Training for Size or Strength? - Rant

[BigFiveFive]

Progress comes through the kitchen and weight used, not reps.

You think because I didn't squat 500lbs 10 times, only 3 that my legs didn't hurt? ....lulz

[DieselWeasel]

Here is an interesting article that was posted one week ago:

T NATION | Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked Than Powerlifters

[Abaddon]

Originally Posted by DieselWeasel

Here is an interesting article that was posted one week ago:

T NATION | Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked Than Powerlifters

In the natural arena(s), the writer's arguments and perspective are baised at best. Irrelevant broscience and naive assumptions are being employed here.

[LtL]

Ab's I think steroids make the gap wider than it is naturally yes but I do think it applies: training in "bodybuilding" rep' ranges, with proper progression, will allow you to ultimately, at your peak hold more size than someone who trains in lower rep' ranges. I will also concede that at a more beginner/imtermediate level, this makes about as much difference as whether you incline the bench to 30 or 35 degrees for incline dumbell flies

LtL

[BendtheBar]

At extreme levels of drug use, I'm sure training (and compound use) differs even more based on goals. I think we can all agree that Ronnie Coleman's muscle building AAS (and other chems) cycle didn't look like Elite Powerlifter X's strength building cycle.

From what I've learned, there are numerous chems at play in muscle building that may not (more like ARE NOT) be utilized or needed by powerlifters. I personally spoke to a pro-level bodybuilder this year and the chems he was using were miles above the average stuff plastered on forums, and miles beyond "just steroids."

To simply pretend the differences in elite powerlifters and bodybuilders is "all" training is a bit off the mark. Different goals, different chems. I am not implying that a powerlifter who took the same muscle building chems as Ronnie Coleman would look like Ronnie Coleman. Obviously there are other factors at play, including genetics and specific training protocols.

But with that said, if Powerlifter X used a more aggressive muscle building chem approach like a Coleman/Cutler, they would be more "jacked".

[TitanCT]

bodybuilders eat and train STRICTLY for asthetics, powerlifters eat and train for specific strength in certain lifts, strongman competitors train and eat for applicable strength for specified events. while they are all grouped under "weight lifter" i think to compare bodybuilding with strongman/powerlifting is straight up apples and oranges. not to mention a bodybuilder might look more ripped and maybe even bigger, but that is a trick. symmetry and being lean makes you appear bigger than you actually are...
doesnt mean powerlifters arent overall and actually bigger.

as far as chems. again, theres many uses for many things, but you guys tend to overlook that no chem is gonna do a thing without diet....remember Anabolic is a state of your metabolism...

[espm1000]

As said before the differences are made greater by the type and amount of chemicals used. Some bodybuilders cycle different prohormones just to help with their cuts so they don't lose any gains they had previously made. However, I do think there is something to be said about Time under tension vs locking out on the effects of muscle growth.

For instance, if you have a bodybuilder who doesn't lock out on flat bench for 6-8 reps the chest has more of a load being placed on it. If that same bodybuilder were to lockout on each rep the emphasis is taken off the chest and placed on the tri's and delts, so that bodybuilder isn't hitting his chest as effectively as he would like to. The differences are small, but locking out and taking that little bit of a rest may give the lifter just enough neural and muscular recovery to put that weight up again.

[Rich Knapp]

Originally Posted by TitanCT

bodybuilders eat and train STRICTLY for asthetics, powerlifters eat and train for specific strength in certain lifts, strongman competitors train and eat for applicable strength for specified events. while they are all grouped under "weight lifter" i think to compare bodybuilding with strongman/powerlifting is straight up apples and oranges. not to mention a bodybuilder might look more ripped and maybe even bigger, but that is a trick. symmetry and being lean makes you appear bigger than you actually are...
doesnt mean powerlifters arent overall and actually bigger.

as far as chems. again, theres many uses for many things, but you guys tend to overlook that no chem is gonna do a thing without diet....remember Anabolic is a state of your metabolism...

I agree. A competitive Bodybuilder it is all about the illusion of perfect symmetry. Plus stripping down so low on Fats (stored energy) we have to make that delicate balance of nutrition without adding fat.

There is no way you can put COMPETITIVE bodybuilder in the same category as a gym rat bodybuilder.
Thats like saying a grade school football player is the same quality, dedication and knowledge about the game as a NFL Pro or a Pro basketball player trains the same as a pro football or baseball player. They all are a game about a ball, don't mean they all are the same.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

The first broscience concept I want to dispel is this dogmatic adherence to rep ranges for specific goals.
As BendtheBar and numerous other veterans have stated (I will paraphrase): you can build strength with any rep range above a few and less than 100 (an exaggeration, but you get the idea).

However at a certain point strength does get very, very specific. When you're in the realm of actual competition whether formal or informal then it gets extremely specific indeed. Your training should be geared towards demonstrating the strength in the manner required by your sport.

We're not actually disagreeing here but i'll explain what I mean: Just as in your example of the bodybuilder not geared up to do farmers walks, rep ranges and what you train for tend to get very specific past the beginner/intermediate phase.

If i'm training for sets of 10 in the squat for example, while I am indeed getting stronger in that rep range it would require a break-in period for me to translate that strength into single rep strength; which incidentally is what most periodisation is built on. Periods of higher volume and lower intensity to periods of lower volume and higher intensity. Uncanny how practice matches outcome eh?! There would be little point in me prepping for a Bench Meet while performing nothing but sets of 10's touch-n-go style for the Bench Press for example. I may get stronger but to really translate that strength into what is required by the sport I would need to practice in the form/range required by the sport.

So although I agree that you can get stronger in any rep range, it is a fallacy to think it will always improve your strength across the spectrum of rep ranges. Note, i'm not saying you said that, but I am saying there has to be specifity in training and training methods.

Bear in mind this is referring to trainees past the intermediate/beginner stage upto that point don't think too hard and enjoy your gains as they come freely.

The second broscience concept eluded to is that a trainer can build large amounts of muscle while experiencing negligible increases in strength. Again, this is bullshit.

Agreed, this is indeed bullshit.