Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GREAT article on size/strength volume/frequency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by JohnCaesar View Post
    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?






    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?
    Sorry I just read my post and I was less than clear. My bad.

    Anyway, once you talk about neurological factors or even get into motor units then skill becomes involved. To me strength really is all about a fibers ability to produce force. If we start talking about the ability to recruit fibers during a movement we are then talking about a movement or skill specific ability. The only way I see to truly measure strength is to use an ex that's never trained and even better would be to use force plate in a plane that a person is not trained on. I know most believe strength is the ability to lift something but that is a skill. I know my post was not that clear but use the example I gave of someone lacking skill and having poor technique...if they improve their technique did they really get stronger? I bring up the sport or athletic subject in this discussion because I think its relevant. If a fiber increases its ability to produce force...say the glutes... That will help an athlete run and jump better because that will transfer but if an individual were to get "stronger" in say a deads by improving his technique or becoming more skilled (increasing his ability to recruit fibers, his body learning the ex better and thus relaxing opposing muscles, his bar speed changing slightly to get past a sticking point, etc...) then that won't help him run faster or jump higher because those things are skill specific.
    I know your a powerlifter so dont you practice your skill to become more efficient at it? If you increase your bench by drilling technique but your other pressing exs do not increase would you say you got stronger or more skilled?
    I hope I was a little clearer in my view.
    Follow my NEW journal if you please:


    http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=48304

    "They say I'm no good...cause I'm so hood, rich folks do not want me around" 50

    "You are you. That is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You."
    Dr. Seuss


    I would like to thank all the stupid people of the world. Without you guys I would only be average.


    "Tell them bitches get a stick I'm done leading the blind"
    Nicki Minaj

    Comment


    • #17
      To me, "stronger" is putting up more weight than previously done. Regardless of if you improved your skill, grew your muscle fibers, whatever, you moved more weight, therefore you are stronger than you were previously. Neurological factors do come into play, but there are TONS of guys whose totals keep getting higher as they struggle to stay in the same weight class year after year. That means to me that they aren't getting a whole lot bigger, but they ARE getting stronger. I don't think it is as complicated as this....I bench 315 in August, I bench 365 in October, I'm stronger, because I moved more weight.....seems relatively simple to me.....
      Last edited by steel1970; 08-17-2012, 01:36 PM.
      STEEL




      "SIMPLICITY, CONSISTENCY, INTENSITY"

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm more interested in strength as it relates to size and what rOle
        It plays in terms of puting together a structured routine to get as big as possible as Fast as possible .

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by steel1970 View Post
          To me, "stronger" is putting up more weight than previously done. Regardless of if you improved your skill, grew your muscle fibers, whatever, you moved more weight, therefore you are stronger than you were previously. Neurological factors do come into play, but there are TONS of guys whose totals keep getting higher as they struggle to stay in the same weight class year after year. That means to me that they aren't getting a whole lot bigger, but they ARE getting stronger. I don't think it is as complicated as this....I bench 315 in August, I bench 365 in October, I'm stronger, because I moved more weight.....seems relatively simple to me.....
          I find it more interesting and relevant from an athletic point of view. But hey... To each their own.
          Follow my NEW journal if you please:


          http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=48304

          "They say I'm no good...cause I'm so hood, rich folks do not want me around" 50

          "You are you. That is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You."
          Dr. Seuss


          I would like to thank all the stupid people of the world. Without you guys I would only be average.


          "Tell them bitches get a stick I'm done leading the blind"
          Nicki Minaj

          Comment


          • #20
            I would suggest doing a google "cycles for pennies scribd"
            Go there and read everything DC says about gaining, it is the most logical thing you will ever read,specialy concerning strength gains and size.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by thedunhill225 View Post
              I know your a powerlifter so dont you practice your skill to become more efficient at it? If you increase your bench by drilling technique but your other pressing exs do not increase would you say you got stronger or more skilled?
              I hope I was a little clearer in my view.
              Pardon as I forgot to reply to this. While you do practice to increase proficiency at a movement, it has other effects as well. One of the most beneficial is increased number of motor units recruited. Let's just look at something as simple as flexion of the elbow joint and one muscle which contributes to this action. For simplicity's sake, we will choose the bicep brachii and maintain supination the whole way through.

              The first time you perform this movement you are not going to be very good at it. Not only is this due to a lack of strength, it also involves a lack of ability to recruit a high number of motor units. No matter how hard you push yourself, you are still going to only be able to recruit a small %, maybe around 20-25%. Let's say these motor units can produce X amount of force. Then the next time you perform the movement, you have reduced some of the inhibitory mechanisms.

              So the second time you perform this movement, you can recruit 30-35% of available motor units and produce X+Z amount of force. Did you produce more force because your muscle fibers grew in size? No, not really. It was because you were more efficient and were able to overcome some built-in limitations. This is the basis for neural improvement in strength.

              I guess if you want to break it down to individual fibers, then there is a limitation to how much force can be produced without an increase in contractile material. This viewpoint is a bit odd, since no individual fibers do not work on their own, they perform together as motor units.



              Anyways, I will bring this statement up again.

              Originally posted by thedunhill225 View Post
              For a muscle fiber get stronger...for its ability to produce force to increase... it must increase in size.
              So by this statement are you saying a muscle fiber can not increase its ability to produce force by increasing it rate of electrical stimulation?
              FEAR THE FROG


              Originally posted by John Broz
              If your family was captured and you were told you needed to put 100 pounds onto your max squat within two months or your family would be executed, would you squat once per week? Something tells me that you'd start squatting every day. Other countries have this mindset. America does not.

              Comment


              • #22
                My 2cents:
                Force generation and hypertrophy overlap, but are NOT 100% associated.
                Most exercise science backs this.

                Comment


                • #23
                  OK... the author says a mix of heavy and volume training gives the best size results (in his POV).

                  Not a lot there to argue, I think, without falling into the trap of overthinking the matter.

                  Everyone's milage is different just as their purposes are.

                  Scary part is, stripped of the (impossible) goal of the "one" perfect way to go, everyone is right.

                  1) You grow with more strength (at least once your ability to recruit more fibers that are already there is maxed out). PL guys are big and are not fans of volume.

                  2) You grow with volume (if for no other reason than you fatigue more fibers and cause the body to store more glycogen in the muscles to handle prolonged exercise).

                  3) Excessive cardio sprinkles you with fairy dust (just kidding... I just hate the typical 'runner's body'... looks like skeletons on parade.)

                  So, the proper mix of strength and volume training (for the individual) theoretically would be the best way to go... except for the downsides of "only so many days to train in a year" and differing recovery times and rates from the two.

                  In other words, duh.
                  I've won on so many levels already I don't even care how I do at the show. I just wanna look damn good!!

                  --Steel

                  Muscles don't know how old they are.

                  Treat them like they are old and eat soup... and they will be.

                  Train 'em hard and feed them like a stud... and they will be.

                  So will you.


                  Journal

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think it is relevant to talk about Myofibrillar growth vs Sarcoplasmic growth(assuming there is really a difference). It would appear my gains In size when switching from Dc to a routine with volume/frequency would be mostly sarco. Is that a bad thing?.. Idk most would say myo is a more important over the long hall but if you can periodically increase size while constantly building myofibrillar muscle your getting the best of Both worlds. I'm putting dc in the category as mostly building myo because it's only 1-2 work sets a week with the emphasis on strength
                    Last edited by MachMood; 08-27-2012, 04:41 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Was just reading about over-reaching and super compensation and made me think of this post. Could the gains I saw switching from DC to high frequency/high volume due to this? I know most DCers like to stay on year long, could they benefit from switching every so often

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X