Is there actually a disconnect between strength and hypertrophy? I did some "research" online but couldn't find a study that actually demonstrated the common notion that such a disconnect actually exists.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
There is a short period of time where you can prime your nervous system for stronger lifts, but the disconnect between size and strength is lack of technique refinement in lifts since that is the metric we measure strength.
Size = strength, anyone who says otherwise is coping.
This is it exactly.
>but muh meme e-celeb powersharter...
They lift heavy on insta for the views dummy, it's for the views. Noone's watching a powershitter deadlift lmao4pl8s 20 times, they want to see 6, 7, 8, 9 plates. If it wasn't for insta they would be lifting low weights high rep to induce as much hypertrophy as possible and then training with heavy weights a few weeks before a major competition to prime their nervous system and get their technique down.
This
Strength is muscle size combined with neurological ability (ability to maximally recruit muscle fiber) and technical ability (ability to move the weight in the most efficient way possible). Muscle takes years to build, but neurological/technical ability can be built much faster, so if you take a big guy who seems to be weaker than he should be and make him run a program designed to improve those two variables (high percentages, low RPE, high frequency (which is what you see a lot of powerlifters do, unsurprisingly)), he'll rapidly improve in strength.
Proportions and insertions play a role as well but you can't change those so whatever
thing is, nibidy trains the SBD alone.
All good powerlifters spend most of their time bodybuilding, the omòy c**ts who only squat, bench and deadlift are the mediocre idiods in plg
>but neurological/technical ability can be built much faster
No it can't
You can't change your nervous system hardly at all
see: people with spinal injuries
>You can't change your nervous system hardly at all
actyally. you literally get better at recruiting muscle fibrs if you train for it,
Look at studies on plyometrics, isometrics and vertical jump
standing vertical jump can be improved by maybe 20% and that's improvement in strength and technique
seriously. look at people rehabbing nervous system injuries. it's just not malleable.
>improvement in strength
define strength, those people gain virtually no muscle mass.
>tecgnique
the veretical jump tests are done with a standing vertical jump, hands on the hips, there is like 0 technique involved besides staying on mid foot.
Ok post study
I don't even know how to begin addressing shit like this. It's gibberish. It's obviously from the same type of thinking that gives 200 page essays on why peanut butter is racist
>I don't even know how to begin addressing shit like this. It's gibberish. It's obviously from the same type of thinking that gives 200 page essays on why peanut butter is racist
i know, i said its useless information myself.
>Height in the Counter Movement Jump (CMJ)
After 7 weeks of training (post-test), significant improvements were found in the PG (4.44 cm; 16.87%; p = 0.02), SG (3.16 cm; 11.39%; p = 0.004), and CG (0.93 cm; 3.31%; p = 0.013) in the CMJ test. Post hoc analyses revealed no betweengroup differences in CMJ height. The coefficient of variation (CV) for test-retest reliability was 2.1% and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97).
>Height in THE Abalakov Jump (ABKJ)
After the 7 week intervention, significant improvements were observed in the PG (3.96 cm; 13.45%; p = 0.009) and SG (2.42 cm; 7.8%; p = 0.019) in the ABK test, although post hoc analyses showed no between-group differences in ABK height. The coefficient of variation (CV) for test-retest reliability was 2.3% and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120961/
here you go gay, the group who didnt gain muscle but trained solely fiber recruitment jumps just as much as the group who gained muscle in a virtually techniqueless study.
maybe link the study
i'm seeing small changes. how do they account for the changes.
arw ypu stupid?
i have linked it.
also there are no changes.
also, its 7am here, i have to go to sleep
biggest cope i have seen today.
You c**ts are seethiing because some 16 year old just deadlifted your 1.5x your max for reps.
Being efficient at recruiting mucle fibers fast is strength, its not just size and technique.
This is pretty accepted in the sprinting and high jump communities.
The conventional feadlift shows this perfectly, there is close to no technique or stability involved but i still outlift your bodybuilding ass.
Stay mad.
>Being efficient at recruiting mucle fibers fast is strength
>There is a short period of time where you can prime your nervous system for stronger lifts
moron.
also post deadlift/body
i have never posted myy body here and never will.
Conventional DL = 230kg
bodyweight = 74kg (@172cm)(i should weigh 70 and compete at 67 but i took the bulk too far as a kid and dont feel like cutting)
Also. you dont get to the peak of your efficienvy in one block, are you stupid?
its obviously faster than builfing muscle, which is a structural change, but its still not a fast process.
>You c**ts are seethiing because some 16 year old just deadlifted your 1.5x your max for reps.
I don't know what my max is because I don't do 1RMs
>Being efficient at recruiting mucle fibers fast is strength, its not just size and technique.
No shit smartass, everyone knows this. The point is that muscle size takes much longer to build than neurological/technical ability, so anyone with large muscles can run a program designed to improve these variables for a few months and end up with a massive increase to their squat/bench/deadlift/whatever. Obviously if your interest is strength you should be working on those things year round, and testing your 1RM at regular intervals as a strength athlete makes sense since that's the only thing you care about, which means that you want to ensure that you're achieving forward progression in that metrics. Bodybuilders don't care about that so they (usually) don't do maxes unless they're just messing around
>The conventional feadlift shows this perfectly, there is close to no technique or stability involved but i still outlift your bodybuilding ass.
True about stability but as for technique not really. A bodybuilder's deadlift will usually be performed with a neutral spine, while many strength athletes round their thoracic spine (and sometimes their lumbar spine) to put their hips into a more advantageous position since the distance between the hips and the bar is reduced. This does make the lockout harder but that can be dealt with
Yeah of course, any amount of muscle you add to the prime movers is more weight on your total, and you can add that muscle with movements other than S/B/D
moron
>testing your 1RM at regular intervals as a strength athlete makes sense since that's the only thing you care about, which means that you want to ensure that you're achieving forward progression in that metrics
tahst actually not true, if you are smart you are gonna test only at meets and use heavy sungles to calculate your 1rm. contrary to what mediocre poweridiots will tell you.
Fair enough I suppose since that's better for practicing technique while simultaneously getting a gauge of where you're at (since if you can add 10lb to an RPE 8 single, you've gotten stronger)
I'm not coping, mane. I'm just trying to find the answer.
>i have never posted my body here and never will.
yeah because you and i both know i could rape and kill you and you couldnt stop me
i can actually fight.
I am a legitimately good grappler and i know how to fight on my feet, i would literally fricking kill you.
The stronger you get, the higher you can do reps for hypertrophy, the more muscles you can gain from them.
Ok, but is that even true.
Is deadlifting 800x5 "worse for hypertrophy" than 700x12 or whatever?
I don't think there is anything magical, more blood flow or whatever the vague idea that people have about it. I think it's basically just weight on the bar that determines how much muscle you have. Because muscle is there to move things. Muscles = strength.
at a lighter weight you can generally recruit more fibers and bring them close to failure since each of the last reps is higher RPE.
The difference netween a true rpe 1'
0 triple and set of 68 is basically none, remember that lifting is about expressing fprce, if you give all you have on a set and on the failed rep you are not only pulling tp failure but also holding the isometric contraction to failure thats gonna recruit and strain as mamy fibers as the set of 8.
Tho all of this is irrelevant since training to failure is stupid and what builds muscle is the breaking of homeostasis.
Any volume above 70 percent of a 1RM feels challenging from the get go and will build muscle, you should laugh at the gays who do a 4by10 and say they are training high volume when they could hit a 4by10 @ 15%of their 1rm higher weight,
If you're lifting for size, you want to do lower intensity at progressively higher reps to maximize growth.
If you're lifting for strength, you want to do low reps at progressively higher intensity to maximize weight number.
You really can't do both at the same time without sacrificing efficiency.
>You really can't do both at the same time without sacrificing efficiency.
>.t dyel
enter DUP/sheiko, enter machines and accessories.
>Restating the widely known conventional wisdom in the middle of an in depth discussion
How helpful
hypertrophy gains are relatively the same anywhere in 5-30 reps and 0-3 RIR
if you want strength, it's usually low rep work, CNS adaptations, speed work, and other specifics
>there is one type of hypertrophy
>there is one type of strength
>hypertrophy: muscle protein synthesis
>strength: force against external resistance
what am I missing
myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic
absolute vs relative
>myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic
Meme
>absolute vs relative
True
>True
In what sense? Why does it matter? It's the same "type" of strength it's just different ways of measuring it
dont (you) me kid
The chads don't want you to know about strength vs. hypertrophy training because it keeps you weak to be ignorant
>The chads don't want you to know about strength vs. hypertrophy training because it keeps you weak to be ignorant
So they have you continue strength training because they want you "weak"
also the dumbfricks are always going on about 'strength vs hypetropthy' that is the basis of this entire thread and every discussion on this matter
You know what just don't post any more
You can get plenty of hypertrophy training strength, but no so much strength when training solely hypertrophy so it's good to include some strength oriented sets every now and again.
this is just moronic enough to actually work for OP
tp be fair, if you do hit volume and hit like 3 *1 singles @ 85% every session you will be fine.
This is not a long term thing tho, just a volume block bandaid