>muscle is strength
>hypertrophy doesn't make you stronger, just more muscular
explain
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>muscle is strength. >hypertrophy doesn't make you stronger, just more muscular
>muscle is strength
>hypertrophy doesn't make you stronger, just more muscular
explain
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
I want a borzoi so bad bros. They are so cute.
When people say this, they are mostly talking about weight to strength ratio, which is important for sports. Hypertrophy will tend to make you slightly stronger, and much better at lifting medium weights for large volumes.
But if I grow muscle and muscle is strength why don't I get as strong as (for example) a powerlifter if I do hypertrophy training?
>why don't I get as strong as (for example) a powerlifter if I do hypertrophy training?
because you dont weigh 300lbs
The gist of it is that hypertrophy is more like having a bigger and more efficient fuel tank while strength is having a stronger engine.
You can train for strength by going low reps high weights which will fine tune your central nervous system to be able to, over time, recruit more muscle fibers when lifting. You can become stronger without necessarily growing bigger muscles.
Obviously my understanding of it is elementary and if any biology nerds are lurking i hope they can provide a better explanation.
>Obviously my understanding of it is elementary and if any biology nerds are lurking i hope they can provide a better explanation.
No, that's actually a very good explanation and analogy.
Because your muscles are being conditioned for high volume instead of high weight. They are not getting the same neural gains and fast/hybrid twitch muscle fiber gains.
>your lower body muscles are stronger because they are bigger
>bigger muscles arent inherently stronger
huh?
>lower body exercises will make your upper body stronger
whuht
neurobiologist here, i'll give you the real shocker: most bullshit claims like "sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy" etc are nothing but broscience. the truth of the matter is that sports science in general is a poorly funded field, and even the studies that do happen don't delve into actual physiological mechanisms. not even the methodology is standardized. if you open the papers roidmonkey "science lifters" like nippard quote for example, you'll see some use weightlifting noobs, some use athletes, some use smith machines, some use barbells, so even those that measure very empirical observable shit don't do it properly.
this problem leads to empirical experience from coaching having equal if not more value to literature on the topic. many things about training (especially for specific sports) are therefore based on coaching traditions rather than some factually established logic. bodybuilders will tell you do 12 reps, powerlifters will tell you do triples, hence the first is good for "hypertrophy" and the latter for "strength". In reality, the only well understood and documented separation in muscle building is adapting towards slow oxidative (SO), fast oxidative (FO) and fast glycolytic (FG) types of muscle fibers. aka, either working towards endurance or towards power and strength. this is the scientific reason why doing 50 reps vs 5 reps (with comparable intensity) have different results. the rest is pretty much broscience, and between shills selling you crap and fake nattys you can't even take empirical advice at face value
also to add to this, the most recent review from 2021 on the subject saw no difference in hypertrophy from low rep to high rep schemes
Do you snort deferoxamine or are you a big pharma shill ?
There was a really good explanation on that pec tear that guy had while being spotted by larry wheels, the explanation was that the guy that had the tear only did hypertrophy training and never did power lifting, so his tendons weren't accustomed to really heavy loads like larry's were, so when he loaded a giant weight, his pecs just tore even though he was a mass monster.
Training specificity is a thing, but the example above is where it matters, only in extreme cases. If you train for hypertrophy, you will be very strong and look good. If you train for strength, and you don't bulk into a bloatlord, you will also be very strong and look good.
Right this is a good point hypertrophy training should be limited by muscular endurance (cramping/burning and you know you cant do another rep) whereas maxing out weights your limits are rarely actually muscles but tendons ligaments flexibility etc.
strength training is stresses all physical of the body whereas hypertrophy exists to specifically target muscles only.
I would argue hypertrophy training will improve the longevity of your tendons and connective tissues, though. You're basically bulletproofing them against repetitive strain. I think strength training takes a toll on the connective tissues over time, even though they will become acutely strong.
>only in extreme cases
The other extreme case would be sports where weight matters, such as swimming, track and field, wrestling, and weightclassed martial arts.
?????????????????????????????????
hypertrophy will make you stronger 100%
bigger muscles means more blood is going though them, because they require more nutrients. This is done by doing a lot of heavy reps.
stronger muscles are more dense with muscle fibres to output more power. this is done by doing fewer buy heavier reps.
Hypertrophy: damn these muscles work alot, better send more blood to them
Strenght: damn these muscles often work insanely hard, better get those fibres in order.