Size vs Strength IA Article

  1. Question Size vs Strength IA Article

    I've just read IA article on this topic and I think it has turn on a light in my head.

    I've realize that I had always a bit of trouble when it comes to gaining size, or at least I do not gain like I want to. Im only at 220 pounds for a 6'6" 18 years old boy. Then, after reading article, I realize that I'm really weak for a guy of my stature. My bench is about 225, squat 275 and deadlift 300.

    Now I know IA would tell me you need to gain a lot of strength, then after this focus on size, but I just want to know your thoughts about this.

    For me, the answer is pretty obvious now, but just want to know others opinions.

  2. It depends on your goal. They are 2 completely different types of training. Now granted if you stimulate myofibillar hypertrophy you will get stronger but it won't compare to anything that focus more on neural stimulation (which doesn't reallly trigger growth stimuli).

    Gaining size is usually a results of improper training and/or improper diet which can be fixed. Neural stimulation OTOH can be done without your traditional "bulking" diets so you could easily make strength gains without adding size. You just have to figure out what you really want. Of course you could do both at the same time but the results are usually slower than if you were fixed on a certain type of training.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  3. Well, I definitly want size over strength. I don't really care about strength, but I do want to have the massive look.

    However, like I said, since I've read IA article, I did somewhat a link. The thing is that I'm not very strong in all areas of my body, except for my calves, which I consider my big strength. Like I mention it, my bench, squat and deadlift sucks, but my standing calve raise is pretty strong : I can lift up to 1300 lbs for 8 reps.
    That's bring me to the link I've made this morning : I consider all my area of my body lacking, except my calve. I have 18 inches calve (pretty good) but only 40 inches for the chest. That's why I think IA may be right, that you need some foundation first, some strength, then after you can concentrate it all on hypertrophy.

    What do you guys think ?

  4. In some cases I agree but in others I do not. I had zero foundation. None at all. At 6'6 220 your not small at all and I would guess that you have much more of a foundation that you think (that is if you not obese). Now I was 6'1 140. That is ZERO foundation. What you have to do now is stop over analyzing your current situation and stick to the basics. That in itself will give you a foundation to work with if your lacking in that area. You can easily build size while increasing strength at a pretty constant rate if your workouts are geared to those goals. Myofibillar hypertrophy will give you both. My guess if if you work on both goals with the right training and nutrition (probably more important), you can increase nueral stimulation (strenght) while increasing size (myofibillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy). Now if your geared just for size, then your strenght will improve at a much slower rate due to the fact your workouts and ratios will be geared accordinly (if you do it correctly)
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  5. Bobo, what do you mean by Myofibillar hypertrophy? can you explain it to me in a bit or give me something to research and read?

  6. Training geared towards thickening existing muscle fibers.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  7. By basics, what do you actually means ?

    Right now, Im doing a 4 day split, and I cycle the rep every 2-3 weeks. I'm doing 9-10 reps for 2 weeks, 7-8 reps for 3 weeks, 5-6 reps for 3 weeks, and finally 3-4 reps for 2 weeks. I keep a tempo of 2 sec positive, and 2-3 sec negative.

    I keep the volume pretty low, about 7-8 sets for big muscles, 4-5 for smaller, pretty much all big lifts (squat, deadlift, pullup...).

    Is that ok for training ?

  8. By the bascis I mean getting your training and nutrition in order before worrying about any elabortate schemes (if haven't done so)

    What your doing is bascially peroidization training which in effect is pretty good overall but usually intended for a more advanced lifter. It enables you to stimulate neural, myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in all areas. Many competitors will use this to bring up lagging body parts while still maintaing strenght ans size in other areas.

    What I would do is focus more on myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic training. I am a big fan of volume training when it comes to this style as it seems to work the best (but it might not for you) but you MUST have a nutrition plan that corresponds to that style. It is the most important aspect IMO with this style of training.

    If I mispell myofibrillar wrong one more time, this keyboard is going out the window.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  9. Ok
    Thanks for advice bobo. I will do some search about myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic training.

  10. He is just stating that you should do hypertrophy specif work. But it would be much to easy to just say that.

    Iron Addict

  11. I'm hoping they can actually learn something IA. And there are different types of hypertrophy and different methods for each.

    "For me, the answer is pretty obvious now, but just want to know others opinions."

    He wanted opinions. We generally like to explain things a bit firther than telling people "go do more sets and more reps".

    But next time I will keep it simple just for you IA.

    Chunky, forget what I said. Lift heavy, lift a lot, and eat many things. There you go.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  12. Rofl... IA and Bobo All I could think of.

  13. Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy
    Increasing the volume of the tissue that supplies energy to the muscle or is involved with the neural drive: Intimately involved in the production of ATP are intracellular bodies called "mitochondria". Muscle fibers will adapt to high volume (and higher rep) training sessions by increasing the number of mitochondria in the cells. They will also increase the concentrations of the enzymes involved in the oxidative phosphorylation and anaerobic glycolysis mechanisms of energy production and increase the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid inside the cell (including glycogen) and also the fluid between the actual cells. This type of hypertrophy produces very little in the way of added strength but has profound effects on increasing strength-endurance (the ability to do reps with a certain weight) because it dramatically increases the muscles' ability to produce ATP. Adaptations of this sort are characteristic of Bodybuilders' muscles.

    It should also be obvious that as the volume of the tissue that supplies energy to the muscle represents only around 20% of the total muscle cell volume in untrained individuals, this isn't where the real size potential lies.

    Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy of muscle cells does directly produce moderate increases in size . But also, as you'll know from the Neuromuscular System series, ATP is the source of energy for all muscular contraction - type II fibers included. Wouldn't having more of this in the muscle, and having the ability to produce greater intramuscular quantities at any one time, be an asset? The answer is, cleary, "yes". That's where a major portion of the importance of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy comes into Bodybuilding. (We'll deal with training to produce this type of adaptation in an article on the 'Training Related Articles' page.)

    As for increasing the tissue that is involved with the neural drive, this would theoretically occur in response to the need for contracting cells with hypertrophied contractile machinery. Directly, it would produce very little in the way of added size.

    In addition, there are other intracellular bodies who's growth and/or proliferation would fall under the category of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. These would be organelles such as the "ribosomes", which are involved in protein synthesis. As in the case of neural drive machinery, in most cases they would increase in size or number only to support sarcomere hypertrophy. They would have little direct impact on overall muscle size.

    here's the site -
    check out the articles on training

  14. Good article. Even encourages my need to purchase IGF-1.

  15. Great article, been a good help.


Similar Forum Threads

  1. best workout for size and strength?
    By paul3371 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-07-2013, 07:46 PM
  2. Size vs Strength
    By broda in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 11:53 AM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-18-2007, 01:19 AM
  4. Size Vs Strength
    By iron addict in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-23-2004, 12:25 AM
  5. Question about Size Vs. Strenght from another Board
    By iron addict in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-17-2003, 06:21 PM
Log in
Log in