Rip teaches more strength bias because he's trying to build football players.
he's in texas. they love big guys who play football. he's trying to turn shrimp 17 yr old kids in high school to eat and lift so they can be linebackers.
so they need strength.
'IST just wants girls to like them , or at least not be horrified by them . so basically CICO to lose weight and some hypertrophy so they look less disgusting
Even if you fell for the meme, he routinely complains about how he's not trying to train football players, he's trying to train your decrepit grandma who can't pull herself up off the toilet
>Israetel goes so far as to say hypertrophy-oriented lifters don't need dedicated strength training periods AT ALL.
That's pretty common sense THOUGH. If you only care about hypertrophy then why not just get stronger in 8-12 reps where you'll be spending your time? No point in doing fahves.
Yes
[...]
Why is this radical? I don't get the counterargument.
>Why is this radical? I don't get the counterargument.
Rippetoe says there's no such thing as hypertrophy training, that the studies are all BS, and that sets of favh are the best for strength AND size:
His techniques are pretty legit if the goal is to reach failure time on tension can achieve same results as explosive power on high volume minus the injury risk, after reading and watching his shit I started implementing it in my workout where I do warm up set, high volume set, than focus on concentric movement with long pause both fully stretched and fully flexed on my last set, let's see what kind of gains I can get
Either way, absolutely LMAO @ wanting hypertrophy without strength. Like literally what's the point of being big if it's not to be strong?
Bodybuilders are mentally ill homosexuals.
what's muscle density then?
homosexual stfu i outlift every single roider at my gym
ive never seen any of these guys, despite looking like mr olympia lift anywhere as heavy as me
i wasn't arguing about that and no bigger muscles are bad for your health
humans aren't made for hypertrophy training
humans do endurance and strength and aren't supposed to be bulky muscle monsters.
we are mammals and literally got fat and fasted during the winter at the dawn of our existence.
fermenting, salting, smokiing and other curing methods and seeds are what made the human quit his winter "hibernation" and become active throughout the year.
you're supposed to get fat until winter and then lose all the weight, then hunt in spring and refresh your aminos.
Modern society lives in abundance of calories. None of what you say applies to the modern human. The very systems we evolved to help us survive periods of starvation are the same systems that are now the leading causes of our deaths in the modern age.
Muscle absorbs sugar, reduces injury, provides a much needed well of amino acids for the body to feed on during long periods of illness, capilliarizes the entire body which increases the body's ability to transfer blood and nutrients to any tissue, and is second only to vo2 max in terms of things that exist that reduce your chances of death.
Strength matters very little in our modern world, especially because in the pursuit of muscle mass, one will also gain plenty of strength with also the benefit of muscle mass. Vo2 max is the single greatest reducer of mortality there is.
9 months ago
Anonymous
no sources provided whilst every single source links greater muscle mass with early death xD
sry bro you're fricking moronic
also if you hold a shitton of water in your body that's a looooot of salt and that's why everyone's hearts are fricked
you're supposed to cleanse your body off water periodically and then refill. every single religion and culture in the world has some type of fast. in orthodox Christianity there's even "keto weeks" before fasts stfu you moronic monkey
fasting literally been proven to cure almost every single mental disease
additionally it stops cancers from growing
you're not supposed TO GROW ALL THE TIME
being anabolic all the time is incredibly unhealthy
now stfu monkey Black personmoron
9 months ago
Anonymous
Medical sources:
https://compurocare.com/muscle-matters-10-health-benefits-of-increased-muscle-mass/
aha nice journalist articles with linked products in seo text to increase sales
you've fallen to a marketing scheme, friend
9 months ago
Anonymous
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035379/
https://blog.insidetracker.com/longevity-by-design-william-evans
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/muscle-mass-beats-bmi-as-longevity-predictor1/
Simply put, the more muscles people have, the longer they live. Except for when people have excessive amount of muscles because of peds. But even in that case, people who roid in the usa live longer than people who don't. The ones who do sport and don't do roids live the longest.
All studies on muscle mass show the same result. So can you explain why statistics shows tgat your reasoning is absolutely wrong?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Soviet "Christianity"(tm) fully by the KGB and central committee
yikes, western sovietboo are the worst
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Every religion >The workers are eating to much food it may not last until favourable conditions return how can we solve this >Let's introduce calorie restriction BUT attach it to religion to be more accepted by the poor
9 months ago
Anonymous
>second only to vo2 max in terms of things that exist that reduce your chances of death. >Vo2 max is the single greatest reducer of mortality there is.
Another Attiacel who doesn't realize those stats aren't adjusted for age kek.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Heart disease is the number one killer and the way to prevent it is to work out the heart.
Cancer is a problem with genetics and the environment and is so far not something you can control with any great degree of certainty other than avoiding certain things.
If you have a strong heart, you'll likely also have muscles that are at least strong enough to have a substantial positive effect on your body, just due to the shear volume your muscles are getting.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Cancer is a problem with genetics and the environment and is so far not something you can control with any great degree of certainty other than avoiding certain things.
Cancer can be controlled through not going into a hypometabolic state (Broda Barnes definition). Keep waking armpit temps around 98.6F and your good.
>If you have a strong heart, you'll likely also have muscles that are at least strong enough to have a substantial positive effect on your body, just due to the shear volume your muscles are getting.
[...]
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Cancer can be controlled through not going into a hypometabolic state
fitizen solves cancer by coping as hard as he can and keeping his armpits warm
9 months ago
Anonymous
>fitizen solves cancer by coping as hard as he can and keeping his armpits warm
Science™ believer copes by licking boots as hard as he can and doesn't know about the Warburg effect while guzzling seed oils.
9 months ago
Anonymous
call me when you can preferentially starve a particular cell in your body, we'll make a billion dollars
>we are mammals and literally got fat and fasted during the winter at the dawn of our existence.
During the winter at the dawn of our existence on the African savanna?
no sources provided whilst every single source links greater muscle mass with early death xD
sry bro you're fricking moronic
also if you hold a shitton of water in your body that's a looooot of salt and that's why everyone's hearts are fricked
you're supposed to cleanse your body off water periodically and then refill. every single religion and culture in the world has some type of fast. in orthodox Christianity there's even "keto weeks" before fasts stfu you moronic monkey
fasting literally been proven to cure almost every single mental disease
additionally it stops cancers from growing
you're not supposed TO GROW ALL THE TIME
being anabolic all the time is incredibly unhealthy
now stfu monkey Black personmoron
>fasting literally been proven to cure almost every single mental disease
Are you fasttards this moronic?
>homosexual stfu i outlift every single roider at my gym
that's because you run ego lifting peaking programs, while they focus on hypertrophy
their strength progress is a passive result of increased size, your strength potential is a deliberate result of CNS ego jerking
insecure actual moron
Either way, absolutely LMAO @ wanting hypertrophy without strength. Like literally what's the point of being big if it's not to be strong?
Bodybuilders are mentally ill homosexuals.
>not running a peaking program = you don't care about strength
holy frick dude actually have a nice day
how do you survive, being so stupid?
the answer to both those questions is that they doesn't affect muscle density at all.
the water goes in between the muscles, the adaptation just means your neuromusculature is getting better at understanding that you want the muscles to get bigger.
9 months ago
Anonymous
wrong on both
water goes INTO the cells. More water in cells=less dense muscle. That is why there are certain compounds people take specifically for this purpose
with neuromuscular adaptation, you are actually building new structures like mitochondria within the muscle cells, which increases the density.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>More water in cells=less dense muscle
sounds like you have no water in your brain cells
That’s so untrue. The bigger a muscle is, the more potential for strength it has. You still need to do strength training to actually create that strength.
he's right though, do you not know how the CNS works? strength in a particular lift is a highly specific skill above all else
literally just CNSmaxxing at the cost of missing out on hypertrophy
quit saying CNS maxxing and talking about it because it makes you look even more moronic than you are.
Strength is motor unit recruitment. A stronger person will be able to do more with less muscle as laid out here
https://i.imgur.com/QjIebKE.jpg
more muscle = more strength
strength training = more strength per unit of muscle
Strength training is only good if you want to be as small as possible.
There is so much more to this as well and most people are too moronic to even parse hanneman's size principle properly and don't realize that you can grow strength and increase motor unit recruitment by taking type 1 fibers to failure, but this is out of the scope of the argument because this is going into intermediate levels of exercise science and you can't seem to grasp even beginner levels of it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
and what do you think is responsible for modifying your motor unit recruitment? it's the efficiency of your nervous system in relation to the movement pattern
you're literally just tricking your neurology into activating more motor units by doing high frequency low fatigue moderate/high intensity routines
strength training is just actuating your strength potential by enabling the recruitment of more muscle tissue through neurological adaptations
do you really think the jacked 300lb roided up bodybuilders are activating 100% of their motor units every time they lift? frick no lmao they'd snap their tendons
you're unaware of how specificity actually works, dude >look at this pic i found from google bro you're wrong
grow up
9 months ago
Anonymous
>strength training is just actuating your strength potential by enabling the recruitment of more muscle tissue through neurological adaptations
if that was true then you'd be able to become explosive from strength training, which you can't. Neurology muscular efficiency is mostly genetic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you'd be able to become explosive from strength training, which you can't
t. never interacted with any college football players
all they do in the off season is powerlifting
why?
because the increase of muscle mass + neurological efficiency results in greater responses to plyometric-style training
what fricking point are you even trying to make? lmao
9 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry that you studied a bullshit exercise science degree. Football players and their S&C coaches are moronic. They are explosive from their genetics not their training. Training produces a slight improvement in explosivenesd at most. Good jumpers, olympic weightlifters, sprinters, etc are born not made.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Football players and their S&C coaches are moronic. They are explosive from their genetics not their training
absolute genelet cope lmao
>citing a startingstrength article as a source
imagine listening to some BBC cuck fetishist who has a PHD in "yeah just trust me bro" and causes his lifters to all look like picrel
fricking clown
9 months ago
Anonymous
>absolute genelet cope lmao
Can you deadlift 650?
9 months ago
Anonymous
god damn I'm taking the leanpill what an absolute butchery of his appearance
9 months ago
Anonymous
imagine making fun of rip while being incapable of understanding the most basic article and believing everything S&C journals out out because "muh science" while simultaneously having a sub 4pl8 squat.
Their sets and reps are hypertrophic programs. Even though the article says strength and power, it's hypertrophy. It's mass, because mass beats efficiency 10 times out of 10, that's why in the UFC when a fighter is 3 pounds heavier than the other fighter when they weigh them, that 3 pounds of extra mass guarantees a win almost every time, because mass is king. You have no idea what you're talking about.
9 months ago
Anonymous
What you are saying is true except the part about the UFC, the UFC has the worst weigh in system, it forces fighters to be completely starved, emaciated, and dehydrated to make weight, which is why its not uncommon to see a fighter gain 20+lbs after weigh in before the fight.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'm making the argument that mass trumps muscle efficiency in terms of strength.
A smaller guy with more relative strength will be weaker than a big guy with more total strength. Strength training is specifically non hypertrophic, you'll gain some muscle but nowhere near as much as if you'd gained it from a hypertrophy standpoint, and you'll be much more stronger in that you'll be able to lift much more weight.
The strong guy is impressive because he looks like a twig and can lift many times his bodyweight. The big guy is impressive because he can lift 3-4x what that strong guy can lift, but it's not impressive when you look at strength to weight ratio.
It's so crazy why people can't understand this.
9 months ago
Anonymous
People understand the strength to weight ratio, it's just that people don't really care, proportionally all the strongest lifters are 5ft tall european or chinese manlets, impressive yes but also nobody cares, its way more entertaining to see big guys lift big weight.
9 months ago
Anonymous
i will concede to the fact that these athletes prioritize muscle mass over neurological efficiency, but this only proves my original point: that maximum strength potential requires peaking, which is the process of enhancing your neurological efficiency on a movement pattern to recruit the maximum amount of potential motor units, or muscle tissue
people think that powerlifting programs are some type of magic, when all they do is prioritize optimization in a movement pattern over the course of a few months/weeks with submaximal high intensity low fatigue training
the maximum potential strength output provided from this training relies on the muscle mass that exists in the first place, more muscle mass to be recruited = greater strength potential
you can build base strength passively, just from building more muscle, but your absolute maximum strength potential is dictated by your neurological efficiency in a movement pattern, AKA maximum motor unit recruitment, which must be deliberately activated with a sort of peaking program
anybody who disagrees simply does not know how the human body works
more muscle will always equal more strength, however maximum strength, the process of recruiting all motor units at their maximum potential, requires peaking, which is deliberate neurological optimization
why the frick are you people even trying to argue this? go ask any powerlifter how both peaking and strength potential work together on a biological basis, and they'll all say the same shit
are you one of those "sleeper build" zoomzooms who wants to build strength without gaining size?
all you'll do is hit your current max potential, and then plateau until you build more mass
9 months ago
Anonymous
god damn this post made my eyes glaze over
should I just roid and train like pic related?
9 months ago
Anonymous
tldr: if you wanna get strong as frick, you gotta get big as frick
but if you wanna hit your true maximum 100% strength potential, then you need to run some gay boring powerlifting peaking program to max out your neurological efficiency
it's not worth, just stick to hypertrophy
imagine scenario a: being able to bench 405 at any point in time because you're fricking huge
vs scenario b: only being able to bench 405 after an 8 week peaking program because all you ever do is run strength programs and lack muscle mass
why even bother? just get big
9 months ago
Anonymous
>but if you wanna hit your true maximum 100% strength potential, then you need to run some gay boring powerlifting peaking program to max out your neurological efficiency
yeah I don't give a shit about that I just want to be big and strong
9 months ago
Anonymous
pure hypertrophy
just eat whatever you want
9 months ago
Anonymous
Pure Hypertrophy training as a natty novice? GTFO
9 months ago
Anonymous
guy he was talking to here I'm actually at the end of my linear progression.
9 months ago
Anonymous
What are your lifts? How long did it take?
9 months ago
Anonymous
powerlifting programs focus on mass and mass alone, it is not a strength training program, it is actually both hypertrophic and strength training. It's not magic, it's just bloatmaxxing.
The only reason you would want to focus purely on strength training is that if you have to make weight. Strength training alone is not good and you even admitted it, you will plateau because you aren't gaining any extra muscle. Motor unit recruitment and neurological as well as other physiological changes happen in hypertrophy programs that allow the lifter to gain massive amounts of strength.
You should be able to show me a real life example of what you're talking about. Or even a study.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>do you really think the jacked 300lb roided up bodybuilders are activating 100% of their motor units every time they lift?
yes, they are 100% and it's confirmed by science.
You are what I referred to here as being too moronic to understand the size principle
we figured this out way before even science started looking at studying athletes. You just exercise and keep doing it and keep up with fueling your body. That's it.
It's been overcomplicated to sell workout programs and supplements. What Mike is saying actually conforms to the original idea, you will gain plenty of strength doing a hypertrophy routine, the only time strength training is beneficial is during your first year, then you can focus on hypertrophy and get much stronger than if you would have if you just focused on strength training. Hypertrophy training gives you the best of all 3 facets of muscle adaptation
You are actually too stupid to argue with, you have interpreted the size principle wrong because you haven't actually studied it, you just googled it and looked at the wikipedia article and did not understand exactly what it said.
Your body will recruit muscle fibers given that the demand meets it, this is achieved by doing more reps. You can do it in one rep if you want, but you can also do it in 20, 30, 10000 reps if you want. The only difference between these two protocols is that the strength protocol will result in less muscle mass built but more relative strength and the hypertrophy protocol will result in more muscle and thus more total strength
It really is amazing at how fricking stupid you are and how little you know.
9 months ago
Anonymous
> yes, they are 100% and it's confirmed by science.
Ok both of you are wrong and stupid. Neither of you understands what neural muscular efficiency or explosiveness is, or why men outlift women.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The reason why men outlift women is the same reason why brian shaw outlifts you. More muscle mass, post your sources for your schizophrenia or shut the frick up
>why men outlift women
more tesosterone, that's it, hormonal difference
>do you really think the jacked 300lb roided up bodybuilders are activating 100% of their motor units every time they lift?
yes, they are 100% and it's confirmed by science.
You are what I referred to here as being too moronic to understand the size principle
[...]
You are actually too stupid to argue with, you have interpreted the size principle wrong because you haven't actually studied it, you just googled it and looked at the wikipedia article and did not understand exactly what it said.
Your body will recruit muscle fibers given that the demand meets it, this is achieved by doing more reps. You can do it in one rep if you want, but you can also do it in 20, 30, 10000 reps if you want. The only difference between these two protocols is that the strength protocol will result in less muscle mass built but more relative strength and the hypertrophy protocol will result in more muscle and thus more total strength
It really is amazing at how fricking stupid you are and how little you know.
> the strength protocol will result in less muscle mass built but more relative strength
so explain the biological procedures behind this?
explain exactly what causes this to happen >strength makes you stronger because uhhhh it just does bro
explain further? >because you recruit more motor units n sheeeit
that's *exactly* what i'm saying, what do you think causes the enhance motor unit engagement to occur? neurological adaptations
yes, there are mild variations in sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar muscle tissue depending on the intensity and rep ranges used, but strength training as a whole relies heavily on neurological efficiency
this is why bodybuilders will feel more localized muscle soreness after a difficult squat session, while powerlifters feel more generalized fatigue, the powerlifters tax their CNS to a greater extent because they're demanding it to recruit more tissue
9 months ago
Anonymous
>more tesosterone, that's it, hormonal difference
lol that's why troonys still dominate women and roided females get outlifted by natty men.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>lol that's why troonys still dominate women
10-15 years of testosterone and training with levels that are 20-30x more than a woman's and still naturally higher even while taking anti androgens. Your point isn't proven, again, you lack fundamental knowledge here.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>so explain the biological procedures behind this?
volume is hypertrophic, we all know this as a scientific fact.
https://i.imgur.com/QjIebKE.jpg
more muscle = more strength
strength training = more strength per unit of muscle
Strength training is only good if you want to be as small as possible.
proven here
You will build a little muscle, and a lot of strength relative to your mass, but the guy with more mass will have more strength. Why do you think strongmen are so fricking fat.
Neurological adaptations play a part, but you can't fricking contract what you don't have. Can you pull a car using a single piece of string? no you need a thick ass chain. Hypertrophy turns the string into a chain. You can twist the string around itself and braid it to make it stronger, this is strength training, but it will never compare to a giant metal chain.
9 months ago
Anonymous
reading your post, i think i misunderstood your original point
if what you are saying is that mass = strength, then i completely agree
i was just trying to explain how peaking works, and why it exists, and how strength between lifters with different priorities can not be compared, as peaking + specialization can skew the perspective of who is truly stronger
for example, jamal browner deadlifts more than peak thor, but this is simply because he's peaked and specialized powerlifter, while thor is a generalist strongman, browner is not stronger than thor on a general basis
>Literally no one apart from you cares.
you can literally lie about your numbers as long as you look big too lmao
it's the "i used to bench 225 in high school" but with no counter coz you look frick huge
>Either way, absolutely LMAO @ wanting hypertrophy without strength. Like literally what's the point of being big if it's not to be strong? >Bodybuilders are mentally ill homosexuals.
This just shows how stupid people are. Newbies, or anyone (focused on building muscle) DO NOT HAVE TO do singles on bench or squat. Singles do jack shit.
5 reps on squats and bench? Perfectly fine strength training. If you want to be a powerlifter maybe then you can think about doing heavy singles.
Hypertrophy without "strength training" means you're still getting stronger, you aren't just doing 1-4 reps with high chance of injury.
I bench 315 and I've never done (ok, I've maxed a few times in my life) less than four reps. My training sets are ALWAYS +4 reps
Rippetoe is a moron. SS is great for novices, but Rip is a dumbass about anything that's not novice training.
Israetel is correct. Muscle tissue is muscle tissue. Build more -> get stronger. Staying at 1-5 reps for low volume is just CNS wanking and once you can engage all the fibers the progression stops. High rep sets involve high threshold motor units too btw, once lower threshold motor units fatigue but you keep pushing the body engages high threshold MUs. So by going to failure on high volume, you get both muscle and CNS strength factors. By staying at 1-5, you mostly just get CNS strength factor (you get way less muscle growth). Novices should stick to 5 reps to lrn the movements.
>Staying at 1-5 reps for low volume is just CNS wanking and once you can engage all the fibers the progression stops.
Correct, although you can still build muscle with lower reps and volume, you just require higher intensity. The reason CNSmaxxers hit such frequent plateaus is because they never even go close to failure. They do 2-8 sets of 1-5 reps, never going above RPE 8, at least 3x a week.
This is useful in that it actuates your maximum strength potential due to greater CNS efficiency, but you'll build absolutely zero muscle mass training this way.
"Strengh training" is a mixed bag. It's not just hypertrophy, and it's not just neurology. You need to build muscle to increase your strength potential, and then activate that strength potential with a balanced high frequency, low/moderate intensity routine.
>You need to build muscle to increase your strength potential, and then activate that strength potential with a balanced high frequency, low/moderate intensity routine.
yes but the muscles you do end up building for increased strength are not relevant to your hypertrophy wants.
someone who wants increased chest will not care about some muscle buried deep in their back growing.
It’s exactly how I lift. This can be taken out of context by a smooth brain. I do not lift for strength. I lift to inflict damage to the muscles. I do get stronger, but I’m not training to do so. Here’s the difference, I don’t care what the poundage is as long as I get a good workout. This is different from trying to increase poundage every session. I can hit failure every set, those seeking strength to gain mass can’t. I’ll hit type 2A, 2X, and 2B fibers while strength seekers only hit 2B fibers. At the end of the day unless you compete for strength no one cares what you lift.
This is basically Isratel's whole thing and idk why no one else ITT seems to get it. Use good form, good ROM, slow eccentric, etc., to deliver maximum stimulus to the muscle to cause growth. If you're making a lift as hard as possible, you can't lift shit. Strength training is the opposite, just get the bar up. I don't think these schools are really in conflict you're just optimizing for different outcomes.
this video is way too nuanced for IST to grasp.
Yes you still need to focus on some form of progressive overload whether its adding reps or more load. He didnt deny that.
He completely leaves out the very important point that this information is only relevant to people on gear. Size and hypertrophy go hand in hand for natural lifters.
>He completely leaves out the very important point that this information is only relevant to people on gear
I used to believe the >high volume is just pump work and bodybuilders only build muscle doing that because of gear
until I realized that besides the science contradicting it, all of the people pushing this meme are strength-oriented types like Rippetoe and Blaha, and they use gear too.
And natty bodybuilders train the same way enhanced do, with lots of volume and pump-chasing.
>>high volume is just pump work and bodybuilders only build muscle doing that because of gear >until I realized that besides the science contradicting it, all of the people pushing this meme are strength-oriented types like Rippetoe and Blaha, and they use gear too.
Blaha injected steroids (and maybe synthol) directly into his biceps because they were so small, and his right bicep is permanently fricked as a result.
ALL 3x5/5x5 chuds look like complete shit, and that's WITH GEAR.
Imagine how awful Ripp and co. would look if they'd stayed natty their whole life.
>listening to a charlatan israelite
are you fricking moronic?
this guy claims he could strict press 340lbs natty, he's an autistic piece of shit
progressive overload is strength training by all metrics, this fricking homosexual muddies the water by implying that you're only doing strength training when you do low rep high frequency peaking-style routines
you will never grow without progressive overload
if you listen to this ugly bullhead roidtroony israelite, you're setting yourself up for the lifetime intermediate trap
And the cycle continues of DYELs who fall for the hypertrophic memes pushed by roidtrannies when they are too big of pussies to do the tried and true 3x5 compound natty method. You really have to hand it to this israelite.
He's right. I've gotten a lot bigger in the past year but not much stronger. I still have enough intensity and volume to feel absolutely beat up after the gym though.
Why would you even want to be big if you aren't also strong? Every single study ever published on the subject indicates that, barring extreme muscle fetishists, womens' attraction to muscle falls off after a certain point. It would be one thing if you were also strong, in addition to being big-- womens' attraction to strength seems perpetual-- or if you're only seeking to have a bunch of one night stands. That said, if you're just a "big" weakling then you're not even attractive to the right people. There is literally zero point to hypertrophy training unless you intend to compete.
>Why would you even want to be big if you aren't also strong? >If you lifted weight for 8 reps and now lifting it for 10 reps you have not become stronger
kek
>Getting stronger isn't needed to get bigger?
If your muscle cross-sections increase then you will get stronger. He's just saying not to specialize in strength.
There is literally no difference between getting stronger and getting bigger. they happen at the same time and you can't get drastically bigger without getting drastically stronger and vice versa.The bigger vs stronger "debate" flies in the face of physics and biology. You can't even selectively train for one or ther other either. You either get them both or not at all. It's just a fricking scam designed to shill people "programs", thinking that you need to train a certain way to elicit certain responses, when really all training is the exact fricking same and you either induce a growth stimulus or you don't. If you take the skeletal muscle biomass if someone and account for things such as leverages you will find that damn near all human muscle functions in exactly the same way and with exactly the same amount of strength depending on how much muscle there is.
you can definitely bias your training towards strength or hypertrophy. let's compare two styles of lifting. first guy does something like 4x8, focusing on an explosive concentric to reach high bar velocity, while still controlling the eccentric. he has decent ROM, but mostly to use the stretch reflex in the "bottom" in order to get a powerful and speedy concentric. he takes his sets to an RPE 7 or 8, ending when the velocity begins to meaningfully slow down.
second guy does 3x12, and while he has decent speed on the concentric, his focus his on really milking the eccentric part of the lift, getting as good of a stretch as possible. will happily trade weight on the bar for increased ROM, and may even pause at the "bottom" of the lift rather than use the stretch reflex. bar velocity is not a factor at all, and he'll grind out the last couple of reps ending at RPE 9 or 10.
nah, it's basically figure out
for optimal growth, do some heavy compound lifts, then some moderate intensity accessory lifts, recovery between sessions depe ds on a ratio of the volume and intensity you used
for strength, just run a peaking program to hit your current max potential for the mass you have, then go back to hypertrophy training for a while
these guys need to make money though, so they keep making up jargon to intimidate new lifters into buying their programs
israelite israel is one of the biggest offenders for this
we figured this out way before even science started looking at studying athletes. You just exercise and keep doing it and keep up with fueling your body. That's it.
It's been overcomplicated to sell workout programs and supplements. What Mike is saying actually conforms to the original idea, you will gain plenty of strength doing a hypertrophy routine, the only time strength training is beneficial is during your first year, then you can focus on hypertrophy and get much stronger than if you would have if you just focused on strength training. Hypertrophy training gives you the best of all 3 facets of muscle adaptation
Mike Mentzer used to make fun of people who used to claim the same thing. It is impossible to get bigger without getting stronger. You can increase the rate of mass growth in proportion to your growth in strength, but you can't have one without the other. They will always coexist to some degree.
>It is impossible to get bigger without getting stronger. >If you lifted weight for 8 reps and now lifting it for 10 reps you have not become stronger
kek
I'm gonna say something controversial and claim that periodizing is necessary for natty hypertrophy training. Once noob gains run out, it'll be hard to put on weight weekly or even monthly.
>cutting 20 years from your lifespan to look like this
gymrats are mentally insane, who wants to bet this ugly frick will die before 60?
not to mention his face already looks 60+
The main thing is heavier weight = more chance of injury the heavier you go. Nasser levrone and all the big guys all lifted as heavy as possible, from 6 reps ish going heavy and doing higher rep lighter weight aswell but they all say to lift as heavy as you can without injuring yourself. Id do it all, heavy, mid, light etc.
This guy is such a broscience midwit considering he's a phd. His PHD dissertation isn't anything special it was about testing athletes with or without whey protein and the whey protein group did marginally better. >doesn't know the connection between strength and hypertrophy >used to teach people to "rep test" your muscles to "find their fiber type" which meant do one set of 5 and one set of 10 and see which one will make you more sore, which obviously will always be the 10. He deleted that from his hypertrophy for beginners articles.
Also, what the frick I was trying to find his thesis and I found this bio and it's just a complete lie. >is himself a competitive bodybuilder and professional Brazilian Jiu Jitsu grappler.
He's a pro grappler huh?
Israetel goes so far as to say hypertrophy-oriented lifters don't need dedicated strength training periods AT ALL.
Rip teaches more strength bias because he's trying to build football players.
he's in texas. they love big guys who play football. he's trying to turn shrimp 17 yr old kids in high school to eat and lift so they can be linebackers.
so they need strength.
'IST just wants girls to like them , or at least not be horrified by them . so basically CICO to lose weight and some hypertrophy so they look less disgusting
completely wrong. why do you talk about things that you have no clue about? think perhaps you should have a nice day?
>he fell for the starting strength meme
Even if you fell for the meme, he routinely complains about how he's not trying to train football players, he's trying to train your decrepit grandma who can't pull herself up off the toilet
by getting her deadlift to FOH OH FAHVE?
>Israetel goes so far as to say hypertrophy-oriented lifters don't need dedicated strength training periods AT ALL.
That's pretty common sense THOUGH. If you only care about hypertrophy then why not just get stronger in 8-12 reps where you'll be spending your time? No point in doing fahves.
because it’s harder to get stronger at 8-12 than at 3x5
you should have a nice day
>Why is this radical? I don't get the counterargument.
Rippetoe says there's no such thing as hypertrophy training, that the studies are all BS, and that sets of favh are the best for strength AND size:
[Embed]
Everyone in that video is on steroids.
5 reps is sort of strength training for hypertrophy lifter, but it's hypetrophy range for strength oriented lifters. So yes, he is correct
Yes
Why is this radical? I don't get the counterargument.
>This is 100% at odds with what Rippetoe teaches
His techniques are pretty legit if the goal is to reach failure time on tension can achieve same results as explosive power on high volume minus the injury risk, after reading and watching his shit I started implementing it in my workout where I do warm up set, high volume set, than focus on concentric movement with long pause both fully stretched and fully flexed on my last set, let's see what kind of gains I can get
>This is 100% at odds with what Rippetoe teaches
not really, rip teaches 5 reps; and so does your graphic
Everyone who follows this guy is a dyel. Only dyels fall for it. Same with natural hypertrophy.
Either way, absolutely LMAO @ wanting hypertrophy without strength. Like literally what's the point of being big if it's not to be strong?
Bodybuilders are mentally ill homosexuals.
The larger a muscle is, the stronger it is. What the frick are you even talking about.
what's muscle density then?
homosexual stfu i outlift every single roider at my gym
ive never seen any of these guys, despite looking like mr olympia lift anywhere as heavy as me
no one cares how much you lift. Muscles matter more than strength both socially and for health.
i wasn't arguing about that and no bigger muscles are bad for your health
humans aren't made for hypertrophy training
humans do endurance and strength and aren't supposed to be bulky muscle monsters.
we are mammals and literally got fat and fasted during the winter at the dawn of our existence.
fermenting, salting, smokiing and other curing methods and seeds are what made the human quit his winter "hibernation" and become active throughout the year.
you're supposed to get fat until winter and then lose all the weight, then hunt in spring and refresh your aminos.
Modern society lives in abundance of calories. None of what you say applies to the modern human. The very systems we evolved to help us survive periods of starvation are the same systems that are now the leading causes of our deaths in the modern age.
Muscle absorbs sugar, reduces injury, provides a much needed well of amino acids for the body to feed on during long periods of illness, capilliarizes the entire body which increases the body's ability to transfer blood and nutrients to any tissue, and is second only to vo2 max in terms of things that exist that reduce your chances of death.
Strength matters very little in our modern world, especially because in the pursuit of muscle mass, one will also gain plenty of strength with also the benefit of muscle mass. Vo2 max is the single greatest reducer of mortality there is.
no sources provided whilst every single source links greater muscle mass with early death xD
sry bro you're fricking moronic
also if you hold a shitton of water in your body that's a looooot of salt and that's why everyone's hearts are fricked
you're supposed to cleanse your body off water periodically and then refill. every single religion and culture in the world has some type of fast. in orthodox Christianity there's even "keto weeks" before fasts stfu you moronic monkey
fasting literally been proven to cure almost every single mental disease
additionally it stops cancers from growing
you're not supposed TO GROW ALL THE TIME
being anabolic all the time is incredibly unhealthy
now stfu monkey Black personmoron
Medical sources:
https://compurocare.com/muscle-matters-10-health-benefits-of-increased-muscle-mass/
https://www.medicinenet.com/is_muscle_gain_good_for_your_health/article.htm
https://www.withings.com/us/en/health-insights/about-muscle-mass-benefits
aha nice journalist articles with linked products in seo text to increase sales
you've fallen to a marketing scheme, friend
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035379/
https://blog.insidetracker.com/longevity-by-design-william-evans
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/muscle-mass-beats-bmi-as-longevity-predictor1/
Simply put, the more muscles people have, the longer they live. Except for when people have excessive amount of muscles because of peds. But even in that case, people who roid in the usa live longer than people who don't. The ones who do sport and don't do roids live the longest.
All studies on muscle mass show the same result. So can you explain why statistics shows tgat your reasoning is absolutely wrong?
>Soviet "Christianity"(tm) fully by the KGB and central committee
yikes, western sovietboo are the worst
>Every religion
>The workers are eating to much food it may not last until favourable conditions return how can we solve this
>Let's introduce calorie restriction BUT attach it to religion to be more accepted by the poor
>second only to vo2 max in terms of things that exist that reduce your chances of death.
>Vo2 max is the single greatest reducer of mortality there is.
Another Attiacel who doesn't realize those stats aren't adjusted for age kek.
Heart disease is the number one killer and the way to prevent it is to work out the heart.
Cancer is a problem with genetics and the environment and is so far not something you can control with any great degree of certainty other than avoiding certain things.
If you have a strong heart, you'll likely also have muscles that are at least strong enough to have a substantial positive effect on your body, just due to the shear volume your muscles are getting.
>Cancer is a problem with genetics and the environment and is so far not something you can control with any great degree of certainty other than avoiding certain things.
Cancer can be controlled through not going into a hypometabolic state (Broda Barnes definition). Keep waking armpit temps around 98.6F and your good.
>If you have a strong heart, you'll likely also have muscles that are at least strong enough to have a substantial positive effect on your body, just due to the shear volume your muscles are getting.
>Cancer can be controlled through not going into a hypometabolic state
fitizen solves cancer by coping as hard as he can and keeping his armpits warm
>fitizen solves cancer by coping as hard as he can and keeping his armpits warm
Science™ believer copes by licking boots as hard as he can and doesn't know about the Warburg effect while guzzling seed oils.
call me when you can preferentially starve a particular cell in your body, we'll make a billion dollars
>fasted during the winter
There's no evidence that that's true.
>we are mammals and literally got fat and fasted during the winter at the dawn of our existence.
During the winter at the dawn of our existence on the African savanna?
>fasting literally been proven to cure almost every single mental disease
Are you fasttards this moronic?
>homosexual stfu i outlift every single roider at my gym
that's because you run ego lifting peaking programs, while they focus on hypertrophy
their strength progress is a passive result of increased size, your strength potential is a deliberate result of CNS ego jerking
insecure actual moron
>not running a peaking program = you don't care about strength
holy frick dude actually have a nice day
how do you survive, being so stupid?
>what's muscle density then?
muscles never get more dense, are you an xman or something?
if your muscle got denser you would shrink not look bigger...
>muscle density
post any proof of its existence and then we can talk about it.
>what is water retention and how does it affect density
>what is neuromuscular adaptation and how does it affect density
the answer to both those questions is that they doesn't affect muscle density at all.
the water goes in between the muscles, the adaptation just means your neuromusculature is getting better at understanding that you want the muscles to get bigger.
wrong on both
water goes INTO the cells. More water in cells=less dense muscle. That is why there are certain compounds people take specifically for this purpose
with neuromuscular adaptation, you are actually building new structures like mitochondria within the muscle cells, which increases the density.
>More water in cells=less dense muscle
sounds like you have no water in your brain cells
Let me guess, you are talking about lifts where you can easily cheat, like curls. Try using proper form
That’s so untrue. The bigger a muscle is, the more potential for strength it has. You still need to do strength training to actually create that strength.
you are legitimately moronic, please stop talking
he's right though, do you not know how the CNS works? strength in a particular lift is a highly specific skill above all else
literally just CNSmaxxing at the cost of missing out on hypertrophy
quit saying CNS maxxing and talking about it because it makes you look even more moronic than you are.
Strength is motor unit recruitment. A stronger person will be able to do more with less muscle as laid out here
There is so much more to this as well and most people are too moronic to even parse hanneman's size principle properly and don't realize that you can grow strength and increase motor unit recruitment by taking type 1 fibers to failure, but this is out of the scope of the argument because this is going into intermediate levels of exercise science and you can't seem to grasp even beginner levels of it.
and what do you think is responsible for modifying your motor unit recruitment? it's the efficiency of your nervous system in relation to the movement pattern
you're literally just tricking your neurology into activating more motor units by doing high frequency low fatigue moderate/high intensity routines
strength training is just actuating your strength potential by enabling the recruitment of more muscle tissue through neurological adaptations
do you really think the jacked 300lb roided up bodybuilders are activating 100% of their motor units every time they lift? frick no lmao they'd snap their tendons
you're unaware of how specificity actually works, dude
>look at this pic i found from google bro you're wrong
grow up
>strength training is just actuating your strength potential by enabling the recruitment of more muscle tissue through neurological adaptations
if that was true then you'd be able to become explosive from strength training, which you can't. Neurology muscular efficiency is mostly genetic.
>you'd be able to become explosive from strength training, which you can't
t. never interacted with any college football players
all they do in the off season is powerlifting
why?
because the increase of muscle mass + neurological efficiency results in greater responses to plyometric-style training
what fricking point are you even trying to make? lmao
Sorry that you studied a bullshit exercise science degree. Football players and their S&C coaches are moronic. They are explosive from their genetics not their training. Training produces a slight improvement in explosivenesd at most. Good jumpers, olympic weightlifters, sprinters, etc are born not made.
>Football players and their S&C coaches are moronic. They are explosive from their genetics not their training
absolute genelet cope lmao
>citing a startingstrength article as a source
imagine listening to some BBC cuck fetishist who has a PHD in "yeah just trust me bro" and causes his lifters to all look like picrel
fricking clown
>absolute genelet cope lmao
Can you deadlift 650?
god damn I'm taking the leanpill what an absolute butchery of his appearance
imagine making fun of rip while being incapable of understanding the most basic article and believing everything S&C journals out out because "muh science" while simultaneously having a sub 4pl8 squat.
https://www.stack.com/a/off-season-football-training/
Their sets and reps are hypertrophic programs. Even though the article says strength and power, it's hypertrophy. It's mass, because mass beats efficiency 10 times out of 10, that's why in the UFC when a fighter is 3 pounds heavier than the other fighter when they weigh them, that 3 pounds of extra mass guarantees a win almost every time, because mass is king. You have no idea what you're talking about.
What you are saying is true except the part about the UFC, the UFC has the worst weigh in system, it forces fighters to be completely starved, emaciated, and dehydrated to make weight, which is why its not uncommon to see a fighter gain 20+lbs after weigh in before the fight.
I'm making the argument that mass trumps muscle efficiency in terms of strength.
A smaller guy with more relative strength will be weaker than a big guy with more total strength. Strength training is specifically non hypertrophic, you'll gain some muscle but nowhere near as much as if you'd gained it from a hypertrophy standpoint, and you'll be much more stronger in that you'll be able to lift much more weight.
The strong guy is impressive because he looks like a twig and can lift many times his bodyweight. The big guy is impressive because he can lift 3-4x what that strong guy can lift, but it's not impressive when you look at strength to weight ratio.
It's so crazy why people can't understand this.
People understand the strength to weight ratio, it's just that people don't really care, proportionally all the strongest lifters are 5ft tall european or chinese manlets, impressive yes but also nobody cares, its way more entertaining to see big guys lift big weight.
i will concede to the fact that these athletes prioritize muscle mass over neurological efficiency, but this only proves my original point: that maximum strength potential requires peaking, which is the process of enhancing your neurological efficiency on a movement pattern to recruit the maximum amount of potential motor units, or muscle tissue
people think that powerlifting programs are some type of magic, when all they do is prioritize optimization in a movement pattern over the course of a few months/weeks with submaximal high intensity low fatigue training
the maximum potential strength output provided from this training relies on the muscle mass that exists in the first place, more muscle mass to be recruited = greater strength potential
you can build base strength passively, just from building more muscle, but your absolute maximum strength potential is dictated by your neurological efficiency in a movement pattern, AKA maximum motor unit recruitment, which must be deliberately activated with a sort of peaking program
anybody who disagrees simply does not know how the human body works
more muscle will always equal more strength, however maximum strength, the process of recruiting all motor units at their maximum potential, requires peaking, which is deliberate neurological optimization
why the frick are you people even trying to argue this? go ask any powerlifter how both peaking and strength potential work together on a biological basis, and they'll all say the same shit
are you one of those "sleeper build" zoomzooms who wants to build strength without gaining size?
all you'll do is hit your current max potential, and then plateau until you build more mass
god damn this post made my eyes glaze over
should I just roid and train like pic related?
tldr: if you wanna get strong as frick, you gotta get big as frick
but if you wanna hit your true maximum 100% strength potential, then you need to run some gay boring powerlifting peaking program to max out your neurological efficiency
it's not worth, just stick to hypertrophy
imagine scenario a: being able to bench 405 at any point in time because you're fricking huge
vs scenario b: only being able to bench 405 after an 8 week peaking program because all you ever do is run strength programs and lack muscle mass
why even bother? just get big
>but if you wanna hit your true maximum 100% strength potential, then you need to run some gay boring powerlifting peaking program to max out your neurological efficiency
yeah I don't give a shit about that I just want to be big and strong
pure hypertrophy
just eat whatever you want
Pure Hypertrophy training as a natty novice? GTFO
guy he was talking to here I'm actually at the end of my linear progression.
What are your lifts? How long did it take?
powerlifting programs focus on mass and mass alone, it is not a strength training program, it is actually both hypertrophic and strength training. It's not magic, it's just bloatmaxxing.
The only reason you would want to focus purely on strength training is that if you have to make weight. Strength training alone is not good and you even admitted it, you will plateau because you aren't gaining any extra muscle. Motor unit recruitment and neurological as well as other physiological changes happen in hypertrophy programs that allow the lifter to gain massive amounts of strength.
You should be able to show me a real life example of what you're talking about. Or even a study.
>do you really think the jacked 300lb roided up bodybuilders are activating 100% of their motor units every time they lift?
yes, they are 100% and it's confirmed by science.
You are what I referred to here as being too moronic to understand the size principle
You are actually too stupid to argue with, you have interpreted the size principle wrong because you haven't actually studied it, you just googled it and looked at the wikipedia article and did not understand exactly what it said.
Your body will recruit muscle fibers given that the demand meets it, this is achieved by doing more reps. You can do it in one rep if you want, but you can also do it in 20, 30, 10000 reps if you want. The only difference between these two protocols is that the strength protocol will result in less muscle mass built but more relative strength and the hypertrophy protocol will result in more muscle and thus more total strength
It really is amazing at how fricking stupid you are and how little you know.
> yes, they are 100% and it's confirmed by science.
Ok both of you are wrong and stupid. Neither of you understands what neural muscular efficiency or explosiveness is, or why men outlift women.
The reason why men outlift women is the same reason why brian shaw outlifts you. More muscle mass, post your sources for your schizophrenia or shut the frick up
https://startingstrength.com/article/training_female_lifters_neuromuscular_efficiency
>why men outlift women
more tesosterone, that's it, hormonal difference
> the strength protocol will result in less muscle mass built but more relative strength
so explain the biological procedures behind this?
explain exactly what causes this to happen
>strength makes you stronger because uhhhh it just does bro
explain further?
>because you recruit more motor units n sheeeit
that's *exactly* what i'm saying, what do you think causes the enhance motor unit engagement to occur? neurological adaptations
yes, there are mild variations in sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar muscle tissue depending on the intensity and rep ranges used, but strength training as a whole relies heavily on neurological efficiency
this is why bodybuilders will feel more localized muscle soreness after a difficult squat session, while powerlifters feel more generalized fatigue, the powerlifters tax their CNS to a greater extent because they're demanding it to recruit more tissue
>more tesosterone, that's it, hormonal difference
lol that's why troonys still dominate women and roided females get outlifted by natty men.
>lol that's why troonys still dominate women
10-15 years of testosterone and training with levels that are 20-30x more than a woman's and still naturally higher even while taking anti androgens. Your point isn't proven, again, you lack fundamental knowledge here.
>so explain the biological procedures behind this?
volume is hypertrophic, we all know this as a scientific fact.
proven here
You will build a little muscle, and a lot of strength relative to your mass, but the guy with more mass will have more strength. Why do you think strongmen are so fricking fat.
Neurological adaptations play a part, but you can't fricking contract what you don't have. Can you pull a car using a single piece of string? no you need a thick ass chain. Hypertrophy turns the string into a chain. You can twist the string around itself and braid it to make it stronger, this is strength training, but it will never compare to a giant metal chain.
reading your post, i think i misunderstood your original point
if what you are saying is that mass = strength, then i completely agree
i was just trying to explain how peaking works, and why it exists, and how strength between lifters with different priorities can not be compared, as peaking + specialization can skew the perspective of who is truly stronger
for example, jamal browner deadlifts more than peak thor, but this is simply because he's peaked and specialized powerlifter, while thor is a generalist strongman, browner is not stronger than thor on a general basis
more muscle = more strength
strength training = more strength per unit of muscle
Strength training is only good if you want to be as small as possible.
this is unironically the basis of "stealth builds" aka tiny homies who lift a lot of weight but look like tiny homies
Looks are more important in life than your exaggerated bench, dl and squat numbers. Literally no one apart from you cares.
>Literally no one apart from you cares.
you can literally lie about your numbers as long as you look big too lmao
it's the "i used to bench 225 in high school" but with no counter coz you look frick huge
>Literally no one apart from you cares
Lifting for others is gay
Post body
>Either way, absolutely LMAO @ wanting hypertrophy without strength. Like literally what's the point of being big if it's not to be strong?
>Bodybuilders are mentally ill homosexuals.
This just shows how stupid people are. Newbies, or anyone (focused on building muscle) DO NOT HAVE TO do singles on bench or squat. Singles do jack shit.
5 reps on squats and bench? Perfectly fine strength training. If you want to be a powerlifter maybe then you can think about doing heavy singles.
Hypertrophy without "strength training" means you're still getting stronger, you aren't just doing 1-4 reps with high chance of injury.
I bench 315 and I've never done (ok, I've maxed a few times in my life) less than four reps. My training sets are ALWAYS +4 reps
Rippetoe is a moron. SS is great for novices, but Rip is a dumbass about anything that's not novice training.
Israetel is correct. Muscle tissue is muscle tissue. Build more -> get stronger. Staying at 1-5 reps for low volume is just CNS wanking and once you can engage all the fibers the progression stops. High rep sets involve high threshold motor units too btw, once lower threshold motor units fatigue but you keep pushing the body engages high threshold MUs. So by going to failure on high volume, you get both muscle and CNS strength factors. By staying at 1-5, you mostly just get CNS strength factor (you get way less muscle growth). Novices should stick to 5 reps to lrn the movements.
>Staying at 1-5 reps for low volume is just CNS wanking and once you can engage all the fibers the progression stops.
Correct, although you can still build muscle with lower reps and volume, you just require higher intensity. The reason CNSmaxxers hit such frequent plateaus is because they never even go close to failure. They do 2-8 sets of 1-5 reps, never going above RPE 8, at least 3x a week.
This is useful in that it actuates your maximum strength potential due to greater CNS efficiency, but you'll build absolutely zero muscle mass training this way.
"Strengh training" is a mixed bag. It's not just hypertrophy, and it's not just neurology. You need to build muscle to increase your strength potential, and then activate that strength potential with a balanced high frequency, low/moderate intensity routine.
>You need to build muscle to increase your strength potential, and then activate that strength potential with a balanced high frequency, low/moderate intensity routine.
yes but the muscles you do end up building for increased strength are not relevant to your hypertrophy wants.
someone who wants increased chest will not care about some muscle buried deep in their back growing.
>Novices should stick to 5 reps to lrn the movements.
wrong.
>I can bench 3 plates for reps, but you guys don't need to do that hard work, just follow my routines and you'll get as big as me :^)
https://www.openpowerlifting.org/u/mikeisraetel
It’s exactly how I lift. This can be taken out of context by a smooth brain. I do not lift for strength. I lift to inflict damage to the muscles. I do get stronger, but I’m not training to do so. Here’s the difference, I don’t care what the poundage is as long as I get a good workout. This is different from trying to increase poundage every session. I can hit failure every set, those seeking strength to gain mass can’t. I’ll hit type 2A, 2X, and 2B fibers while strength seekers only hit 2B fibers. At the end of the day unless you compete for strength no one cares what you lift.
This is basically Isratel's whole thing and idk why no one else ITT seems to get it. Use good form, good ROM, slow eccentric, etc., to deliver maximum stimulus to the muscle to cause growth. If you're making a lift as hard as possible, you can't lift shit. Strength training is the opposite, just get the bar up. I don't think these schools are really in conflict you're just optimizing for different outcomes.
so whats he saying , 5-10 reps for first year, then more than 10 reps after ?
yes because there is some value in strength training for absolute novices in regards to hypertrophy training but the value fades after a year
this video is way too nuanced for IST to grasp.
Yes you still need to focus on some form of progressive overload whether its adding reps or more load. He didnt deny that.
He completely leaves out the very important point that this information is only relevant to people on gear. Size and hypertrophy go hand in hand for natural lifters.
>He completely leaves out the very important point that this information is only relevant to people on gear
I used to believe the
>high volume is just pump work and bodybuilders only build muscle doing that because of gear
until I realized that besides the science contradicting it, all of the people pushing this meme are strength-oriented types like Rippetoe and Blaha, and they use gear too.
And natty bodybuilders train the same way enhanced do, with lots of volume and pump-chasing.
>>high volume is just pump work and bodybuilders only build muscle doing that because of gear
>until I realized that besides the science contradicting it, all of the people pushing this meme are strength-oriented types like Rippetoe and Blaha, and they use gear too.
Blaha injected steroids (and maybe synthol) directly into his biceps because they were so small, and his right bicep is permanently fricked as a result.
ALL 3x5/5x5 chuds look like complete shit, and that's WITH GEAR.
Imagine how awful Ripp and co. would look if they'd stayed natty their whole life.
>listening to a charlatan israelite
are you fricking moronic?
this guy claims he could strict press 340lbs natty, he's an autistic piece of shit
progressive overload is strength training by all metrics, this fricking homosexual muddies the water by implying that you're only doing strength training when you do low rep high frequency peaking-style routines
you will never grow without progressive overload
if you listen to this ugly bullhead roidtroony israelite, you're setting yourself up for the lifetime intermediate trap
dude he literally has israel in his name
And the cycle continues of DYELs who fall for the hypertrophic memes pushed by roidtrannies when they are too big of pussies to do the tried and true 3x5 compound natty method. You really have to hand it to this israelite.
This would be a lot more persuasive if you posted body
Bruh it’s a tale as old as time
It’s literally as simple as 3x5 compounds and some accessory work in the 8-12 range while working your self up to do weighted chins and dips
He's right. I've gotten a lot bigger in the past year but not much stronger. I still have enough intensity and volume to feel absolutely beat up after the gym though.
Why would you even want to be big if you aren't also strong? Every single study ever published on the subject indicates that, barring extreme muscle fetishists, womens' attraction to muscle falls off after a certain point. It would be one thing if you were also strong, in addition to being big-- womens' attraction to strength seems perpetual-- or if you're only seeking to have a bunch of one night stands. That said, if you're just a "big" weakling then you're not even attractive to the right people. There is literally zero point to hypertrophy training unless you intend to compete.
hypertrophy is for having a broad upper body. strength for legs+hypertrophy for upper body is optimal.
>Why would you even want to be big if you aren't also strong?
>If you lifted weight for 8 reps and now lifting it for 10 reps you have not become stronger
kek
it's their fault for believin' in a "routine" with 4 exercises of 5x5.
Lazy motherfrickers, everything in life requires effort and patience.
how is this 5 months progress when his hair has grown half a meter.
thats the magic of heep draahv
How is he 14% with those love handles
Motherfricker benching 135 at 255 lbs BW
Wait a minute are you saying that powerbuilding is a lie?
>Getting stronger isn't needed to get bigger?
If your muscle cross-sections increase then you will get stronger. He's just saying not to specialize in strength.
There is literally no difference between getting stronger and getting bigger. they happen at the same time and you can't get drastically bigger without getting drastically stronger and vice versa.The bigger vs stronger "debate" flies in the face of physics and biology. You can't even selectively train for one or ther other either. You either get them both or not at all. It's just a fricking scam designed to shill people "programs", thinking that you need to train a certain way to elicit certain responses, when really all training is the exact fricking same and you either induce a growth stimulus or you don't. If you take the skeletal muscle biomass if someone and account for things such as leverages you will find that damn near all human muscle functions in exactly the same way and with exactly the same amount of strength depending on how much muscle there is.
you can definitely bias your training towards strength or hypertrophy. let's compare two styles of lifting. first guy does something like 4x8, focusing on an explosive concentric to reach high bar velocity, while still controlling the eccentric. he has decent ROM, but mostly to use the stretch reflex in the "bottom" in order to get a powerful and speedy concentric. he takes his sets to an RPE 7 or 8, ending when the velocity begins to meaningfully slow down.
second guy does 3x12, and while he has decent speed on the concentric, his focus his on really milking the eccentric part of the lift, getting as good of a stretch as possible. will happily trade weight on the bar for increased ROM, and may even pause at the "bottom" of the lift rather than use the stretch reflex. bar velocity is not a factor at all, and he'll grind out the last couple of reps ending at RPE 9 or 10.
Crazy how nobody after all this science and tests nobody knows what the frick they are talking about and what works best
nah, it's basically figure out
for optimal growth, do some heavy compound lifts, then some moderate intensity accessory lifts, recovery between sessions depe ds on a ratio of the volume and intensity you used
for strength, just run a peaking program to hit your current max potential for the mass you have, then go back to hypertrophy training for a while
these guys need to make money though, so they keep making up jargon to intimidate new lifters into buying their programs
israelite israel is one of the biggest offenders for this
we figured this out way before even science started looking at studying athletes. You just exercise and keep doing it and keep up with fueling your body. That's it.
It's been overcomplicated to sell workout programs and supplements. What Mike is saying actually conforms to the original idea, you will gain plenty of strength doing a hypertrophy routine, the only time strength training is beneficial is during your first year, then you can focus on hypertrophy and get much stronger than if you would have if you just focused on strength training. Hypertrophy training gives you the best of all 3 facets of muscle adaptation
israelite israeltel
Mike Mentzer used to make fun of people who used to claim the same thing. It is impossible to get bigger without getting stronger. You can increase the rate of mass growth in proportion to your growth in strength, but you can't have one without the other. They will always coexist to some degree.
>It is impossible to get bigger without getting stronger.
>If you lifted weight for 8 reps and now lifting it for 10 reps you have not become stronger
kek
If I want to maximize strength while minimizing hypertrophy, how should I exercise? Having super strength with a light body is the best combo IMO.
Sets of 3
> Having super strength with a light body is the best combo IMO.
just don't eat a lot and you'll artificially end your novice gains super early and you move on to more advanced programming despite being weak af.
I'm gonna say something controversial and claim that periodizing is necessary for natty hypertrophy training. Once noob gains run out, it'll be hard to put on weight weekly or even monthly.
The autism in this thread is off the chain. You are all homosexuals.
Just fricking lift bros!
There are like a million more of these AI images in /trash/, aren't there?
This thread is trash so I figured it was appropriate.
Mike Palestine is lying
this moron said sneed oil is not bad for you because the papers said so
Yes goyim drink the sneed oil
Isratel is a roiding ugly manlet
>Isratel is a roiding ugly manlet
So is Rippetoe
>cutting 20 years from your lifespan to look like this
gymrats are mentally insane, who wants to bet this ugly frick will die before 60?
not to mention his face already looks 60+
The main thing is heavier weight = more chance of injury the heavier you go. Nasser levrone and all the big guys all lifted as heavy as possible, from 6 reps ish going heavy and doing higher rep lighter weight aswell but they all say to lift as heavy as you can without injuring yourself. Id do it all, heavy, mid, light etc.
Rippetoe is an obese homosexual boomer
This guy is such a broscience midwit considering he's a phd. His PHD dissertation isn't anything special it was about testing athletes with or without whey protein and the whey protein group did marginally better.
>doesn't know the connection between strength and hypertrophy
>used to teach people to "rep test" your muscles to "find their fiber type" which meant do one set of 5 and one set of 10 and see which one will make you more sore, which obviously will always be the 10. He deleted that from his hypertrophy for beginners articles.
Also, what the frick I was trying to find his thesis and I found this bio and it's just a complete lie.
>is himself a competitive bodybuilder and professional Brazilian Jiu Jitsu grappler.
He's a pro grappler huh?
Ripplebreasts acolytes gain size by getting fat