# Does more mass = greater strength gains



## footballmaniac (Feb 10, 2006)

If you have more muscle mass is it easier to gain strength?


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

skeletal muscle hypertrophy = more mass and more strength...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> skeletal muscle hypertrophy = more mass and more strength...



Correction...

=a higher capacity for strength gain.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Correction...
> 
> =a higher capacity for strength gain.


Correction......you are wrong go look up the definition of skeletal hypertrophy


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Correction......you are wrong go look up the definition of skeletal hypertrophy



I am not sure what skeletal hypertrophy is, but muscular hypertrophy is enlargement of muscle fibers and does not necessarily equate to higher levels of strength.  Tendon attachment has a great deal to do with it, but holding that constant, motor unit recruitment has more to do with strength.  Look up Rob Wagner, a powerlifter.  I think you outweigh him by 40-50lbs, and I imagine his bench press is larger than yours, and that is his weak lift.  And he competes in tested events., and is a couple of years older than you.

If hypertrophy were the only variable, BBers would hold all of the strength records.  They hold none.  Hypertrophy gives you a certain capacity for strength gain, actual strength training gets you closer to that capacity.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I am not sure what skeletal hypertrophy is, but muscular hypertrophy is enlargement of muscle fibers and does not necessarily equate to higher levels of strength. Motor unit recruitment and tendon attachment have as much to do with strength as hypertrophy. Look up Rob Wagner, a powerlifter. I think you outweigh him by 40-50lbs, and I imagine his bench press is larger than yours, and that is his weak lift. And he competes in tested events., and is a couple of years older than you.


You miss-read my post....here it is again
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1263016&postcount=2
You can see that I said " *skeletal muscle* hypertrophy" not skeletal hyper trophy......

*Here is the definition of skeletal muscle:* Muscle composed of cylindrical multinucleate cells with obvious striations; the muscle(s) attached to the body's skeleton; voluntart muscle.

Here is some info on *skeletal muscle* *hypertrophy*

*Force of Muscle Contraction*
The force of muscle contraction is affected by (1) the number of muscle fibers stimulated, (2) the relative size of the fibers, 
(3) frequency of stimulation, and (4) the degree of muscle stretch.

*Size of Muscle Fibers Stimulated*
The bulkier the muscle ( the greater its cross-sectional area), the more tension it can develope and the greater its strength, but there is more to it than this. As noted earlier, the large fibers of large motor units are very effective in producing the most powerful movements. Regular exercise increases muscle force by causing cells to hypertrophy or increase in size. 


Hope that clears up my opinions on the topic.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

Also their is more to world records in power than muscular measurements.....the length of bones, the attachmnet sites of muscles, and many other things people are just born with.

You and a guy of your exact height, weight and muscle size will not have the same exact strength.....and you two will not have the exact same time in the 100m dash, you will not have the same ping pong skills... its just genetics....life aint fair...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

Just semantics...It's why you do a hypertrophy cycle right before a strength cycle.  You build up the cross-sectional area allowing for a higher capacity for strength gain, then you work on recruiting more fibers in a strength cycle.

If you hold recruitment constant, then you are correct.  Hypertrophy training isn't that great at hitting the fibers that need to be recruited for "strength".

I was just breaking balls on the skeletal hypertrophy thing, I know what you meant.  Furthermore, I knew that you knew that you knew what you meant.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You and a guy of your exact height, weight and muscle size will not have the same exact strenght.....and you two will not have the exact same time in the 100m dash.....its just  genetics....life aint fair...



I know, I would be faster.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> *Just semantics*...It's why you do a hypertrophy cycle right before a strength cycle. You build up the cross-sectional area allowing for a higher capacity for strength gain, then you work on recruiting more fibers in a strength cycle.
> 
> If you hold recruitment constant, then you are correct. Hypertrophy training isn't that great at hitting the fibers that need to be recruited for "strength".
> 
> I was just breaking balls on the skeletal hypertrophy thing, I know what you meant. Furthermore, I knew that you knew that you knew what you meant.


No it is the actual definition from a Anatomy & Physiology text book. If you choose to disreguard it then fine, thats your business. I think it is the *main* factor that determines muscle strength, but not the only one.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No it is the actual definition from a Anatomy & Physiology text book. If you choose to disreguard it then fine, thats your business. I think it is the *main* factor that determines muscle strength, but not the only one.




Strength shouldn't be in the definition of hypertrophy.  Also, I think the "can develop" part is misleading.  Assume you and I start an 8 week training program and are of equal strength, and I do 4 weeks of hypertrophy training followed by 4 weeks of strength training, and you do 8 weeks of hypertrophy training.  You would come out of it with a greater increase in muscle size (hypertrophy), but I would come out with greater strength increase.

Hypertrophy leads to larger muscle fibers to recruit, but the high-end fibers are not recruited with hypertrophy training, thus you need to train at a lower rep range.

I know you aren't saying it is the only factor.   What I am saying is it gives you a greater potential for strength increase, but you will not realize that potential thru hypertrophy training.  Also, given the above example, if I trained strength for 8 weeks and you trained in a hypertrophy range, I believe I would come out stronger at the end of that 8 weeks, but if we continud that over a longer time period and you threw in a couple of strength cycles, you would eventually surpass me.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Strength shouldn't be in the definition of hypertrophy. Also, I think the "can develop" part is misleading. Assume you and I start an 8 week training program and are of equal strength, *and I do 4 weeks of hypertrophy training followed by 4 weeks of strength training*, and you do 8 weeks of hypertrophy training. You would come out of it with a greater increase in muscle size (hypertrophy), but I would come out with greater strength increase.
> 
> Hypertrophy leads to larger muscle fibers to recruit, but the high-end fibers are not recruited with hypertrophy training, thus you need to train at a lower rep range.
> 
> I know you aren't saying it is the only factor. What I am saying is it gives you a greater potential for strength increase, but you will not realize that potential thru hypertrophy training. Also, given the above example, if I trained strength for 8 weeks and you trained in a hypertrophy range, I believe I would come out stronger at the end of that 8 weeks, but if we continud that over a longer time period and you threw in a couple of strength cycles, you would eventually surpass me.


Defien the difference in these two types of training....


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

Hypertrophy rep range 8-12, strength rep range 2-8.  Keeping in mind you will get some strength from the hypertrophy and vice versa.  60 seconds between sets for hypertrophy, complete recovery for strength.  Similar volume.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Hypertrophy rep range 8-12, strength rep range 2-8. Keeping in mind you will get some strength from the hypertrophy and vice versa. 60 seconds between sets for hypertrophy, complete recovery for strength. Similar volume.


 
I agree with you then if you  are talking about a 1 rep max.....If I do sets of 10-12 and you do sets of 3-5 and we are identacal  twins at the exact same training level when we start then in the end I would be better at a 12 rep max and you would be better than a 3 rep max..


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I would come out stronger at the end of that 8 weeks, but if we continud that over a longer time period and you threw in a couple of strength cycles, you would eventually surpass me.



Using this logic, if a bodybuilder 'threw in a couple of strength cycles' he would be able to set world records. Interesting theory, but I smell BS unless I'm completely misunderstanding you.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree with you then if you  are talking about a 1 rep max.....If I do sets of 10-12 and you do sets of 3-5 and we are identacal  twins at the exact same training level when we start then in the end I would be better at a 12 rep max and you would be better than a 3 rep max..




hence the reason that linear periodization is not the best method for training and some sort of hybrid approach would be more effecient.


Bigger muscles= greater amount of hyerptrophy= a greater potential for strength provided the proper neurological connection is established.  

One could get big by using a slow tempo rep pace of say 6/3/6  (ecc/iso/con).  The weight that the individual would be using to complete say 8-10 reps would have to be grossly submaximal to withstand that amount of time under tension.  But, it could lead to a greater amount of growth without ever increasing the persons strength.  Obviously that tempo restriction is pretty extreme (more super slow training) but even still.




> Using this logic, if a bodybuilder 'threw in a couple of strength cycles' he would be able to set world records. Interesting theory, but I smell BS unless I'm completely misunderstanding you.



It would take more than a "couple" strength cycles to set world records.  You are grossley down playing the abilities of those that set these records if you figure that to be true.  A bodybuilder would have to train for strength for a long amount of time to allow the proper strength adaptaions to occur to be able to complete with world record holder.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

P-funk said:
			
		

> It would take more than a "couple" strength cycles to set world records. You are grossley down playing the abilities of those that set these records if you figure that to be true. A bodybuilder would have to train for strength for a long amount of time to allow the proper strength adaptaions to occur to be able to complete with world record holder.



That's pretty much my point. He stated that, if he continued strength training for a longer period of time, the one with hypertrophy gains could essentially gain strength much more easily. What happened to CNS adaptations and the fact that you can get much, much stronger while not being very big at all? It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> He stated that, if he continued strength training for a longer period of time, the one with hypertrophy gains could essentially gain strength much more easily.



No I didn't, I said he would have more potential for strength gain.  I said nothing to the extent that he would gain it more easily.



			
				Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> What happened to CNS adaptations and the fact that you can get much, much stronger while not being very big at all? It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.



Just because he has greater potential for strength gain doesn't necessarily mean he is going to achieve it.  If hypertrophy didn't make a difference, someone in the 90kg weight class could outlift someone of the same ability in the 100kg weight class, assuming of course the same bf%.  That doesn't happen.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> What happened to CNS adaptations and the fact that you can get much, much stronger while not being very big at all?




You can get as strong as you possibly can but there will be a limit.  Once you hit that limit you will need to increase you muscle mass inorder to have a greater potential for more strength gain (read foreman's post above from some textbook (or where ever he took it from) on strength).  This is why guys in powerlifting or olympic lifting will sometimes go up a weight class....more muscle = greater strength (or strength potential).  takes mass to move mass.



> It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.



why is it that the strongest guys in meets are the superheavy weights?  What about the world strongman.....why don't you ever hear about light weight world strongman?  Takes mass to move mass.  The more muscle you have the more potential you have to move a greater amount of load.


----------



## Mudge (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> It just doesn't seem to me like someone who is bigger has much more potential when you consider that muscles aren't the only things involved in strength.



What other factors do you mean?


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

I definitely see what you guys are saying, but I was referring to the people in the 132 lb class who can deadlift 700 pounds and other crazy things. Of course someone bigger may be able to do more, but compared to BW, the smaller guys are usually on top. Not what we were discussing but it's what I must have been thinking of. I also forget that a lot of guys who set records like this aren't raw or natural, which completely messes up my thinking.

I was thinking about neural adaptations. As in you can get a hell of a lot stronger without gaining muscle before it becomes a necessity to improve. I was also thinking about having tendon and ligament strength. For example, a person may be able to generate 300 pounds of force with each forearm, but could snap his biceps tendon attempting a 300 pound farmers walk because he hadn't done the exercise before.



			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> No I didn't, I said he would have more potential for strength gain. I said nothing to the extent that he would gain it more easily.



You said that if someone trained for strength and another for hypertrophy that the hypertrophy trainer could surpass the strength of the strength trainer by 'throwing in a couple of strength cycles' or something to that extent. To me, it sounded like you were basically saying that he could gain the strength at a faster rate and more easily.

I also was thinking along the lines of the fact that, if you got to the point that neural adaptations were at a maximum and hypertrophy was the only way for your body to increase in strength, that it would start growing out of necessity. This does hold true doesn't it? In other words, the body will get bigger, but only as big as it absolutely needs to in order to increase in the necessary amount of strength.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggle, powerlifters don't only train for strength.  They train for hypertrophy too.  You have to alternate intensities to prevent achieving homeostasis and help stave off overtraining.  If you look at bodybuilders who do go heavy, Ronnie Coleman being one example, they are hella strong.  Ronnie can squat 800 raw for a couple reps.

I'm willing to bet some of them could set world records if they altered their training methods for a sufficient duration.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Top powerlifters are that because of their genetics, just like Bodybuilders or any other top athletes.....you guys over think the simple far too much.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Top powerlifters are that because of their genetics, just like Bodybuilders or any other top athletes.....you guys over think the simple far too much.



That definitely has something to do with it, but there is still a difference in training that goes into achieving structural and neural adaptations.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> That definitely has something to do with it, but there is still a difference in training that goes into achieving structural and neural adaptations.


Every sport requires special training....but if you get stronger you get bigger....developing a specific rep strength is just a final touch.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Squaggle, powerlifters don't only train for strength. They train for hypertrophy too. You have to alternate intensities to prevent achieving homeostasis and help stave off overtraining. If you look at bodybuilders who do go heavy, Ronnie Coleman being one example, they are hella strong. Ronnie can squat 800 raw for a couple reps.
> 
> I'm willing to bet some of them could set world records if they altered their training methods for a sufficient duration.



Damn. I guess the people who do dinosaur training really are the only ones as obsessed with strength training as I am then. So does that mean that the body will not grow larger to accomodate increases in strength?

I don't think using Coleman as an example is very fair. How many drugs is that guy taking? I always talk about people who just use hard work to get where they are.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Every sport requires special training....but if you get stronger you get bigger....developing a specific rep strength is just a final touch.




Here...I'll sum it up....(and I agree 1005 with the genetics comment)....

If you get stronger and YOU EAT you will get bigger.

If you get stronger and you don't eat enough then you will just get stronger.


How do I know....I have done it under both circumstances.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Every sport requires special training....but if you get stronger you get bigger....developing a specific rep strength is just a final touch.



If you get stronger you don't necessarily get bigger.  How else do powerlifters maintain their weight classes but get stronger if that is the case?


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> If you get stronger you don't necessarily get bigger. How else do powerlifters maintain their weight classes but get stronger if that is the case?



I thought the whole idea was just that the weight limits the strength at some point. I was just wondering if the strength would force the weight to increase, but P-Funk answered my question with one of the basics: weight will increase if calories increase.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> Damn. I guess the people who do dinosaur training really are the only ones as obsessed with strength training as I am then. So does that mean that the body will not grow larger to accomodate increases in strength?



Yes it will, if you eat enough food.  Of course, your routine is extremely low in volume, so hypertrophy will probably be limited in comparison to what it could be assuming the proper diet.




> I don't think using Coleman as an example is very fair. How many drugs is that guy taking? I always talk about people who just use hard work to get where they are.



All the top powerlifters and strongmen use drugs too.  That doesn't invalidate my point one bit.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Yes it will, if you eat enough food. Of course, your routine is extremely low in volume, so hypertrophy will probably be limited in comparison to what it could be assuming the proper diet.



As long as the decreased rate of increased hypertrophy won't limit my strength gains in any way (assuming proper diet), then I'm still happy.





> All the top powerlifters and strongmen use drugs too.  That doesn't invalidate my point one bit.



Then consider tested powerlifters instead as compared to actually drug-free bodybuilders (since 'tested' sometimes means different things when it comes to bodybuilding competitions). Do you really think the bodybuilders could set records against the tested powerlifters? I guess I'm having a hard time with all this simply because the strength trainers get screwed over. Think about it... If you trained for strength your entire life and worked for years to set a world record and someone else broke it just because they decided to change their training for a small amount of time in comparison to you, wouldn't you be mad? I guess I'm putting myself in those shoes. On the other hand, some of the powerlifters and strongmen are huge and could perhaps with bodybuilding competitions if they decided to alter their training.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> If you trained for strength your entire life and worked for years to set a world record and someone else broke it just because they decided to change their training for a small amount of time in comparison to you, wouldn't you be mad? I guess I'm putting myself in those shoes. On the other hand, some of the powerlifters and strongmen are huge and could perhaps with bodybuilding competitions if they decided to alter their training.




go back and read foremans post on genetics.  The best guys in powerlifting (tested or non) are there because (a) they train their asses off and have for many solid years and (b) they have incredibly good genetics (higher ratio of type II to type I fibers) and the proper genetic build (limb length, muscle length, etc) for the sport.

the best guys in the sport of bodybuilding (tested and non) are there because they (a) train their asses off and have for many solid years and (b) they have incredible genetics (good ratio or type II to type I fibers) and the proper genetics build (limb length, muscle bellies, wasit to shoulder ratio, etc) for the sport.

Some are genetically gifted enough to cross over between the two (Johnnie Jackson) and others are not (I don't think Jay Cutler would make a very good powerlifter).  It is all about the genetics of the specific athlete you are talking about.


Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player.....arguably the best.....He was a decent baseball player.  Just because someone is amazing at "A"  does not mean that with a small alteration to training they can also be amazing at "B".


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> As long as the decreased rate of increased hypertrophy won't limit my strength gains in any way (assuming proper diet), then I'm still happy.



I think it will.  The best way to achieve optimal strength is a combination of both types of training.  Hence why conjugate periodization is so effective.




> Then consider tested powerlifters instead as compared to actually drug-free bodybuilders (since 'tested' sometimes means different things when it comes to bodybuilding competitions). Do you really think the bodybuilders could set records against the tested powerlifters? I guess I'm having a hard time with all this simply because the strength trainers get screwed over. Think about it... If you trained for strength your entire life and worked for years to set a world record and someone else broke it just because they decided to change their training for a small amount of time in comparison to you, wouldn't you be mad? I guess I'm putting myself in those shoes. On the other hand, some of the powerlifters and strongmen are huge and could perhaps with bodybuilding competitions if they decided to alter their training.



Yes, I do think the bodybuilders could be competitive.  I'm not saying after one macrocycle of strength training they will be smashing records, but a few years of altered training could make some of them seriously competitive.  The reverse is true too.  If some of those big ass powerlifters would stop carrying around so much fat, they could be seriously competitive bodybuilders!

You have to remember squaggle, powerlifters don't only train at 85% intensity and above.  They used hypertrophy geared parameters too, and eat like fucking garbage disposals.  That's why they are not only strong, but big too.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Feb 11, 2006)

P-funk said:
			
		

> go back and read foremans post on genetics. The best guys in powerlifting (tested or non) are there because (a) they train their asses off and have for many solid years and (b) they have incredibly good genetics (higher ratio of type II to type I fibers) and the proper genetic build (limb length, muscle length, etc) for the sport.
> 
> the best guys in the sport of bodybuilding (tested and non) are there because they (a) train their asses off and have for many solid years and (b) they have incredible genetics (good ratio or type II to type I fibers) and the proper genetics build (limb length, muscle bellies, wasit to shoulder ratio, etc) for the sport.
> 
> ...



That's true, but I was talking only about the people who worked their asses off, neglecting everything else (including genetics). I realize that using a champion would be a bad idea for this comparison.

I guess I took CowPimp's idea that some could change and applied it to most. Damn it to hell...


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Some are genetically gifted enough to cross over between the two (Johnnie Jackson) and others are not (I don't think Jay Cutler would make a very good powerlifter).  It is all about the genetics of the specific athlete you are talking about.
> 
> 
> Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player.....arguably the best.....He was a decent baseball player.  Just because someone is amazing at "A"  does not mean that with a small alteration to training they can also be amazing at "B".



Exactly.  Not everyone will be able to cross over to the other sport with amazing results, but I'm sure some of them could.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> If you get stronger you don't necessarily get bigger.  How else do powerlifters maintain their weight classes but get stronger if that is the case?


I could teach you about certain steroids that build no size and yeild great power...


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I could teach you about certain steroids that build no size and yeild great power...



I know about those too.  However, I have personally increased my strength without gaining weight in the past.  Another example of someone drug free doing the same is another fella on these boards, Deeznuts.  He was benching about 225 and squatting/deadlifting in the 300s (Maybe even 400 for the DL) at 114 pounds.  You don't think a specific type of training had anything to do with that?


----------



## P-funk (Feb 11, 2006)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> That's true, but I was talking only about the people who worked their asses off, neglecting everything else (including genetics). I realize that using a champion would be a bad idea for this comparison.
> 
> I guess I took CowPimp's idea that some could change and applied it to most. Damn it to hell...




everyone works their asses off....it doesn't mean that they are going to be great.  An amazing athlete doesn't just train their asses off...they have genetics.  Some are more gifted then others.  It is impossible to not take it into consideration.

I work my ass of in the gym, man do I train hard....ya know what though?  I will probably never win a world championship and I will probably never even qualify for a national championship.  No matter how hard I work I just don't have everythign I need to get there.  That may sound negative and people will say that becuse I feel that way I will never make it but ya know what....I am not a moron.  I know I am not genetically gifted.  But I work hard and it is fun to improve as much as I possibly can.


In high school all I thought about was playing baseball and getting the chance to go on and play in college and then the Majors.  Everyone wants that!  Man, I worked my ass off and I am not going to lie...I was a pretty decent player.  I was quick, I could put the ball in play (almost never struck out), I had a good arm (player right field), was good with the glove (also played 2nd base).  I worked my fucking ass off to be decent.  Man, there were kids that were so fucking gifted....they worked half as hard and could give a shit less but all the colleges took looks at them, they got recruited, they played on the national team, they made high school allstar teams.....WHAT THE FUCK!  I worked harder!  I wanted it more!  they didn't care....Ya know what?  Tough shit.  Life isn't fair.  No matter how hard I work I can never be as good as those guys.  they had the genetics....even though I had the work ethic.  That is the way it is.

So yes.....some may work hard as hell to be a great powerlifter and some oiled up BBer may walk in the room and out bench them because he just has better potential.  Such is life.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I know about those too.  However, *I have personally increased my strength without gaining weight in the past*.  Another example of someone drug free doing the same is another fella on these boards, Deeznuts.  He was benching about 225 and squatting/deadlifting in the 300s (Maybe even 400 for the DL) at 114 pounds.  You don't think a specific type of training had anything to do with that?



I have also...and I have gotten bigger with no strength increaes.....100% genetic.....my legs get huge...if I stop lifting they do not shrink much but I lose all my power...when I  train them again they get bigger than they were and can actually have less strength.....my upper body is nothing like this.....its not my training its my genetics.

Example....at 26 inches and 9% body fat..100% natural I could raw ATG squat 385 for sets of 6......now at 27.5  and 15% Bf I can raw ATG 225 for sets of 10.....I do have more fat so my legs are probably only 26 at 9% still but my power is down by a huge margin....nothing to do with training all genetic, when I stopped lifting for 2 years my upper body shrunk 5x more than my legs.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have also...and I have gotten bigger with no strength increaes.....100% genetic.....my legs get huge...if I stop lifting they do not shrink much but I lose all my power...when I  train them again they get bigger than they were and can actually have less strength.....my upper body is nothing like this.....its not my training its my genetics.
> 
> Example....at 26 inches and 9% body fat..100% natural I could raw ATG squat 385 for sets of 6......now at 27.5  and 15% Bf I can raw ATG 225 for sets of 10.....I do have more fat so my legs are probably only 26 at 9% still but my power is down by a huge margin....nothing to do with training all genetic, when I stopped lifting for 2 years my upper body shrunk 5x more than my legs.



So what you're saying is that you don't believe there is a difference in training for hypertrophy or strength, and that your results are 100% related to genetics?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that you don't believe there is a difference in training for hypertrophy or strength, and that your results are 100% related to genetics?


No I'm not saying that, but I do think the difference is not as big as most people think.


----------



## CowPimp (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No I'm not saying that, but I do think the difference is not as big as most people think.



Okay, fair enough.


----------

