Strength vs Size for Nattys

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think this is a very good assessment. When anyone starts out training with weights, how much you’re lifting is really all you have to go on. It’s also much easier to focus on as even with the best of genetics, it’s rare to see actual physical muscle growth on a weekly, if not monthly basis. Much later on, you get people becoming more concerned with other variables, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a decent bodybuilder who was truly weak.
S[/quote]

Good point. And to add to this, you HAVE to be concerned with other variables later on because you cannot add strength forever. Eventually the weight starts stalling out and you have to look for other ways to stimulate growth.

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I find some of the comments on this thread interesting…

Personally I do not think as a beginner you can be mislead into doing a program such as Madcow or 531. I wish I was aware of these options when I started, instead I engaged in weight lifting dumb-fuckery. I would have been alot better off if I started off doing 5x5 and had a base of strength before anything else, and when asked by younger lifters I whole heartedly recommend these programs. 5/3/1 does work different rep ranges and Madcow is not a cookie cutter program meaning you could add other things to it to satisfy your inner body builder.

ZJ - 531, especially its original form, does not advocate poor form, instead from what I remember it always advocates leaving a rep or two in the tank to avoid situations such as yours. The progression in 531 is slow and deliberate, and you dont train off your full max but your training max (85% IIRC) so this type of program along with the Boring but big template allows for safe strength gain and hypertrophy rep ranges.

Flash - In PL terms I wouldn’t advocate any raw lifter benching into their belly buttons or having an extreme elbow tuck like a shirted lifter would. If you could get away with flaring elbows to activate the pecs more God Bless you. Up until about 4 years ago I benched exclusively in a BB style, and while I became decent at benching this way it wreaked havoc on my shoulders, to the point where I stopped flat benching all together until I decided to start competing. Raw benching with elbow placement at a 45 degree angle seemed to give my shoulders some room (as so they were not at their ROM limit in a sense) and always found just below the nips to be optimal. I know quite a few BBers who bench the same way.

Like Greg said doing both is the best way, but I still think having a foundation of the “big three” is a good place to start[/quote]

My shoulders used to bug me during most pressing, but recently bought a Rumble Roller and between that and consistent mobility work I’m doing a lot of things pain free that used to be borderline crippling. Think that falls under the “things everyone should be doing” list. Also, I should of said “natural flare” meaning letting your elbows travel through their natural path without focusing on them.

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think this is a very good assessment. When anyone starts out training with weights, how much you’re lifting is really all you have to go on. It’s also much easier to focus on as even with the best of genetics, it’s rare to see actual physical muscle growth on a weekly, if not monthly basis. Much later on, you get people becoming more concerned with other variables, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a decent bodybuilder who was truly weak.
S[/quote]

Good point. And to add to this, you HAVE to be concerned with other variables later on because you cannot add strength forever. Eventually the weight starts stalling out and you have to look for other ways to stimulate growth.da sterons [/quote]
:wink:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think this is a very good assessment. When anyone starts out training with weights, how much you’re lifting is really all you have to go on. It’s also much easier to focus on as even with the best of genetics, it’s rare to see actual physical muscle growth on a weekly, if not monthly basis. Much later on, you get people becoming more concerned with other variables, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a decent bodybuilder who was truly weak.
S[/quote]

Good point. And to add to this, you HAVE to be concerned with other variables later on because you cannot add strength forever. Eventually the weight starts stalling out and you have to look for other ways to stimulate growth.da sterons [/quote]
;)[/quote]

Oh, you mean like teh creatinez? I don’t know, man. That stuff is pretty dangerous.

Getting the idea out of my head that there was “bodybuilding training” and “powerlifting training” really went a long way in getting me both bigger and stronger. There is far less of a dichotomy than many think, and getting stronger will help you get big, while getting bigger will help you get strong.

Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely something to say about specialization, but we’re seeing it more and more in powerlifting training trends now where the mentality is “start the day with a heavy lift, and then train like a bodybuilder”.

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Getting the idea out of my head that there was “bodybuilding training” and “powerlifting training” really went a long way in getting me both bigger and stronger. There is far less of a dichotomy than many think, and getting stronger will help you get big, while getting bigger will help you get strong.

Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely something to say about specialization, but we’re seeing it more and more in powerlifting training trends now where the mentality is “start the day with a heavy lift, and then train like a bodybuilder”.[/quote]
I was hoping you would chime in.

[quote]csulli wrote:

I was hoping you would chime in.[/quote]

I am definitely growing to become something of a lifting hippie, haha.

How many have experienced this:

You hit a plateau on your lift(s), and in order to increase the weight, you gain weight.

I know that I was stuck for while until I learned that by altering my diet and gaining about 12 pounds, all my compound lifts increased. I gained that weight in about 2 months, and I imagine maybe 8 pounds was fat that I had to cut, BUT the weight (having a larger base), made a big difference.

I also think if I had gained more muscle (but maybe less total weight), like 10 pounds (with 7 lbs of muscle and 3 pounds of fat), I imagine the results would be even better.

I’m a newb, but I just wanted to chime in… I think a lot of it depends on your natural inclination starting out…

For instance, I started out with Starting Strength, moved onto WS4SB, then 5/3/1, then HIT BB work, and just now I’m beginning to discover that I think high volume BB work is best for me…

I think there are also cases of individuals who are the opposite of me who start off with strength work and do great, or individuals like me who start off with BB work (like the OP suggests) and build a great base before moving onto strength work… I, for one, think I agree with the OP in that I should have really built some muscle first b/c I was very underdeveloped to begin with and training for strength was a bit of an uphill battle (I mean… it worked, but I regret not focusing more on hypertrophy right off the bat)…

I know my post is sort of meandering, but my main point is there will be people from all four camps (people who start off with strength and/or hypertrophy work and it’s exactly what they needed to begin with, and people that start off with either one or the other, when perhaps they would have been better served focusing on the other before moving on)…

Make any sense? lol

From David Kingsbury who trained Hugh Jackman for the new X-men Movie:

“Hugh hadn’t done much direct strength work prior to training with me. He mostly worked in the 8-12 rep range. I always encourage low, 1-5 rep heavy work to stimulate myofibril hypertrophy. Then after the heavy work is done we move onto the higher rep schemes to encourage sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. By increasing your strength with the low reps, you increase your capacity with the higher reps, so I always plan heavy sets of the compound movements. The combination of the two styles brings the best gains.”

Just thought that it pertained to the topic at hand. I understand that Hugh is most likely not natural but this idea has been echoed throughout the entire thread.

Eh. I don’t think there is a big difference in muscle building as long as you train hard. The difference is where you add the muscle. In something like powerlifting you add muscle where your body needs it to move the weight. A good BBer adds muscle where it looks best.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Eh. I don’t think there is a big difference in muscle building as long as you train hard. The difference is where you add the muscle. In something like powerlifting you add muscle where your body needs it to move the weight. A good BBer adds muscle where it looks best.[/quote]

This touches on a great point that a lot of beginners seem to miss out on. They get this notion that there are some sort of “hypertrophy routines” out there that are just hidden away in the depths of the internet, and all they need to do is ask enough questions and someone will show them the light. They ask for bodybuilding routines and are dissapointed the find out that, for a natural, it’s the same stuff they saw when they were doing other beginner routines. Heavy work with assistance work, meant to get you big and get you strong, it’s just more focused on getting the right muscles bigger in the right proportion.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Eh. I don’t think there is a big difference in muscle building as long as you train hard. The difference is where you add the muscle. In something like powerlifting you add muscle where your body needs it to move the weight. A good BBer adds muscle where it looks best.[/quote]

The worst part is trying to growt the small muscles and they refuse. Ie my arms

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
From David Kingsbury who trained Hugh Jackman for the new X-men Movie:

“Hugh hadn’t done much direct strength work prior to training with me. He mostly worked in the 8-12 rep range. I always encourage low, 1-5 rep heavy work to stimulate myofibril hypertrophy. Then after the heavy work is done we move onto the higher rep schemes to encourage sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. By increasing your strength with the low reps, you increase your capacity with the higher reps, so I always plan heavy sets of the compound movements. The combination of the two styles brings the best gains.”

Just thought that it pertained to the topic at hand. I understand that Hugh is most likely not natural but this idea has been echoed throughout the entire thread. [/quote]

Reminds me of Layne Norton’s philosophy on training: Take advantage of all rep ranges.

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Getting the idea out of my head that there was “bodybuilding training” and “powerlifting training” really went a long way in getting me both bigger and stronger. There is far less of a dichotomy than many think, and getting stronger will help you get big, while getting bigger will help you get strong.

Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely something to say about specialization, but we’re seeing it more and more in powerlifting training trends now where the mentality is “start the day with a heavy lift, and then train like a bodybuilder”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree but TRAINING ECONOMY quickly becomes a bitch, if you actually want to serve both masters properly. For example, spending 1-2x/week @45-60min on training your shoulders (front,lateral,rear) is common and necessary for a BBer, but very low on the priority list of an intermediate PLer.

My point is that you can easily mix aspects of both approaches, but there will always be a significant trade off.

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Getting the idea out of my head that there was “bodybuilding training” and “powerlifting training” really went a long way in getting me both bigger and stronger. There is far less of a dichotomy than many think, and getting stronger will help you get big, while getting bigger will help you get strong.

Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely something to say about specialization, but we’re seeing it more and more in powerlifting training trends now where the mentality is “start the day with a heavy lift, and then train like a bodybuilder”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree but TRAINING ECONOMY quickly becomes a bitch, if you actually want to serve both masters properly. For example, spending 1-2x/week @45-60min on training your shoulders (front,lateral,rear) is common and necessary for a BBer, but very low on the priority list of an intermediate PLer.

My point is that you can easily mix aspects of both approaches, but there will always be a significant trade off. [/quote]

I’m not so sure that is 100% true. Brian Whitacre is the top tier of natty bbing, and you can se him repping 600+ lb deadlifts here http://brianwhitacre.net/. I wouldn’t say he is trading off anything significant bbing wise by doing this, and he has the results to show for it. Or powerlifting wise for that matter, repping 600 for a natty at his weight is pretty damn impressive.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Getting the idea out of my head that there was “bodybuilding training” and “powerlifting training” really went a long way in getting me both bigger and stronger. There is far less of a dichotomy than many think, and getting stronger will help you get big, while getting bigger will help you get strong.

Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely something to say about specialization, but we’re seeing it more and more in powerlifting training trends now where the mentality is “start the day with a heavy lift, and then train like a bodybuilder”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree but TRAINING ECONOMY quickly becomes a bitch, if you actually want to serve both masters properly. For example, spending 1-2x/week @45-60min on training your shoulders (front,lateral,rear) is common and necessary for a BBer, but very low on the priority list of an intermediate PLer.

My point is that you can easily mix aspects of both approaches, but there will always be a significant trade off. [/quote]

I’m not so sure that is 100% true. Brian Whitacre is the top tier of natty bbing, and you can se him repping 600+ lb deadlifts here http://brianwhitacre.net/. I wouldn’t say he is trading off anything significant bbing wise by doing this, and he has the results to show for it. Or powerlifting wise for that matter, repping 600 for a natty at his weight is pretty damn impressive.[/quote]

I don’t like you.

ps: He has a decent dl, but is a far better BBer than “PLer”.

Somewhat tangential I suppose, but I think a huge source of confusion on this subject is people confusing strength with the amount of weight you are moving, or as I like to think of intrinsic strength v. extrinsic strength.

Bear with me.

I’m pushing 275 for a triple. Join a PLing gym and there’s a top bench press coach there who modifies my hip drive, my arch, hand positioning, shortens my ROM, etc. and in no time I’m pushing 315 for a triple. This is not the same as being intrinsically stronger at the micro level as far as the progressive overload necessary to force hypertrophy. If anything you may have forced yourself to be more efficient at the movement inducing less breakdown of the muscle fibers and a stronger firing of your nervous system to move the new PR up.

Improving intrinsic strength though is absolutely a part of muscle growth. So what you can only do 25lb for 4 sets of 8 on DB curls with 5 sec negatives and a 2 sec contraction at the top. 6 weeks later if this is 4 sets of 8 with 30s, or 4 sets of 12 with 25s still, you are much stronger and will see growth. If you one day decide to throw up 45s for 4 sets of 8 with no squeeze or slow contraction does it mean you’re stronger? Well, who really knows now?

And whether you like it or not, fight or flight mode makes us naturally seek tweaks to our form to become more efficient as we pile on more and more weight. It’s why it’s so crucial to maintain “BBing” form if your goal is growth.

Hope this makes sense. This is also something I have thought about WAYYYY too much :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Somewhat tangential I suppose, but I think a huge source of confusion on this subject is people confusing strength with the amount of weight you are moving, or as I like to think of intrinsic strength v. extrinsic strength.

Bear with me.

I’m pushing 275 for a triple. Join a PLing gym and there’s a top bench press coach there who modifies my hip drive, my arch, hand positioning, shortens my ROM, etc. and in no time I’m pushing 315 for a triple. This is not the same as being intrinsically stronger at the micro level as far as the progressive overload necessary to force hypertrophy. If anything you may have forced yourself to be more efficient at the movement inducing less breakdown of the muscle fibers and a stronger firing of your nervous system to move the new PR up.

Improving intrinsic strength though is absolutely a part of muscle growth. So what you can only do 25lb for 4 sets of 8 on DB curls with 5 sec negatives and a 2 sec contraction at the top. 6 weeks later if this is 4 sets of 8 with 30s, or 4 sets of 12 with 25s still, you are much stronger and will see growth. If you one day decide to throw up 45s for 4 sets of 8 with no squeeze or slow contraction does it mean you’re stronger? Well, who really knows now?

And whether you like it or not, fight or flight mode makes us naturally seek tweaks to our form to become more efficient as we pile on more and more weight. It’s why it’s so crucial to maintain “BBing” form if your goal is growth.

Hope this makes sense. This is also something I have thought about WAYYYY too much :p[/quote]

good post.

Definitely jskrabac