# does strength=size? bodybuilding vs strength training



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

In your opinion, are these different?


----------



## ditz (Jun 5, 2012)

What really really p1sses me off are these people that say "I'm a bodybuilder not a power lifter" I'd rather be big than strong"

Why does Coleman etc mess about with 800lb squats if it wasn't needed?

Yes, media and advertising will only ever show them lifting heavy.. But they can still do it!

Plus who wants to be massive but squatting 30 a side?


----------



## Trevor McDonald (Mar 30, 2010)

Won't see someone deadlifting 200kg stuck at 10 stone. Just saying.


----------



## ditz (Jun 5, 2012)

Mey said:


> Won't see someone deadlifting 200kg stuck at 10 stone. Just saying.


Exactly


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

ditz said:


> What really really p1sses me off are these people that say "I'm a bodybuilder not a power lifter" I'd rather be big than strong"
> 
> Why does Coleman etc mess about with 800lb squats if it wasn't needed?
> 
> ...


yet, majority of Ronnie's training was with moderate reps and bb style with isolation movements?


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

ditz said:


> Exactly







guy weighs 165 lbs and is 5 ft 11. Deadlifts 405 lbs

more: 




and lastly: Mehdi from stronglift:






they do not look big or anything close to bodybuilders


----------



## ditz (Jun 5, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> yet, majority of Ronnie's training was with moderate reps and bb style with isolation movements?


No.

My point is, look up any bbers or actually anybody in good shape videos and they are all strong lifting decent weights. They might not all the time, may use other styles and methods.. But they can, the strength is there.

Anybody that argues otherwise is weak and can't do it themselves

Myself included tbh :lol:


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

What is it with peoples obsessions with defining absolutes.

Strength is like BHP. It doesn't necessarily have linear relationship with size. But the greater your neural efficiency at utilizing your muscles, the greater stimulus you have the potential to apply to your muscles.

Strength progression is an essential part of muscle building, but it's not the only thing. Neglect it at your detriment


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

simonthepieman said:


> What is it with peoples obsessions with defining absolutes.
> 
> Strength is like BHP. It doesn't necessarily have linear relationship with size. But the greater your neural efficiency at utilizing your muscles, the greater stimulus you have the potential to apply to your muscles.
> 
> Strength progression is an essential part of muscle building, but it's not the only thing. Neglect it at your detriment


thanks for your post. But what is essential for muscle building? How does training for size differ ?


----------



## ditz (Jun 5, 2012)

simonthepieman said:


> What is it with peoples obsessions with defining absolutes.
> 
> Strength is like BHP. It doesn't necessarily have linear relationship with size. But the greater your neural efficiency at utilizing your muscles, the greater stimulus you have the potential to apply to your muscles.
> 
> Strength progression is an essential part of muscle building, but it's not the only thing. Neglect it at your detriment


Of course. There are plenty of people with very slim builds who can move plenty of weight, which proves your point.

But my point is, which I think many are missing. Regardless of what you may think/want to believe strength is A factor


----------



## ditz (Jun 5, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> guy weighs 165 lbs and is 5 ft 11. Deadlifts 405 lbs
> 
> more:
> 
> ...


What's your point?

Maybe they aren't aiming for size?


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

ditz said:


> What's your point?
> 
> Maybe they aren't aiming for size?


how so? They are lifting respectable weights? Do they undereat to keep size gains away? My point that training for strength in low rep ranges is not optimal for gaining size.

1-5 rep range is mostly neurological and this is where the majority of strength trainers end up at.

Bodybuilders use moderate loads and "work" the muscle by causing stress and fatigue.


----------



## ditz (Jun 5, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> how so? They are lifting respectable weights? Do they undereat to keep size gains away?


There are tons of factors that effect muscle building, not just picking the weights up.


----------



## Aggression (Apr 13, 2009)

Mey said:


> Won't see someone deadlifting 200kg stuck at 10 stone. Just saying.


Richard Hawthorne @132lbs (9st 6lbs) may have something to say about that...


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Show me a skinny strongman


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> thanks for your post. But what is essential for muscle building? How does training for size differ ?


The more weight you lift, the bigger you will be. I personally don't understand why people training for size do sets of 12 reps. When generely powerlifters are much bigger much quicker. The only difference imo is fat % PLers don't care about it whereas BBers do.


----------



## bigtommay (Jun 26, 2012)

Doesn't mehdi himself say that his frame isnt built for great size. He's probably considerably bigger than when he first touched a weight.

Genetics obviously have a part to play. I can squat and deadlift more than bigger better looking guys in my gym but i still look like sh1t in compatsion.


----------



## countrybumpkin (Jul 2, 2011)

arthuroarti said:


> yet, majority of Ronnie's training was with moderate reps and bb style with isolation movements?


Thats what his routines say and whats done for a bit on camera.

Alot of people forget that the biggest of bodybuilders normally come from a powerlifting/Strongman back ground to and throw around some crazy poundages.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Aggression said:


> Richard Hawthorne @132lbs (9st 6lbs) may have something to say about that...


wow. That is crazy. The guy is athletic but not even big.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> thanks for your post. But what is essential for muscle building? How does training for size differ ?


You are trying to make a partial an absolute. The key ingredients for size are progressive overload (strength massively comes into play), stimulation of the muscle and workload, diet and recovery. They aren't mutually exclusive so why separate them



ditz said:


> Of course. There are plenty of people with very slim builds who can move plenty of weight, which proves your point.
> 
> But my point is, which I think many are missing. Regardless of what you may think/want to believe strength is A factor


agree



arthuroarti said:


> how so? They are lifting respectable weights? Do they undereat to keep size gains away? My point that training for strength in low rep ranges is not optimal for gaining size.
> 
> 1-5 rep range is mostly neurological and this is where the majority of strength trainers end up at.
> 
> Bodybuilders use moderate loads and "work" the muscle by causing stress and fatigue.


training at 5 reps is mostly neurological? Absolute nonsense. I suppose over 12 reps is 'toning' :stupid:

Lets see if this makes sense. for the sake of this arguement lets say we have two identical people

person one training:

bench: 100 x 3 x 3

squat 150 x 3 x 3

deadlift 200 x3 x3

person 2

bench: 80 x 4 x 10

squat 125 x 4 x 10

deadlift 175 x 4 x 10

lets say person two gains more mass because he trains in the 'hypertrophy zone'. I think we agree on this one

How about this guy

bench: 100 x 4 x 10

squat 150 x 4 x 10

deadlift 200 x4 x10

now who gets the most gains?

I'm pretty sure it's him. He is doing the same volume with heavier weights as person 2. It's pretty obviously. So what type of training will allow him to get to that level quicker. Just sticking with high reps, or including modular strength training as another aspect of his training?


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> guy weighs 165 lbs and is 5 ft 11. Deadlifts 405 lbs
> 
> more:
> 
> ...


I bet i can find a hundred times as many people doing 'body building routines' who are even skinnier. Just take a walk into fitness first. Terrible examples. I can just as easily get you tube videos of lane norton or coleman that 'prove' the inverse of this.


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

Let's take someone like Phil Heath, he's gone from being a top national to Mr Olympia in about 5 years

I'm sure he's progressed in strength in that time but I think there could be a few more other factors that have played a more prominent part in his progression :whistling:


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

simonthepieman said:


> You are trying to make a partial an absolute. The key ingredients for size are progressive overload (strength massively comes into play), stimulation of the muscle and workload, diet and recovery. They aren't mutually exclusive so why separate them
> 
> agree
> 
> ...


never said 12 reps is toning. Size principle of motor units recruitment is what matters here. Why 6-15 reps for bodybuilding? Because these loads provide adequate resistance simultaneously to adequate volume, stress and fatigue. Strength is important to progress in these rep ranges, that is it. Bodybuilders do isolation movements and why the hell would you want to do half-ass reps at heavy weight. Form in bodybuilding>weight. Also effort in bodybuilding>weight


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

simonthepieman said:


> I bet i can find a hundred times as many people doing 'body building routines' who are even skinnier. Just take a walk into fitness first. Terrible examples. I can just as easily get you tube videos of lane norton or coleman that 'prove' the inverse of this.


building muscle is harder than gaining strength! STRENGTH is your cns training and is easier to achieve than hypertrophy. Guys that do hypertrophy routines may not be pushing themselves, their diet may be subpar in terms of protein and calorie intake.


----------



## gringo (Jul 13, 2009)

Train for size and you'll get stronger. Train for strength and you'll get bigger.

Its obvious that they are related - nobody is disputing that. But they are not the

same thing - different individuals with different physiology and mixture of muscle

fibres etc may show exceptional size or strength without being exceptional in

the other. Its down to genes and styles of training.

Good example here - armwrestler Lovei Jozsef looking not that big but

preacher curling a 55Kg barbell for partial reps, with ONE arm.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=506079409445184

He's done a lot of strength training on his arms without putting on

a load of muscle mass.


----------



## RowRow (Nov 17, 2011)

I'm at my biggest and best shape but not my heaviest or strongest.

I prefer to look strong and be strong. Than look big but not be able to back it up.

But I struggle to do both so I have to operate in phases of stretch and size.


----------



## alan_wilson (Feb 25, 2012)

My brother is one stone lighter than me, much smaller.

But almost identical in strength to me.


----------



## guvnor82 (Oct 23, 2011)

Mey said:


> Won't see someone deadlifting 200kg stuck at 10 stone. Just saying.


My m8 got second in British powerlifting comp last week he's 10 stone.

Dead 200kg

Squat 152.5

Bench 105


----------



## bailey-bose (Dec 30, 2011)

Mey said:


> Won't see someone deadlifting 200kg stuck at 10 stone. Just saying.


Bruce Lee did more


----------



## need2bodybuild (May 11, 2011)

IGotTekkers said:


> Show me a skinny strongman


Show me a guy who eats waayyy more than is necessary and is not fat lol


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

bodybuilders need strength to progress. But what I am trying to say is that bodybuilding training is different as it prioritises:

1) Form

2) Effort>weight on the bar

3) Working the muscle, not the weight


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

IGotTekkers said:


> The more weight you lift, the bigger you will be. I personally don't understand why people training for size do sets of 12 reps. When generely powerlifters are much bigger much quicker. The only difference imo is fat % PLers don't care about it whereas BBers do.


but then i don't understand a guy who's ultimate goal is building muscle for visual impact doing sets of 5 or 1 rep max??

i would consider myself big and i am not weak per say but i cannot squat more than 100kg, i cannot deadlift more than 100kg now can i bench much over 300lbs yet i would say i am bigger than the majority of guys on here most would out lift me all the time.....

it is ultimately about your goal mine is a visual one i really do not care about my strength i lift as heavy as i can every time i train, if i lift more one week then the week after lift less i do not care as i am lifting the maximum i can on that given day so the stress on my muscle is the same as it is still 100% intensity.....

we can all give one offs as an example Johnny Jackson is a prime example record holding PL and IFBB Pro but he is in the minority, someone mentioned about Pro's being strong and they are but in comparison to who?

i know Pro's who are really strong yet they are not as big as other Pro's who are not as strong??


----------



## need2bodybuild (May 11, 2011)

Perform a strength exercise at the start of each workout, say a weight for no more than 6 reps for a few sets, then for the rest of the workout select exercises where you'll work in the 8-15 rep range, eat a surplus of calories, rest well, add a little test and grow!


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> but then i don't understand a guy who's ultimate goal is building muscle for visual impact doing sets of 5 or 1 rep max??
> 
> i would consider myself big and i am not weak per say but i cannot squat more than 100kg, i cannot deadlift more than 100kg now can i bench much over 300lbs yet i would say i am bigger than the majority of guys on here most would out lift me all the time.....
> 
> ...


Pscarb, so your training is clearly different to powerlifter's? And the outcome is different as well


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

ditz said:


> What really really p1sses me off are these people that say "I'm a bodybuilder not a power lifter" I'd rather be big than strong"
> 
> Why does Coleman etc mess about with 800lb squats if it wasn't needed?
> 
> ...


But you just used a genetic freak as an example. That is not relevant to average joe at all


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

arthuroarti said:


> Pscarb, so your training is clearly different to powerlifter's? And the outcome is different as well


yes of course, i have found over the years the optimum rep range to build muscle tissue is 8-10 reps i could probably lift more if i did less reps


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

kingdale said:


> But you just used a genetic freak as an example. That is not relevant to average joe at all


besides one has to hear what Ronnie said himself






4:00+ he starts talking about the topic. Ronnie said that he only did powerlifting for 2-3 years and that he trains high reps to build mass.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> yes of course, i have found over the years the optimum rep range to build muscle tissue is 8-10 reps i could probably lift more if i did less reps


Pscarb, bodybuilders long spoke of 8-12 reps as the mass building 'gold' and it is after many years of experimentation. But what else makes a difference? In your opinion AND personal experience, what other factors besides the rep range? Rest periods, intensity techniques, failure etc?


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> but then i don't understand a guy who's ultimate goal is building muscle for visual impact doing sets of 5 or 1 rep max??
> 
> i would consider myself big and i am not weak per say but i cannot squat more than 100kg, i cannot deadlift more than 100kg now can i bench much over 300lbs yet i would say i am bigger than the majority of guys on here most would out lift me all the time.....
> 
> ...


My goals are also visual but I'm confused about the whole 12 rep for hypertrophy stuff, because PLers are usually bigger.. so surely powerlifting while monitoring bodyfat has more of an advantage. Iv never done 1rm, 6-8 reps I find best all round. I like that you can't squat more than 100kg. Makes me a bit happier as I can't either lol.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

arthuroarti said:


> Pscarb, bodybuilders long spoke of 8-12 reps as the mass building 'gold' and it is after many years of experimentation. But what else makes a difference? In your opinion AND personal experience, what other factors besides the rep range? Rest periods, intensity techniques, failure etc?


all of that matters mate, unfortunately some put all the effort in the gym then do not get the correct nutrition after or enough rest but in my experiences some who think they train hard don't they rest to long between sets they lift far more than they can....etc....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

IGotTekkers said:


> My goals are also visual but I'm confused about the whole 12 rep for hypertrophy stuff, because PLers are usually bigger.. so surely powerlifting while monitoring bodyfat has more of an advantage. Iv never done 1rm, 6-8 reps I find best all round.


but powerlifters are not usually bigger muscle wise, that is like comparing a guy in a jumper being bigger than a guy in a t shirt ...

PL are in general bigger in both height and appearance but if they where to get down to sub 10% BF then the muscle mass would not be bigger compared to a BB of the same weight....



IGotTekkers said:


> I like that you can't squat more than 100kg. Makes me a bit happier as I can't either lol.


yea well i was Paralysed from the waist down in 1996 and have a conjenatal fusion of my lower vertibrea which requires a yearly procedure to burn the nerves from my facet joints.......


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> all of that matters mate, unfortunately some put all the effort in the gym then do not get the correct nutrition after or enough rest but in my experiences some who think they train hard don't they rest to long between sets they lift far more than they can....etc....


So in your professional experience long rest periods between sets is not good when building muscle ? The reason i am asking is that there are some studies that confirmed that there is not difference between rest periods and that acute rise in hormones GH, test is not what causes hypertrophy


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

arthuroarti said:


> So in your professional experience long rest periods between sets is not good when building muscle ? The reason i am asking is that there are some studies that confirmed that there is not difference between rest periods and that acute rise in hormones GH, test is not what causes hypertrophy


i would agree when it comes to GH/test etc but thats not why i rest less between sets i do it because the intensity is higher granted if i rested more i would probably stronger but i do not care how strong i am


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

No.. I'm stronger than a lot of people that are bigger than me..

And to be honest I'd probably want it the other way round, I don't play sports, I dont have a "manual" job. My strength is actually useless.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> but powerlifters are not usually bigger muscle wise, that is like comparing a guy in a jumper being bigger than a guy in a t shirt ...
> 
> PL are in general bigger in both height and appearance but if they where to get down to sub 10% BF then the muscle mass would not be bigger compared to a BB of the same weight....
> 
> *yea well i was Paralysed from the waist down in 1996 and have a conjenatal fusion of my lower vertibrea which requires a yearly procedure to burn the nerves from my facet joints.......*


Well don't I feel like a **** :death:


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

As said it all depends on your goals. Me, I don't see the point in being big and weak. I see muscles as cosmetic and strength as practical.

Someone else might think it pointless to put all that effort into lifting heavy weights without some obvious muscle to display for their efforts.


----------



## secondhandsoul (Feb 6, 2012)

need2bodybuild said:


> Perform a strength exercise at the start of each workout, say a weight for no more than 6 reps for a few sets, then for the rest of the workout select exercises where you'll work in the 8-15 rep range, eat a surplus of calories, rest well, add a little test and grow!


Exactly what I do. Start with a compound for 5x5 then train rest of the body part hypertrophy.

Although I don't use the test


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> i would agree when it comes to GH/test etc but thats not why i rest less between sets i do it because the intensity is higher granted if i rested more i would probably stronger but i do not care how strong i am


I think that shorter rest periods create more muscular damage. If you think about it, doing 8-10 reps on your set, you fatigue your slow twitch and then some of the fast twitch fibers. if you rest too long, the effect will cease. So shorter rest periods are better for bodybuilders as you can stimulate more muscle fibers and cause greater damage


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

See this is what i hate, every other post contradicts the last

I wanna be big muscle wise, it doesnt really bother me how much i lift in a particular lift though


----------



## Aggression (Apr 13, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> yea well i was Paralysed from the waist down in 1996 and have a conjenatal fusion of my lower vertibrea which requires a yearly procedure to burn the nerves from my facet joints.......


Radio Frequency denervation & injection of depo-medrone steroid? We do these at work, wonder if its the same.


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

ash1981 said:


> See this is what i hate, every other post contradicts the last
> 
> I wanna be big muscle wise, it doesnt really bother me how much i lift in a particular lift though


The problem is that the quest for size alone is so ambiguous that it leads people nowhere.

From experience more people who train for strength actually get big than who train for size. Most people who "dont care" about weight remain small as they miss the essential factors that relate to muscle building for beginners.


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

martin brown said:


> The problem is that the quest for size alone is so ambiguous that it leads people nowhere.
> 
> From experience more people who train for strength actually get big than who train for size. Most people who "dont care" about weight remain small as they miss the essential factors that relate to muscle building for beginners.


Ok so once I'm back from holiday and going into a calorie surplus I was thinking of doing 5x5 on the main 3 lifts, then second lift x8,third x10 and last isolation x12

Is that covering both worlds?


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

martin brown said:


> The problem is that the quest for size alone is so ambiguous that it leads people nowhere.
> 
> From experience more people who train for strength actually get big than who train for size. Most people who "dont care" about weight remain small as they miss the essential factors that relate to muscle building for beginners.


Because people who train for strength aren't generally worried about aesthetics and therefore can eat loads of food, put on loads of weight, and get bigger.. But the guy who trains for size normally wants to look good and doesn't want to be fat at the same time..


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

Mmm

The plot thickens


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

@Pscarb

Would you say all exercises should be done in the 8/10 range?


----------



## JStepTricking (Mar 16, 2013)

Isn't strength mostly CNS based and how many muscle fibres are recruited into the movement to lift?

Surely then, getting bigger directly improves strength as you have more muscle fibre to call upon, granted your CNS can recruit it?

I may be absolutely lost in my own world of Broscience though :lol:

Personally as an athlete strength is just as important to me as getting bigger so I use heavy 5 rep max on big lifts like squat and such and more 8-12 rep work on supplemental and assistance lifts.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Aggression said:


> Radio Frequency denervation & injection of depo-medrone steroid? We do these at work, wonder if its the same.


i think it is the first one, they inject 6 x 6" flexible needles into my spine around my L5/S1 area attach electrodes and burn the nerves off that are wrapped around the facet joints.



ash1981 said:


> @PscarbWould you say all exercises should be done in the 8/10 range?


no I think legs should have a higher rep range (12-15) but what I think does not mean it should be used by everyone and if they do the results will be the same, what I know is I train less per week (3 days a week) using a 8-10 rep range with a rotational low to high volume set range and it works very well for both me and many of my clients......

There is no one way to skin a cat as the saying goes, one thing I do know for sure I think many train to much but don't train hard enough


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> i think it is the first one, they inject 6 x 6" flexible needles into my spine around my L5/S1 area attach electrodes and burn the nerves off that are wrapped around the facet joints.
> 
> no I think legs should have a higher rep range (12-15) but what I think does not mean it should be used by everyone and if they do the results will be the same, what I know is I train less per week (3 days a week) using a 8-10 rep range with a rotational low to high volume set range and it works very well for both me and many of my clients......
> 
> There is no one way to skin a cat as the saying goes, one thing I do know for sure I think many train to much but don't train hard enough


So you mean with the set range is that you stay in the 8-10 rep range but switch up the amount of sets lifted from time to time?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

ash1981 said:


> So you mean with the set range is that you stay in the 8-10 rep range but switch up the amount of sets lifted from time to time?


Yes I use a rotational system each week switching up the amount of working sets


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

Not imo, I'm small and can lift big for my size


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

JStepTricking said:


> Isn't strength mostly CNS based and how many muscle fibres are recruited into the movement to lift?
> 
> Surely then, getting bigger directly improves strength as you have more muscle fibre to call upon, granted your CNS can recruit it?
> 
> ...


Heavy loads that are greater than 85% RM truly recruit more muscle fibers. But recruiting does not mean training them. recruiting a motor unit isn't the same as training it. Recruitment of the motor unit causes the attached fibers to contract, bringing them into the movement. Recruitment generates tension and creates strain on the working muscle fibers.

If you're after strength gains, this is what you need to happen. Being able to voluntarily switch on your muscle fibers, learning to strain and grind through heavy and slow exercises, is largely neurological. Motor learning is sensitive to conditions. Squatting at 70% might as well be an entirely different movement from squatting at 95%, for all the brain is concerned. Levers change, mechanics of the lift change, and the patterns of neurological activity change.

Stress on the muscle, however, is different. Hypertrophy is work-induced. Work, contrary to common belief, is not merely a function of weight lifted or force applied or tension created. Work is done when that force is used to move things. Maximum work doesn't mean maximum weight - it means using a heavy-enough weight and moving it around a lot.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

JStepTricking said:


> Isn't strength mostly CNS based and how many muscle fibres are recruited into the movement to lift?
> 
> Surely then, getting bigger directly improves strength as you have more muscle fibre to call upon, granted your CNS can recruit it?
> 
> ...


http://www.myosynthesis.com/intensity-training-failure-muscle-gain

great read !!!


----------



## SirStrokeUrEgo (Sep 27, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> never said 12 reps is toning. Size principle of motor units recruitment is what matters here. Why 6-15 reps for bodybuilding? Because these loads provide adequate resistance simultaneously to adequate volume, stress and fatigue. Strength is important to progress in these rep ranges, that is it. Bodybuilders do isolation movements and why the hell would you want to do half-ass reps at heavy weight. Form in bodybuilding>weight. Also effort in bodybuilding>weight


Rep range has little to do with strength and size gains, your ignoring the whole spectrum of influences such as tempo, rest time, overload etc

You've been reading to many magazines.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Muscle Fibre Contraction

It's Saturday night and you and some of your mates and their girlfriends are going out for some de-stressing time. No sooner you've gotten to your destination; you're met with a group of arrogant rowdy males intent on screwing your night out.

They pick on the biggest bloke&#8230; you! With a blink of an eye, one man of the opposition is down and out cold for the count, with a single swift and powerful fist blow to the nose.

Now for the fun bit of analising what has just taken place inside of your killer arm muscles? When you decided that enough was enough, your muscles contracted fully before smashing your opponent's face. So why did I use the adjective "fully" when describing the verb "to contract"? Because there is no such thing as a partially contracted muscle fibre. To reiterate: when your muscle contracts, it contracts completely or not at all. That was fact #1.

Let's move to another element of muscle contraction by using the night out scenario yet again.

Muscle fibre recruitment

It seems that although your powerful punch has made a mess of the rude man's face, it was not enough to intimidate the other gang members into retreat. What to do? Some here might say, well how about punching harder, with more force that would send a clearer message to the angry mob that you really mean business. However, another and a much better and safer option would be to get your mates involved in this dirty and ugly fight. So now we're talking of group involvement rather than getting your hands dirty all by yourself.

Again, let us go back inside our muscular system and see how we're going to translate what I've just written about the group involvement into muscular physiology. Well, when a muscle fatigues or gets exhausted, more muscle fibres are recruited as they are needed, to complete the job at hand. So to sum up the last point, we say if and when a muscle fibre cannot handle the intensity of the load by itself, the central nervous system insures that more muscle fibres come to its aid as is needed to complete the job at hand. That was fact #2.

Did you know that muscle fibres are not able to vary the intensity of their contraction relative to the load against which they are subjected to? That was fact #3.

Let me first explain what the implication of the above statement really means in simple plain English. What this statement is stating is that a muscular contraction cannot get stronger simply because you've added more weight to the bar. I'll give you an example that would clearly illustrate this point.

When I was weightlifting, I used to perform an assistance exercise called clean pulls, it's where you lift the bar off the weightlifting platform in an explosive manner. Now let's say my routine for that workout had called for 5x3 at 180kg. Naturally, I would start with a lighter weight before reaching my max weight for that exercise. It went something like this:

100kg x3

140kg x3

160kg x3

180kg 5x3

Now to look at what was happening inside the muscle fibres again as far as muscle fibre recruitment is concerned. At 100kg, a small percentage of my muscles were recruited by my CNS to lift the weight. Mind you, although a small percentage was recruited, what was recruited was contracting at 100% efficiency/fully (a la fact #1). Now as I progressed up in weight, from 140kg and all the way up to 180kg, more and more muscle fibres became recruited in order for me to blast that weight up explosively. So it was not a case of a stronger contraction of muscle fibres, but rather more of them becoming recruited as needed to help me manage the 180kg (a la fact #2).

Bodybuilding and the best rep range debate.

Check out the internet forums, and you're sure to find the debate is still raging on as to which rep range is best for muscular hypertrophy. They usually go something like this:

1-5 reps = strength & power, little hypertrophy

6-8 reps = strength & hypertrophy

9-12 reps = hypertrophy & some strength

13-20+ reps = local endurance, some hypertrophy, little strength

Some will tell you that low reps with heavier weights are the way to go since muscle growth is dependent on muscle tension under load. Others would say it's not the force that counts, but the sheer volume with less emphasis on heavy weights. Confused yet?! My advice: don't get bogged down with it. I'll attempt to make it clearer why that is... soon enough.

May the FORCE be with you, mmm&#8230; wait, let's change that to EFFORT!

If you're one who follows what I write, then you'd know that I neither belong to the high intensity school of bodybuilding, nor do I belong to the high volume school of thought. Ah, you must belong to the school of TUT, that is Time Under tension, which as they say, should determine your rep range. No, no, and no. I belong rather to the school that places effort above all other criteria when it comes to muscular hypertrophy. So if your wish is to build muscles, then choose whatever rep range you believe works best for you, (I won't argue with you), and then apply full effort to stimulate your muscles into some serious growth. Even if full out effort is applied for only one (usually the last set) out of 3, 4, or whatever, then you will reap the reward that is optimum muscle stimulus (not growth, since that occurs outside the gym as you all know).

I'll let you in on my training philosophy without burdening you with my full program for now. I feel the deal when I restrict my rest periods between sets to between 30-60 seconds max, depending on the exercise at hand. Why such short rest period? It's to do with muscle fibre recruitment, insuring that the muscle fibres that I've just smashed don't get a chance to recover fully. A trained athlete such as I can regain about 75% of his power output after 30 seconds of an all-out effort, and about 85% recovery after 60 seconds. Energy Pathways: Anaerobic and aerobic Energy Pathways

So why is that so important I hear you ask? Well it's important that I commence my subsequent sets prior to when full recovery has taken place in order to place emphasis on stressing the glycolytic energy system (speaking from an Energy Pathways point of view), and to insure recruitment of the larger and more powerful fast twitch muscle fibres according to the critically analised/revised Size Principle (law) by Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli. The Size Principle as Carpinelli puts it is as follows: "The size principle states that when the central nervous system recruits motor units for a specific activity, it begins with the smallest, more easily excited, least powerful motor units and progresses to the larger, more difficult to excite, more powerful motor units to maintain or increase force." Carpinelli views it like this: "Although the size principle is described reasonably accurately, it is often followed by a misunderstanding of the underlying neurophysiological concept and its practical application."

...so in a nutshell, what he's saying is that the original size principle study (by Dr Henneman 1957) has been misunderstood by authors on the subject to mean that heavier is better (or the force/weight was the controlling factor) which Dr. Carpinelli rejects, as he points out that it's the effort and not the resistance that is the controlling factor, saying that the prerequisite for maximum muscle fibre recruitment is determined by the level of effort. THE SIZE PRINCIPLE AND A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OFTHE UNSUBSTANTIATED HEAVIER-IS-BETTER RECOMMENDATION FOR RESISTANCE TRAINING http://www.scsepf.org/doc/291208/Paper1.pdf.

Let me explain/demonstrate it using Dr. Carpinelli's way.

Effort vs. Force


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Muscle Fibre Contraction

It's Saturday night and you and some of your mates and their girlfriends are going out for some de-stressing time. No sooner you've gotten to your destination; you're met with a group of arrogant rowdy males intent on screwing your night out.

They pick on the biggest bloke&#8230; you! With a blink of an eye, one man of the opposition is down and out cold for the count, with a single swift and powerful fist blow to the nose.

Now for the fun bit of analising what has just taken place inside of your killer arm muscles? When you decided that enough was enough, your muscles contracted fully before smashing your opponent's face. So why did I use the adjective "fully" when describing the verb "to contract"? Because there is no such thing as a partially contracted muscle fibre. To reiterate: when your muscle contracts, it contracts completely or not at all. That was fact #1.

Let's move to another element of muscle contraction by using the night out scenario yet again.

Muscle fibre recruitment

It seems that although your powerful punch has made a mess of the rude man's face, it was not enough to intimidate the other gang members into retreat. What to do? Some here might say, well how about punching harder, with more force that would send a clearer message to the angry mob that you really mean business. However, another and a much better and safer option would be to get your mates involved in this dirty and ugly fight. So now we're talking of group involvement rather than getting your hands dirty all by yourself.

Again, let us go back inside our muscular system and see how we're going to translate what I've just written about the group involvement into muscular physiology. Well, when a muscle fatigues or gets exhausted, more muscle fibres are recruited as they are needed, to complete the job at hand. So to sum up the last point, we say if and when a muscle fibre cannot handle the intensity of the load by itself, the central nervous system insures that more muscle fibres come to its aid as is needed to complete the job at hand. That was fact #2.

Did you know that muscle fibres are not able to vary the intensity of their contraction relative to the load against which they are subjected to? That was fact #3.

Let me first explain what the implication of the above statement really means in simple plain English. What this statement is stating is that a muscular contraction cannot get stronger simply because you've added more weight to the bar. I'll give you an example that would clearly illustrate this point.

When I was weightlifting, I used to perform an assistance exercise called clean pulls, it's where you lift the bar off the weightlifting platform in an explosive manner. Now let's say my routine for that workout had called for 5x3 at 180kg. Naturally, I would start with a lighter weight before reaching my max weight for that exercise. It went something like this:

100kg x3

140kg x3

160kg x3

180kg 5x3

Now to look at what was happening inside the muscle fibres again as far as muscle fibre recruitment is concerned. At 100kg, a small percentage of my muscles were recruited by my CNS to lift the weight. Mind you, although a small percentage was recruited, what was recruited was contracting at 100% efficiency/fully (a la fact #1). Now as I progressed up in weight, from 140kg and all the way up to 180kg, more and more muscle fibres became recruited in order for me to blast that weight up explosively. So it was not a case of a stronger contraction of muscle fibres, but rather more of them becoming recruited as needed to help me manage the 180kg (a la fact #2).

Bodybuilding and the best rep range debate.

Check out the internet forums, and you're sure to find the debate is still raging on as to which rep range is best for muscular hypertrophy. They usually go something like this:

1-5 reps = strength & power, little hypertrophy

6-8 reps = strength & hypertrophy

9-12 reps = hypertrophy & some strength

13-20+ reps = local endurance, some hypertrophy, little strength

Some will tell you that low reps with heavier weights are the way to go since muscle growth is dependent on muscle tension under load. Others would say it's not the force that counts, but the sheer volume with less emphasis on heavy weights. Confused yet?! My advice: don't get bogged down with it. I'll attempt to make it clearer why that is... soon enough.

May the FORCE be with you, mmm&#8230; wait, let's change that to EFFORT!

If you're one who follows what I write, then you'd know that I neither belong to the high intensity school of bodybuilding, nor do I belong to the high volume school of thought. Ah, you must belong to the school of TUT, that is Time Under tension, which as they say, should determine your rep range. No, no, and no. I belong rather to the school that places effort above all other criteria when it comes to muscular hypertrophy. So if your wish is to build muscles, then choose whatever rep range you believe works best for you, (I won't argue with you), and then apply full effort to stimulate your muscles into some serious growth. Even if full out effort is applied for only one (usually the last set) out of 3, 4, or whatever, then you will reap the reward that is optimum muscle stimulus (not growth, since that occurs outside the gym as you all know).

I'll let you in on my training philosophy without burdening you with my full program for now. I feel the deal when I restrict my rest periods between sets to between 30-60 seconds max, depending on the exercise at hand. Why such short rest period? It's to do with muscle fibre recruitment, insuring that the muscle fibres that I've just smashed don't get a chance to recover fully. A trained athlete such as I can regain about 75% of his power output after 30 seconds of an all-out effort, and about 85% recovery after 60 seconds. Energy Pathways: Anaerobic and aerobic Energy Pathways

So why is that so important I hear you ask? Well it's important that I commence my subsequent sets prior to when full recovery has taken place in order to place emphasis on stressing the glycolytic energy system (speaking from an Energy Pathways point of view), and to insure recruitment of the larger and more powerful fast twitch muscle fibres according to the critically analised/revised Size Principle (law) by Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli. The Size Principle as Carpinelli puts it is as follows: "The size principle states that when the central nervous system recruits motor units for a specific activity, it begins with the smallest, more easily excited, least powerful motor units and progresses to the larger, more difficult to excite, more powerful motor units to maintain or increase force." Carpinelli views it like this: "Although the size principle is described reasonably accurately, it is often followed by a misunderstanding of the underlying neurophysiological concept and its practical application."

...so in a nutshell, what he's saying is that the original size principle study (by Dr Henneman 1957) has been misunderstood by authors on the subject to mean that heavier is better (or the force/weight was the controlling factor) which Dr. Carpinelli rejects, as he points out that it's the effort and not the resistance that is the controlling factor, saying that the prerequisite for maximum muscle fibre recruitment is determined by the level of effort. THE SIZE PRINCIPLE AND A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OFTHE UNSUBSTANTIATED HEAVIER-IS-BETTER RECOMMENDATION FOR RESISTANCE TRAINING http://www.scsepf.org/doc/291208/Paper1.pdf.

Let me explain/demonstrate it using Dr. Carpinelli's way.

Effort vs. Force


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

I've been training HIT Yates style for the last 3 months, 1 working set per exercise, 8-12 reps

I've made more gains in strength and size in the last 4 years since I've been training

We are all different and finding what works for you is the key!


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Allow me to demonstrate to you how muscular effort rather than force, (weight on the bar) is the controlling factor in causing maximum muscle fibre recruitment. Yes, that's the slow twitch (Type I) muscle fibres and fast-twitch Type IIa and Type IIb fibres all joining in the party.

Please take a look at the photo of Larry Scott performing the exercise he made famous. Now let us just pretend for a moment that Larry is curling 40kg. Let us further pretend that he's actually applying the isometric principle (where the weight is static) and that (as in the photo), he's holding the bar at its most difficult position for the working biceps; at an elbow angle of 90 degrees. We've assumed that the weight on the bar is 40kg, and we know that for Larry to hold that weight stationary, his muscles would have to be applying an effort of exactly 40kg to maintain that static position, or else the bar would begin to travel up or down. Now as time elapses, Larry would have to apply more and more effort to that bar in order for him to keep it from dropping. So now we know that although the force (weight) has remained constant at 40kg, the effort applied by Larry's biceps has changed/has increased over time (relative to the weight feeling heavier and heavier), or else that bar would have dropped. Are you with me? So after a given time (say 60 seconds or so), the muscular effort would decrease (as the recruited muscle fibres get fatigued) to such an extent that would not allow Larry to maintain 40kg of effort to match the weight of that bar, resulting in the termination of the set. You can bet that at the peak of muscular effort (that is at or near maximum effort), all the muscle fibres were joining the party&#8230; of muscle fibre recruitment/or involvement a la fact #2 (remember those thugs)!

Just in case, (just in case) you're having some problem wrapping your head around this, believing that the weight (and not the effort) was the controlling factor in achieving maximum muscle fibre recruitment, I say this: let's say you could go on holding that 40kg for 60 seconds, but you decided to stop at 30, would you have achieved maximum muscle fibre involvement? The answer is no, you would not have. Okay then, why? I mean the weight (which you believed was the controlling factor) has not changed, it was still 40kg, so why didn't it manage to cause for you full muscle fibre involvement? The answer is simply because you, (starting with your brain, where effort is initiated by the way) have decided to call it quits. You've called it quits at 30 seconds by deciding to stop applying more and more effort to that dead 40kg weight.

The Best Bodybuilding Method of All Times&#8230; really?!

At 20, I used to think I was Mr. Invincible (just like most other 20 year olds), But as time passes by and one gets older (and hopefully wiser), one realises that there's more to building muscles than simply pushing the heavies around. Now approaching 47, I have my heart and joints to consider when designing a bodybuilding program. If you happen to favour one method of training above all other methods; be it high volume, HIT, training to failure, and all other methods in between, please consider the fact that each method has its advocates and World Champions. Having said that, you'd always get the ignorant and the arrogant not only claiming that their method is the best, but they find it necessary to put other methods down in the process. Imagine this "guru" walking up to freaky Lee Priest or the Austrian oak (in his hey days) and insulting them for using high volume training, accusing them of being sissies and telling them how much inferior their method is compared to his! Or we can have it the other way around, where one feels the need to abuse Dorian Yates and the late Mike Mentzer and their followers for advocating their method of HIT. I hope we can rise above such short sightedness ladies and gentlemen, and show only respect and admiration to all Champions and their followers irrespective of method/s used.

Let's finish off with yet another study that may challenge the way you have thought about things weight related. Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men. Don't forget to check out the comment section, I found it very interesting indeed. PLoS ONE: Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men

Take home message: choose the rep range/s that you're convinced is best for you; choose the method/s that you feel comfortable with, but whichever rep range or method you choose (though I'd personally vary both), consistency of effort is the way and will always be the way to bring out the beast that is hiding inside of you. Do not be intimidated by anyone's method, and certainly don't feel that you need to lift very heavy weights (possibly risking an injury) just so you can please some and feel that you "belong". Be your own athlete and know what works best for you and what you respond to the best.

I wish you all the very best with your health and training. It's over to you now...


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

yannyboy said:


> I've been training HIT Yates style for the last 3 months, 1 working set per exercise, 8-12 reps
> 
> I've made more gains in strength and size in the last 4 years since I've been training
> 
> We are all different and finding what works for you is the key!


To be honest, there is something about HIT. What I found is that all pro bodybuilders, pretty much ramp their sets:

so they do

Bench press: 5 sets - 8-10 reps

Set 1: 30 kg x 10

Set 2: 60 kg x 10

Set 3: 90 kg x 10

Set 4: 120 kg x 9

Set 5: 130 kg x 7-8

So they ramp up to their last working set and go to concentric failure on that last set. Funny enough, when people see their routines they think that 5 sets x 8-10 on bench press is done with the same weight


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

arthuroarti said:


> Muscle Fibre Contraction
> 
> It's Saturday night and you and some of your mates and their girlfriends are going out for some de-stressing time. No sooner you've gotten to your destination; you're met with a group of arrogant rowdy males intent on screwing your night out.
> 
> ...


Jesu Christ do you always write in a story scenario? Or are these saved on your computer like a template ready to copy and paste


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

yannyboy said:


> I've been training HIT Yates style for the last 3 months, 1 working set per exercise, 8-12 reps
> 
> I've made more gains in strength and size in the last 4 years since I've been training
> 
> We are all different and finding what works for you is the key!


So you have made more progress that way than the last 4 years?

Do you ever take a deload week on that type of training?


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

ash1981 said:


> So you have made more progress that way than the last 4 years?
> 
> Do you ever take a deload week on that type of training?


Yes, I normally have a deload week after about 8-10 weeks


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

yannyboy said:


> Yes, I normally have a deload week after about 8-10 weeks


Do you train alone with that style or have a spot/ partner?


----------



## BoxerJay (Jan 11, 2011)

Plenty of olympic weightlifters and wrestlers (Actual wrestling, not WWE sh*t) who can lift huge amounts for their size, I believe it's something to do with your CNS? And training it to recruit more muscle fibres.

EDIT: ^ Big f*ck off post up there, read that.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

In for reading later


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

I used to worry about what rep range is best, what routine is best, what exercise selection is best, I think it's all meaningless unless u put a bit of heart and soul into it!! Effort is key IMO no matter which way u train!!

I train mostly compounds and I use different rep ranges, but I try and make whatever I do worth ****ing doing otherwise I might as well be sat on my ar5e watching eastenders!!

It's liberating not limiting myself to one routine or set of rep ranges, if I fancy doing a one rep max, I'll do that but I'll usually follow up with 3x5 or 4x12 or 2x20 or whatever I fancy at the time. Might not be optimal, scientific or whatever but I'm hitting PB's still and I'm still progressing physically so I'm happy!!


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

ash1981 said:


> Do you train alone with that style or have a spot/ partner?


I train alone, just get a spot on certain exercises!


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

Do you follow Yates routine then


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

ash1981 said:


> Do you follow Yates routine then


Certainly do!


----------



## Ash1981 (Jun 16, 2009)

Just confusing me even more

Lol


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

I just had some great posts in a thread on tut with dtlv

Here is my take on bodybuilding. Strength is simpler as its less concerned with size..

Effort counts and here is how to get it. It's a combination of TUT/reps/rest

To get maximal effort, you need TUT (30-40 seconds for growth)

Rep ranges should be so your effort maxes out in 6-12 range (depending in muscle group)

This is why you see 6-8 or 8-12 touted by every magazine

Rest. 60-90 seconds depending on muscle group this is the formula for growth


----------



## Fitness4Life (Mar 15, 2013)

This thread was pure gold, plenty of great posts in it. I certainly learned a thing or two and applying it starting this week. Thankfully reading this on a Sunday night so tomorrow is start of a new week. Here's to progress focusing on the effort not so much the weight. Thanks very much everyone


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

I think the thing that people need to look at is this is posted under 'advanced bodybuilding' so the higher reps lower weight would probably be fine for most advanced people.

if a beginner read this who can only bench 40kg for 5 reps, might think ok from now on I'll do 25kg for 8-10 reps, thinking he'll become big by doing that.

So I think it needs putting into perspective, I consider myself still a begineer after 1 year of training, and think strength should be built up alongside rep training so once you reach the advanced stage you will have a decent base to build from and be able to lift heavy enough weights to see gains from higher rep training.


----------



## littlesimon (May 24, 2010)

My honest opinion is many could do with working on their strength for a while before fannying about with advanced techniques that they won't really get much out of.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

I would recommend anyone who ONLY trains in the 8-12 zone to do this for a month.

On chest day warm up to a 3 rep max (by this I mean the most you can lift with good form, normally where the bar speed slows down to 50% of a typical work set of 8 reps). Now continue as normally.

On leg day do this for squat. On back day do this for rows. Shoulders, OHP.

I bet within 4 weeks, ALL you lifts would have increased on the your work sets. Or improved more than they normally would on most.


----------



## Robbie789 (Sep 6, 2012)

Get strong, then get big.


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

I never train for less than 6 reps ever, if I can't get 6 reps, it's too heavy

Once I get 8 reps(10 on legs), I add more weight


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

with strength comes size

if you want pure size youre gonna be doing hypertrophy training; roughly 8-12reps for sets

to progress.. what do you need to do?

-increase the weight.. youre not gonna increase the reps out of that range so much because you'd be training an ineffective way compared to staying inside 8-12 , for size

So in a sense.. yes

strength = size


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

oh and IMO smart BB's will do a mixture of rep/set/weight/speed variations..

I do a mix of HIT, Volume, Strength, Hypertrophy.. depending on time of year, goals etc

keep the body guessing and you'll stagnate less often


----------



## Angelica85 (Feb 26, 2013)

Thanks for really interesting post, for building muscles we do exercises and by using natural supplements not only increase the strength but also offer great health benefits to us.


----------



## Snorbitz1uk (Sep 21, 2005)

i am at my smallest i have been for 15 years, but look better and have a lot more strength than ever. i have changed my training to 10/6/4/2/1 then rep out for most things, lifts has increased by loads in the 4 weeks i have been doing it.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Matt 1 said:


> oh and IMO smart BB's will do a mixture of rep/set/weight/speed variations..
> 
> I do a mix of HIT, Volume, Strength, Hypertrophy.. depending on time of year, goals etc
> 
> keep the body guessing and you'll stagnate less often


Whilst I hate the phrase, 'keep your body guessing' I totally agree with coverally all bases and variety.

I mix strength, volume and endurance. Because they all help one another.


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

I think the last 2 posts just sum it up, do what works for yourself, if it's working, stick with it!


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> yes of course, i have found over the years the optimum rep range to build muscle tissue is 8-10 reps i could probably lift more if i did less reps


Do you include legs in this optimum rep range or are they different for you mate?

Edited to say I see you posted further down that you answered that question


----------

