GREAT article on size/strength volume/frequency

[MachMood]

I came across this short article a few days ago and thought to myself wow , that's very well explained, extremely short and really gets to the point. Everyone debates size vs strength and volume vs frequency. This explains both very well. it's not ground breaking o r new info, just something I came across that's explains a very complex topic very well

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/strengthvssize.html

[homonunculus]

I came across this short article a few days ago and thought to myself wow , that's very well explained, extremely short and really gets to the point. Everyone debates size vs strength and volume vs frequency. This explains both very well. it's not ground breaking o r new info, just something I came across that's explains a very complex topic very well
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/strengthvssize.html

Why do you believe what the author is saying?...

-S

[MachMood]

From personal experience and everything I have read this seems to really ring true for me. Any time I have done a volume routine working a muscle once a week I saw very minimal gains and came back every week feeling stale and like I took to much time off. Any time I did a low volume routine with frequency strength gains were great and size gains were ok but nothing crazy. After all that I decided to do a push/pull legs going mon-tue thurs-fri like the dc 3 way with moderate volume( 1 "big" exercise and 1 isolation) and it seemed to be perfect for me. I do go back to a dc 2 way split every now and then for strength but that just seems to work for me. After reading this article and my past experience it just all seemed to fit very nicely and ring true.

I will add that I don't really like workouts given. I've tried the "arnold" split before and it had way to much overlap and I felt like I was never recovered. Anything you guys feel are wrong with this article

[MachMood]

Gonna bump this and see what the experts have to say. Like I said in my personal experience DC IS amazing for strength gains and still adding some size vs a powerlifting routine, but if I do DC for 3 months then switch to a 3/1 split with volume I add a lot of size in a short amount of time. Right now I am on a DC split and have no intention of switching because right now I am lacking in the overall strength department but in the future I def see myself taking a 6-8 week switch to a routine with more volume. As suggested I will either do a 3/1 split or something like the author suggests....

Example of a hybrid that could work instead of 3/1

Monday- a typical DC A workout
Tuesday- a typical DC B workout
The goal for these 2 days are new PRS every week

Thursday- push 3-6 working sets per muscle group
Friday- pull 3-6 working sets per muscle group
Saturday- legs 3-6 working sets per muscle group

^^ almost like a layne norton PHAT workout

[thedunhill225]

For a muscle fiber get stronger...for its ability to produce force to increase... it must increase in size.

The ability to perform a movement is a skill.

[JohnnyBravo]

For a muscle fiber get stronger...for its ability to produce force to increase... it must increase in size.

The ability to perform a movement is a skill.

Dun, I read this like 4 times and I am trying to understand what you are saying with regard to the article. Not trying to be difficult, just want to understand your viewpoint.

If I get what your first statement is saying, you're saying size is a necessary prerequisite to become stronger, thus becoming stronger means by necessity, you must be becoming bigger.

w/r/t the second statement, is this a criticism of powerlifting/oly lifting type routines where the sole goal is to train a movement for maximal #s' as a skill rather than (for lack of a better term) "brute forcing" your way to higher numbers?

So then the conclusion to draw would be training for maximal strength with various movements and without training the movement as a "skill" => maximal size?

[thedunhill225]

The point is that they are not separate. You can't "train for strength" and not get larger IF your fibers get stronger. You can not get your fibers stronger without them getting larger. The second statement was not a diss on anything but the concept and the idea that you can get stronger without getting larger. You can't. What you can do is get better at a skill without your fibers increasing in size....but is that really stronger? I don't see how it is. That is in no way a diss on anything. That is the reason power lifters and O lifters drill technique. To become more efficient at a skill.

[MachMood]

I am no expert and have read a million different ideas on size/strength. This article seemed to Match my exact experience so thought I would share and see some of your guys thoughts

[JohnnyBravo]

The point is that they are not separate. You can't "train for strength" and not get larger IF your fibers get stronger. You can not get your fibers stronger without them getting larger. The second statement was not a diss on anything but the concept and the idea that you can get stronger without getting larger. You can't. What you can do is get better at a skill without your fibers increasing in size....but is that really stronger? I don't see how it is. That is in no way a diss on anything. That is the reason power lifters and O lifters drill technique. To become more efficient at a skill.

I wasn't saying you were dissing anything.
I think we are on the same page here. I agree with you. It's been said a million times, add a couple hundred pounds to your big compounds, eat more and you'll be bigger.
Simple, but not easy.

[lilarnold]

Looks actually pretty solid to me.....but like any routine you need to adjust it for your individual needs

[JohnCaesar]

For a muscle fiber get stronger...for its ability to produce force to increase... it must increase in size.

The ability to perform a movement is a skill.

The point is that they are not separate. You can't "train for strength" and not get larger IF your fibers get stronger. You can not get your fibers stronger without them getting larger. The second statement was not a diss on anything but the concept and the idea that you can get stronger without getting larger. You can't. What you can do is get better at a skill without your fibers increasing in size....but is that really stronger? I don't see how it is. That is in no way a diss on anything. That is the reason power lifters and O lifters drill technique. To become more efficient at a skill.

So are you saying neurological factors have nothing to do with force production?

As opposed to strength from a perspective of individual fibers, how about discussing this from the standpoint of motor units?

[MachMood]

I understand a stronger muscle is a bigger one but there's a reason BB's don't train like PL's and vise versa. Just trying to see the correlation and how to apply it to my training. A classic 5x5 pl routine will get you very strong but not nessasarily add the size you would
Think would go with that strength increase

[thedunhill225]

So are you saying neurological factors have nothing to do with force production?

As opposed to strength from a perspective of individual fibers, how about discussing this from the standpoint of motor units?

Depends how you take it. Strength? To me strength transfers but skill does not. If someone increased their bench through becoming more skilled at benching then that song transfer to other exs, to other skills. In the real world that almost never happens to a 100% degree but use an example of a guy that uses good technique on inclines but poor technique benching...say he is using 315 for reps on both cause his bench form is poor. Have a knowledgeable powerlifter work with that guy in his technique, could be his bar speed, his bar path, etc...whatever it is... If his technique was poor and a good person works with him he may jump up 50lbs in a cpl workouts. Now did he get STRONGER? Or did he just get more skilled?,will his other lifts increase cause he improved his bench technique? Lifting a wt is a skill but it is a specific skill (S.A.I.D. principle) and that skill won't transfer. I see coaches do it all the time with athletes. They drill them in technique and repetition... They improve their skills in the wt room but in the absence of an increase in the strength of the muscle fibers that won't transfer.
I know, I know...a lill off topic there.

[MachMood]

Dun it sounds like you are saying basically get stronger and you'll get bigger. From everything I have Read and seen this is not
An absolute, that's why bodybuilders don't train specifically or strength. I've seen many people go from a 135 bench to 285 and a 135 squat to 350 and not gain much size.
Now take that same person who is now much Stonger and put him on
A Bb routine and he gets bigger.
Now obviouosly his new found strength helps him on hi new routine pushing mire weight but the size increase isn't specific to his
Strength increase as he gained 85% of his size after he gained his strength

[JohnCaesar]

Depends how you take it. Strength? To me strength transfers but skill does not. If someone increased their bench through becoming more skilled at benching then that song transfer to other exs, to other skills. In the real world that almost never happens to a 100% degree but use an example of a guy that uses good technique on inclines but poor technique benching...say he is using 315 for reps on both cause his bench form is poor. Have a knowledgeable powerlifter work with that guy in his technique, could be his bar speed, his bar path, etc...whatever it is... If his technique was poor and a good person works with him he may jump up 50lbs in a cpl workouts. Now did he get STRONGER? Or did he just get more skilled?,will his other lifts increase cause he improved his bench technique? Lifting a wt is a skill but it is a specific skill (S.A.I.D. principle) and that skill won't transfer. I see coaches do it all the time with athletes. They drill them in technique and repetition... They improve their skills in the wt room but in the absence of an increase in the strength of the muscle fibers that won't transfer.
I know, I know...a lill off topic there.

I am confused. Is this a response to the questions I posed to you or was it meant to steer the topic in a different direction?

For a muscle fiber get stronger...for its ability to produce force to increase... it must increase in size.

The point is that they are not separate. You can't "train for strength" and not get larger IF your fibers get stronger. You can not get your fibers stronger without them getting larger. The second statement was not a diss on anything but the concept and the idea that you can get stronger without getting larger. You can't. What you can do is get better at a skill without your fibers increasing in size....but is that really stronger? I don't see how it is. That is in no way a diss on anything. That is the reason power lifters and O lifters drill technique. To become more efficient at a skill.

My questions are in regards to the bolded statements above.

Are you saying neurological factors have nothing to do with force production?

As opposed to strength from a perspective of individual fibers, Can we discuss this topic from the standpoint of motor units?