• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Training for size, studys heavily supports training with higher intensity/reps.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bazza20 said:
This is a load of crap that new wannabe bodybuilders like to sprout off. Training for strength can and does lead to development. Not saying its the only way but it is most definitely one way to do it.
Click to expand...

Also, not a load of crap, tons of studys prove you wrong. Sure training for str will build you some muscle, but if you want to be a competitive bodybuilder some day you gotta stop kidding yourself.
 
pumpiniron said:
Theres studies shown in the thread shown.
Click to expand...

So that is everything? Have you read said studies in entirety? Do you know how to critically dissect a study? Have you looked for studies that run contrary to your hypothesis? If not don't use studies to back your statement.

I am not against the point (besides you thinking you can't gain significant mass when still training for strength as a primary goal) i am against you using someone else's knowledge as the be all and end all and then thinking and acting like you know the details behind it.

Volume (which in turn means time under tension) builds mass when sufficient calories and nutrients are present. Smaller volume normally means less size. Getting more TUT normally means more size. Not revolutionary, but you have to remember not everyone wants to be a competitive bodybuilder and a lot do it for overall function (size, strength, looks, health etc).
 
I'm pretty much a complete novice, but i've been training for just under a year now. And from my experience so far on a strength program, i've grown quite alot. i've put on around 20kg in 8 months and all of my lifts have skyrocketed, i know that either way this would of all probably happened if i stuck to it, but i feel that it does depend on the person doing the program. And it would be lie to say my muscles haven't developed. I've built a fairly decent chest from bench and dips. I doubt it would of made much difference if i had a full chest day, same with legs with squats and back with deads.
 
pumpiniron said:
Body "types" suited for bodybuilding, weight lifting, and powerlifting are much more distinct than people realize. However each can use a viable Hybrid form of training, borrowing from each other to enhance any of the goals relevant to each pursuit. So of course bodybuilders still squat etc, as do weightlifters and powerlifters. But the mode of training would be better determined by the body type of the trainee and the specific goals. The one dimensional “strength first” approach tends to negate the individuality which also requires evaluation. The bone structure of the weight lifter is easy to separate from that of the powerlifter, and both are distinct again from that of the bodybuilder. By example, a wide hip structure denotes a better base of power for weightlifters and powerlifters, usually allowing for greater strength expression for them in say, the squat. But the narrow waist and hips of the bodybuilder would not give him the same power base from which to develop raw max low rep strength.

When I dropped the weight and increased the reps and sets for more time under tension, my legs exploded in growth. This led to the above conclusion as well. Not only are some rep ranges better for specific effect, but I was never going to be “low rep strong(by powerlifting standards)” in the squat, because I had a very small waist and narrow hips. And this led to another conclusion. The training methods of low rep strength for someone who already has the wide hips for that power base only further enhances that effect. In other words, show me someone who regularly squats more than twice their bodyweight in training for very low reps, and I’ll show you a lack of results in terms of development and big hips and a wide waist (except genetic freaks and steroid abusers of course).

So while strength athletes and athletes of all kinds may indeed implement the same types of moves or exercises, doing so with the same mentality in terms of max strength, while having different goals, and different body types, is an obvious mistake. We see in the real world of training for development that the “max strength” approach is not appropriate and may indeed be applicable only to those people born with a certain genetic profile. However, the research also bears out the fact that while training for max strength may not yield much development for us regular folk; training for development does indeed lead eventually to increased max strength improvement.

It seems, in fact, that how much you lift is not nearly as important as how hard you lift. The “heavier is better” argument is actually a myth that prevents many of us from getting results in terms of physique enhancements. Researcher Atha, in 1981 concluded from a review of research, “from these studies, one begins to believe that the importance of load magnitude may have been exaggerated.”

And in 1995, David Behm’s research was more direct. His research article “Neuromuscular Implications and Applications of Resistance Training” came to the following sound conclusion so important to those of you interested in developing a better physique: “Maximum strength training methods with their high intensity resistance but low volume of work do NOT elicit substantial muscle hypertrophy.” His research some 10 years later served to reinforce this conclusion as well.

Now if you think you are doing something right because you do more sets with low reps, and lots of weight, this is still a mistake. Your 10 sets of 3, is still only 30 reps, just like 3 sets of 10. As Behm further concludes, “Therefore a higher volume of work, (greater than 6 reps, with multiple sets) [emphasis and references are his] is needed to ensure a critical concentration of intracellular amino acids to stimulate protein synthesis” (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1995: p271) (see also Tesch and Larson, “Muscle Hypertrophy in Bodybuilders” 1982; and Tesch, in Komi 1992).

I like to use the example of Tom Platz and "Dr. Squat" Fred Hatfield. Tom Platz had the first set of truly freaky legs at the Olympia level. Fred Hatfield was the first man to ever squat 1,000 lbs. Fred Hatfield’s legs development couldn’t win a local bodybuilding contest at the time. And Tom Platz was never, ever going to be able to squat 1,000 lbs. Clearly a contradiction of prevailing theory. See Tom used squats for leg training, Fred trained for squat limit strength of 1RM. (Tom’s focus was to train the muscles, not the movement; Fred trained for the execution of the movement solely.) And the funny thing here is that Fred Hatfield himself, at the time said, “there is never a reason to do single rep 1RM lifts in training.” He also said, “the legs are relatively inactive in the Powerlifting squat.” Now coming from the first man to squat 1,000 lbs, Fred truly understood the principles at work. If anyone would ever have a paradigm blindness toward limit strength training expression, it should have been Fred. But he understood the principles on a deeper level. And these statements are correct for 90% of trainees, 90% of the time. And as a coach, that 90 percentile is my wheelhouse for application.

So how is this confusion possible when so many of you are told to train to get “strong” with low reps, and development will come? Well the answer lies in a misapplication of what is known as “the size principle” of muscle recruitment.
Click to expand...

Its well known that higher reps at a higher intensity produces greater hypertrophy results. Even powerlifters recognise this and apply the knowledge appropriately in their assistance training, so I am wondering what you're trying to imply with this post.
 
pumpiniron said:
Success leaves clues, look at every past my olympia and see how they trained.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://youtu.be/QKEYG5Y3U0g]RONNIE COLEMAN - 360 kls (800 pounds) - YouTube[/ame]
Here is Ronnie Coleman training for strength? kind of contradicts what you're saying doesnt it?
 
Lets be clear here, Some of them may have done powerlifting style training very early on and everything else in between however, their physiques were built with bodybuilding.

Arnold didn't get the pump by doing 3 reps :D
 
Last edited:
Bazza20 said:
Many ways to build muscle. The OP saying chasing strength doesn't build muscle is just a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, even with good form you're not going to be able to lift heavy without building some muscle.

But i think for everyone basically you need a combination for getting best results and i would argue even bodybuilders train many different ways throughout the year, so during an off season they when in cal surplus they would be more inclined to lift heavy with lower reps and when cutting do more of higher volume lower weight high rep training, not saying this is the only way but i would think that most would change it up at various stages throughout their training and get the best of everything.
 
Darkoz said:
Lets be clear here, Some of them may have done powerlifting style training very early on and everything else in between however, their physiques were built with bodybuilding.

Arnold didn't get the pump by doing 3 reps :D
Click to expand...

Most at the top tried everything.

Dave draper built his physique on high volume, Casey viator built his on an abbreviated routine, mentzer.
Arnold? Who knows.
The common thread with these blokes was their work ethic and their genetics.

Nothing to do with the system or program.
 
People keep wasting their time trying to have this discussion on here. Half this place has their head stuck in a fuckin bucket and are completely disinterested in what is happening outside of said bucket.

For anyone who can see a bit of light from outside their bucket, here's how it really is

1. Training for strength will build muscle.

2. Training for development will improve strength.

3. For maximal power transfer to the bar, you need to train specifically for it. There are far more factors involved than the potential power output of the primemover muscle group.

4. For maximal development, you need to train specifically for it. All the other factors involved in moving a bar need to be eradicated as much as possible.

5. Arguing about shit on the internet is not only catabolic, it taxes your nervous system and your strong leaks out.

6. Pull that fuckin bucket back down and go lift something.
 
Goosey said:
Most at the top tried everything.

The common thread with these blokes was steriods and their genetics.

Nothing to do with the system or program.
Click to expand...

Fluffy beat me to this....

But I feel that genetics is the number one factor!!! Followed by the who ever has the most effective steriod regime...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top