out of their relatively small muscles. (sidenote-also some people have genetic mechanical gifts for strength based on where their muscle tendons tie to there bone, etc.)
However, all neuromuscular (and genetic mechanical) factors being equal, the larger muscle will always be stronger, period. An experienced power-lifter who manages to hypertrophy his pectorals, triceps and stabilizer muscles, will absolutely be able to bench press more weight. It is a myth that powerlifters aren't very muscular, or that pro bodybuilders aren't very strong. Most powerlifters have huge muscles, but it may not be as apparent because they are not concerned about things like muscle symmetry, or low bodyfat to show muscular definition. Also most pro bodybuilders are super-strong, but usually they are training at their 10 rep max., not their 1 rep max. So when you see a bodybuilder squatting 400 lb.s in a magazine and think &quot;big deal, my uncle bob can squat 500 and he doesn't have quads that big.&quot; Just remember that the bodybuilder may be doing 12 reps with 400 for all you know!! Who knows what his 1 rm is if he trained for powerlifting!
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just remember that the bodybuilder may be doing 12 reps with 400 for all you know!!</div>
Yeah, or in the case of Tom Platz he may be doing 23 reps with 495lbs!

Do a Google for the vid. It's worth a watch.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, all neuromuscular (and genetic mechanical) factors being equal, the larger muscle will always be stronger, period.</div>

I don't know if I can agree with that statement, although I do not have the science to prove it, strength is a lot more neural than you think!

A larger muscle which is untrained (neural pathways not learned) is not going to lift as much as a smaller muscle which is tyrained (neural pathways learned).

The fibre theory sounds solid, but practice shows us otherwise!

Now...how do we explain that! It has to be the nerves...and hypertrophy vs. strength training is somewhat different.

Hypertrophy - higher rep range, smaller weight, slower cadence.

Strength - Very short rep ranges, much higher weights, rapid cadence.

Just a thought! Maybe I'll ened up learning something
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Jul. 31 2006,09:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't know if I can agree with that statement, although I do not have the science to prove it, strength is a lot more neural than you think!</div>
Total absolute exhibited strength is a combination of neural, mechanical(leverage). Pennation and PCSA.

So yes, if all other items are removed a bigger muscle means a stronger muscle (as far as force generating capacity).

The reps and cadence to fatigue is a metabolic condition and has little to do with the actual amount of force the actual muscle can generate.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jul. 31 2006,14:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The reps and cadence to fatigue is a metabolic condition and has little to do with the actual amount of force the actual muscle can generate.</div>
Can you elaborate ?  Does 'metabolic condition' mean that the number of reps done before fatigue depends on how conditioned you are ?  

So, if I start a cycle with a 12 rep max of 100 lbs, and I end the cycle able to do 14 reps of 100 lbs, I'm not any stronger, just better conditioned ?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jul. 29 2006,19:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dude, what was your BF at the time?</div>
when I was around 100 kg my BF was pushing 18%. Mind you, I had almost no fat on my legs and buttocks. It was all around my core and upper body.
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Jul. 31 2006,15:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Can you elaborate ?  Does 'metabolic condition' mean that the number of reps done before fatigue depends on how conditioned you are ?  

So, if I start a cycle with a 12 rep max of 100 lbs, and I end the cycle able to do 14 reps of 100 lbs, I'm not any stronger, just better conditioned ?</div>
Yes, or actually how well your muscle uses and recovers the metabolic constituents needed to perform consecutive contractions.

Yes and No, and I know I've probably said this a milliion times and many are getting sick of hearing it, there is a crossover IE an absolute strength increase will be seen. But there is a difference between absolute strength and strength endurance. With all other factors removed IE what I mentioned previously, you must increase the PCSA of the tissue in order to be able to generate more force. Once you have adapted to the hypothetical 100 Lbs, doing more reps generally isn't going to add more PCSA but it will improve your ability to do more reps with that load.
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Jul. 31 2006,09:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, all neuromuscular (and genetic mechanical) factors being equal, the larger muscle will always be stronger, period.</div>

I don't know if I can agree with that statement, although I do not have the science to prove it, strength is a lot more neural than you think!

A larger muscle which is untrained (neural pathways not learned) is not going to lift as much as a smaller muscle which is tyrained (neural pathways learned).

The fibre theory sounds solid, but practice shows us otherwise!

Now...how do we explain that! It has to be the nerves...and hypertrophy vs. strength training is somewhat different.

Hypertrophy - higher rep range, smaller weight, slower cadence.

Strength - Very short rep ranges, much higher weights, rapid cadence.

Just a thought! Maybe I'll ened up learning something
wink.gif
</div>
Fausto, That is exactly what I said, &quot;IF ALL NEUROMUSCULAR AND GENETIC MECHANICAL FACTORS ARE EQUAL, then the bigger muscle will be bigger. Of course neural is important, which is why I said &quot;if they are equal&quot; meaning if the two different muscles have the same neural adaptations and mechanical structure, the larger muscle will be the stronger muscle. Of course if the neural adaptations or mechanical structure are NOT EQUAL, well then there are two other factors which are influencing strength besides size.

dan moore's post echoed what I said much more eloquently and scientifically than me.
blush.gif
 
Are we talking strength removed of any motivation?
 
Pierre

We are not involving the brain at this stage
laugh.gif


That is yet another vector to consider.
biggrin.gif
 
Yup, motivation plays a part as well. There are the studies by Enoka or Sale (one of them, I don't remember which) who shows that when subjects tried a lift without a startle they didn't do as well as those who were startled by a gun shot. Also a more recent one on psyched up lifting versus not and if I remember psyching up didn't produce much of a difference, so apparently there is a difference between having the shi*t scared out of you and just singing &quot;just what makes that lil old ant, think he can move that rubber tree plant&quot;

come on now everyone sing along

Cause everyone knows
that an ant
cant
move a rubber tree plant
But he's got

Hi........Hopes
He's got

Hi........Hopes
 
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif


I guess with the gunshot start, adrenalin may have a part to play?

Speaking of ants,

Little kids enjoy lighting ants on fire with magnifying glasses. Chuck Norris enjoys lighting little kids on fire with ants. Scientists have yet to find out how this feat is achieved.
 
Haven´t you ever seen a severly mentally disabled person lift a VW beetle of the ground?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top