Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Is it true or not that one can focus on size or strength?

UCSMiami

UCSMiami

Well-known member
Can one train for size vs train for strength?

I thought that high rep, low weight creates size,(the pumped up look) whereas low rep, heavy weight creates strength.

Is that correct, partially or just plain erroneous?
 
ol' Zir Red posted a research article a while back that showed that stimulating growth can occur at nearly any rep range. what matters is similar to what arnold said in pumping iron. all the reps that lead up to the last rep are worthless. it is that last rep in the tank that pushes the stimulus for growth. whether that be the 5th rep, 10th rep, or 20th rep. push it hard till the end.

we also know that lower reps help more so with improving your efficiency, or improving strength. so you can do both to some degree. just like the different energy systems of the body. you use them all, just at times you use 1 more so than others.
 
I would say there are three categories, size, strength, cutting.

Strength= under 6 reps
Size= 6-12 reps
Cutting= above 12 reps
 
I have much too learn. I guess that is the benefit in alternating heavy periods with lighter ones.

How much of the 1RMA percentage is used for size and cutting?

I do the 5x5 for the heavy vertical compounds at what I think is about 90%. No spotter so have to allow a safety measure.
 
LeanEngineer said:
I would say there are three categories, size, strength, cutting. Strength= under 6 reps Size= 6-12 reps Cutting= above 12 reps
Click to expand...

There's a strength rep range, but a true size and cutting rep range doesn't exist. Those are dictated by nutrition just as much as the training itself.
 
LeanEngineer said:
I would say there are three categories, size, strength, cutting.

Strength= under 6 reps
Size= 6-12 reps
Cutting= above 12 reps
Click to expand...

That's old gym bro advice lol.. Keeps getting passed around like a cold. The following advice is for bodybuilders rather than weight lifters:

Whatever works for you when you're building muscle will work if you're cutting fat. The factor you want to change is diet. And you may want to take an extra off day here and there.

Increasing intensity (supersets, shorter time between sets, ect..) will do much more for you than just increasing reps. But intensity should be high all the time.. So really the only major thing that should change is diet.

But don't bulk fast because you'll just gain extra fat you don't want. If ALL you care about is mass (sheer size), then bulk away. But if you're wanting to look like a Greek statue, slow and steady is the way to go.

By the way, I mostly stick around the 8-10ish rep range, but some sets I'll go heavier, some lighter. I do the instinctive approach rather than a rigid plan. Works for me!
 
Type O Hero said:
That's old gym bro advice lol.. Keeps getting passed around like a cold. The following advice is for bodybuilders rather than weight lifters:

Whatever works for you when you're building muscle will work if you're cutting fat. The factor you want to change is diet. And you may want to take an extra off day here and there.

Increasing intensity (supersets, shorter time between sets, ect..) will do much more for you than just increasing reps. But intensity should be high all the time.. So really the only major thing that should change is diet.

But don't bulk fast because you'll just gain extra fat you don't want. If ALL you care about is mass (sheer size), then bulk away. But if you're wanting to look like a Greek statue, slow and steady is the way to go.

By the way, I mostly stick around the 8-10ish rep range, but some sets I'll go heavier, some lighter. I do the instinctive approach rather than a rigid plan. Works for me!
Click to expand...

Yea im kinda the same to. The main lifts like deadlift bench and squat I usually go heavy so it will be low reps heavy weight but most all other lifts for me are between 8 and 12 reps.

And yea nutrition has everything to do with cutting and bulking.
 
Rodja said:
Yes, but they're not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

asooneyeonig said:
ol' Zir Red posted a research article a while back that showed that stimulating growth can occur at nearly any rep range. what matters is similar to what arnold said in pumping iron. all the reps that lead up to the last rep are worthless. it is that last rep in the tank that pushes the stimulus for growth. whether that be the 5th rep, 10th rep, or 20th rep. push it hard till the end.

we also know that lower reps help more so with improving your efficiency, or improving strength. so you can do both to some degree. just like the different energy systems of the body. you use them all, just at times you use 1 more so than others.
Click to expand...

Pretty much these answers. I honestly think that size and strength are very closely correlated. Not between different people, but between different versions of yourself. For the most part, a stronger version of you will be a bigger version and a bigger version will be a stronger version.

Is this 100% true? No, it is not. You can gain strength for a little while by various mechanisms - the most obvious being neurological improvements. You simply get better at a movement, get better at firing more muscle fibers at once, etc. But this only goes so far. Maybe you will gain 5,10, even 30 pounds on an exercise (who really knows? I don't), but eventually you will require bigger, thicker fibers to support the weight and more material in the muscle to fuel contraction.

On the flip side, you can maybe train to improve the size of your muscle without gaining strength....but this will only go so far. Eventually you will be able to curl a weight 100 times and your body will no longer adapt because the stress is not sufficient to warrant any adaptation. Not to mention the amount of energy burned will hurt your body's ability to adapt.

IMO, the best way to increase size is to increase strength. Constant progress on strength will bring the size.

And just to point out, the two people I quoted often disagree with me on many things, and we've had many great discussions because of it. But it appears we agree on this, which has to mean something. The end of the world is near?
 
I'd also think about the mechanism that forces a muscle to get either bigger or stronger (separately, though they are related). Strength is an adaptation forced by pushing the upper limits of your muscular capacity. Size is an adaptation demanded by increased cellular storage requirements. This is primarily triggered by higher reps and/or volume. Don't forget volume!
 
I'll play devil's advocate and disagree here to a point. Some examples are a few of the BJJ guys I workout with and a few krav maga instructors. These guys are far stronger than their sizes would have you believe and they are very lean. They are muscular, but nothing that looks far from an ordinary person that was in shape. Then on the other hand, I know a couple of guys I used to bike with and they have absolutely gargantuan legs that look comical almost and they couldn't squat more 245 when we'd get them under the bar.

Now, I am of the belief that endurance is also a measure of strength, but for the purpose of this conversation, I think it is very possible to build muscle and look strong without actually being strong in comparison.
 
aendi said:
I'd also think about the mechanism that forces a muscle to get either bigger or stronger (separately, though they are related). Strength is an adaptation forced by pushing the upper limits of your muscular capacity. Size is an adaptation demanded by increased cellular storage requirements. This is primarily triggered by higher reps and/or volume. Don't forget volume!
Click to expand...
Strength is just as much a neural adaptation as it is a muscular adaptation.

kisaj said:
I'll play devil's advocate and disagree here to a point. Some examples are a few of the BJJ guys I workout with and a few krav maga instructors. These guys are far stronger than their sizes would have you believe and they are very lean. They are muscular, but nothing that looks far from an ordinary person that was in shape. Then on the other hand, I know a couple of guys I used to bike with and they have absolutely gargantuan legs that look comical almost and they couldn't squat more 245 when we'd get them under the bar. Now, I am of the belief that endurance is also a measure of strength, but for the purpose of this conversation, I think it is very possible to build muscle and look strong without actually being strong in comparison.
Click to expand...
Well, that is a different conversation altogether as we're looking primarily at core and connective tissue strength. Any elite grappler is going to have three things: great grip, great core strength, and great isometric endurance. Judoka and wrestlers in particular are going to be at the high end of this since they're combat is always in close proximity.
 
Rodja said:
Well, that is a different conversation altogether as we're looking primarily at core and connective tissue strength. Any elite grappler is going to have three things: great grip, great core strength, and great isometric endurance. Judoka and wrestlers in particular are going to be at the high end of this since they're combat is always in close proximity.
Click to expand...

I could have used different examples with the same result, but I was just laying out another angle that supports the idea that muscle mass is not indicative of strength and vice versa.
 
kisaj said:
I could have used different examples with the same result, but I was just laying out another angle that supports the idea that muscle mass is not indicative of strength and vice versa.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but it's a little different of an example since we're into a specificity conversation.
 
I understand, but I feel it applies to the OP's thought process and question at hand as well.

Carry on, I just was just putting out food for thought.
 
There is also a theory that the correlation between strength and size is dependend on the type of body you have (ecto , meso and endo) like a meso has a good correlation and the other two dont,,,
 
kisaj said:
I'll play devil's advocate and disagree here to a point. Some examples are a few of the BJJ guys I workout with and a few krav maga instructors. These guys are far stronger than their sizes would have you believe and they are very lean. They are muscular, but nothing that looks far from an ordinary person that was in shape. Then on the other hand, I know a couple of guys I used to bike with and they have absolutely gargantuan legs that look comical almost and they couldn't squat more 245 when we'd get them under the bar.

Now, I am of the belief that endurance is also a measure of strength, but for the purpose of this conversation, I think it is very possible to build muscle and look strong without actually being strong in comparison.
Click to expand...

This IS food for thought, but it doesn't necessarily go against what has been said. As Rodja pointed out, specificity comes into play here. Your example has someone with huge legs that can't squat 245 - but squats themselves require specificity. They pull your entire posterior chain into play. What can the bikers use for leg extensions and leg presses?

Also, those bikers with bigger legs can work harder now that they have bigger legs than they did when they had smaller legs. I bet going up steep hills and things of that nature are now possible, where as when they started they probably struggled or couldn't do the steepest inclines.

Same with the BJJ guys. They have improved strength in certain movements. They may not have improved enough to require size increases, or at least not dramatic size increases, but these movements are specific and devastating. Plus, they are not aiming to improve strength per se, they are aiming at improving their skill/outcome/effect. Many martial arts actually rely on maximizing the effect of your strength, not improving it - or at least that is my understanding. So these guys may be very good at using their strength for an effect, but they may not actually be all that "strong". I could be wrong here...not a ton of martial arts experience.
 
I get where you are going, but it still plays into the question of whether you can train for or focus for one and not the other. Whether it be intentional or not, it can be done. I am using the examples just for reference, as I could pick many others. Also, I am not talking about specific strength to the sport/ activity itself but rather translation into traditional weight training. A lean, smaller stature guy putting up 2x the weight that a guy full of muscle mass. Are other factors in play like diet? Of course. All I'm throwing out is that I believe you can certainly train for one area without needing to necessarily incorporate the other. Obviously it is relative to the individuals starting point, so this is generally speaking.
 
kisaj said:
I get where you are going, but it still plays into the question of whether you can train for or focus for one and not the other. Whether it be intentional or not, it can be done. I am using the examples just for reference, as I could pick many others. Also, I am not talking about specific strength to the sport/ activity itself but rather translation into traditional weight training. A lean, smaller stature guy putting up 2x the weight that a guy full of muscle mass. Are other factors in play like diet? Of course. All I'm throwing out is that I believe you can certainly train for one area without needing to necessarily incorporate the other. Obviously it is relative to the individuals starting point, so this is generally speaking.
Click to expand...

I agree with you , I mean if size comes with strength then those olympic weightlifters would be huge but they arent
 
jaces said:
I agree with you , I mean if size comes with strength then those olympic weightlifters would be huge but they arent
Click to expand...

Not sure if srs


Like really


Have you ever seen any of those guys?


Srs
 
Haha ok yeah , no but you must look at the ratio , they have a much bigger strength to muscle ratio than a pro bodybuilder? I know a lot of guys that cant bench more than 300 but they have huge chest and triceps because they learned how to contract a muscle and not to lift a weight
 
kisaj said:
I get where you are going, but it still plays into the question of whether you can train for or focus for one and not the other. Whether it be intentional or not, it can be done. I am using the examples just for reference, as I could pick many others. Also, I am not talking about specific strength to the sport/ activity itself but rather translation into traditional weight training. A lean, smaller stature guy putting up 2x the weight that a guy full of muscle mass. Are other factors in play like diet? Of course. All I'm throwing out is that I believe you can certainly train for one area without needing to necessarily incorporate the other. Obviously it is relative to the individuals starting point, so this is generally speaking.
Click to expand...

I get you're point too. And I don't disagree that you can train, to some very small degree, one way or another. I'm just saying, the difference is limited in either direction. You can gain a little extra size, but if you can't fire it efficiently it won't translate to strength. You can gain a little bit of efficiency (strength) without gaining much or any size. But the difference in the vast majority of the cases will be small. i.e. - If you train one way you will get 45% strength and 55% size, and the other way will give you 45% size and 55% strength.

I don't believe that someone can get MUCH bigger without getting stronger, and I don't believe someone can get MUCH stronger without getting a little bigger.

But, of course, there will always be some examples out there that call this into question....as you say, the starting point for an individual is a big factor. For 90% of the time though, and if you are trying to apply useful methodology, I think the two go hand in hand with the exception of a small swing in either direction.
 
jaces said:
Haha ok yeah , no but you must look at the ratio , they have a much bigger strength to muscle ratio than a pro bodybuilder? I know a lot of guys that cant bench more than 300 but they have huge chest and triceps because they learned how to contract a muscle and not to lift a weight
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges.
 
They aren't mutually exclusive
Some strength will result in size some size will result in strength but you can definitely work at getting stronger while minimizing size increases
 
I mean there is a reason that some programs emphasis compound work at a higher 1RMA % with less reps compared to others which include isolation work and raise the rep count and lower the 1RMA% and of course some programs make that percentage a progressive scale.

In the end given the same body type and using appropriate nutrition and recovery is the visible result a noticeable difference? Is there a noticeable raw strength difference?
 
Yes.

You can see this for yourself if you mix up your routines. If you are used to strength training and normally stay in the 2-5 rep range. Run a high rep/set routine designed for mass and size like GVT, 20rep squat, or any other high rep routine for example. Then try to go back and see how strong you are compared to when you were strength training. There will no doubt be a very noticeable difference, but I can all but guarantee that you put on size. On the other hand take someone that was running high reps and now strength trains and watch what happens. I am working out with several guys doing just this. They were training for shows and now are training for other events and are maxing lifts in the 2-3 rep range. They are getting much stronger, but you can see them almost look like they are shrinking. I asked one guy if he was running a deficit and that was not the case, simply different workouts.

So, going back. Are the mutually exclusive? No, not really as there will always be a little carry over to a point- especially for someone just starting and then that becomes negligible. Can you train for one direction and not the other, in my experience- most definitely.
 
I do it all the time because we can. I normally run heavy, low-mid range reps with oly work mixed in because it suits my other activities. But, I will then mix in PHAT and then move into a high rep range in the spring to help build endurance for rugby and it helps with the pool muscles. :)

Part of the fun of being in shape is experimenting to see how far we can take ourselves. Sometimes I'll just be sitting with my wife and go, tomorrow I am starting 'xyz'. And then I commit to it to see what happens.
 
Look if you aren't in the extremes (by that I mean low rep, sub 3, maybe even doubles and high reps 15+) you will gain both muscle and strength assuming you are in a calorie surplus and applying progressive overload in whatever rep range you like.

At the end of the day, it is so negligible the difference. I can guarantee if you put all this time worrying about rep ranges into your diet you would benefit far more.
 
He hasn't put "all this time worrying", he is just asking a question. And yes, you can certainly work to gain both, but his question specifically asked if you can train for one or the other.
 
cumminslifter said:
lol what
Click to expand...

Haha i was just trying to give like a dumbed down version between strength size and cutting. For me when im cutting i will, lower calories, lower carbs, up protein, up cardio, higher reps than normal( abover (12 usually for most exercises but there are some that wont go above 12), less rest in between sets, and supplement in a fat burner.

So i just wrote abover 12 because he was asking about the rep range for certain desires.
 
Keep on training the same way IMOx kick ass in the gym and crawl out. Refuel on some food + sns supps. Rest. Repeat.
 
^^^ Yep! easier said than done. Consistency is key to. repeat repeat repeat.
 
LeanEngineer said:
Do you change your rep range when cutting or do you do low reps still? Thats what i was trying to get at.
Click to expand...
i dont change my routine at all other than cut out some volume. why would you change your routine when you are cutting. that doesn't make any sense. The routine that helped you build strength/muscle will be the same program that will help you retain muscle on a cut
that is why so many people lose strength when they cut, they go dumb and do nothing but 15+ rep sets hoping its going to "get them cut"

edit: i would like to add i actually gained about 20-25 pounds on my total when i cut 20 pounds. Its all about proper programming
 
cumminslifter said:
i dont change my routine at all other than vut out some volume. why would you change your routine when you are cutting. that doesn't make any sense. The routine that helped you build strength/muscle will be the same program that will help you retain muscle on a cut
that is why so many people lose strength when they cut, they go dumb and do nothing but 15+ rep sets hoping its going to "get them cut"
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
^^ Yes. Nutrition i would say is the biggest part that needs change. The other stuff you dont really need to change so much but i like to do some things different when im cutting. Everybody has their own style though;)
 
LeanEngineer said:
Everybody has their own style though;)
Click to expand...

people do have their own style, and then there is science. great thing about opinions, you are allowed to have one irrelevant of the facts and an open forum, AKA anabolic minds is such, allows for anyone's opinion to be voiced. keep in mind, an opinion is open for challenge against the facts.
 
It is also why you see so many people creating their own routines and then wondering why they aren't seeing results they expect.
 
kisaj said:
It is also why you see so many people creating their own routines and then wondering why they aren't seeing results they expect.
Click to expand...

Yeah I tend to cut exercises I dont like so I usually let someone scan over it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top