Posted by Rich on December 24, 2005, 7:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Plateaus" I would say in response to this that growth and strength, while related, are not on a 1 to 1 basis with each other. I'm sure we've all known skinny guys who could bench massive amounts compared to their size, and big guys who weren't all that strong. Strength is neuromuscular, but muscle growth is a purely cellular phenomena. I believe in my original post I was pointing out that the idea of this or that rep range being good for something, say 6-8 reps for adding mass, is generally misguided. Using a suboptimal weight in the 6-8 range will not result in the activation of type II fibers. Using a suboptimal weight won't activate those fibers now matter how many reps are done in fact. So while I'd agree a period of deloading with varying rep ranges and weights as part of a conjugate routine for strength would be good, as relates to size the most important factors are the load used, the time under tension your muscles see and workout frequency. Now I'd say I agree with you, increased strength if it comes relatively frequently and progressively will lead to growth. But, more often than it will come slower than it otherwise could have because of some limitations on strength routines. To gain appreciable strength to overcome the repeat bout effect and damage your muscles you need to exercise very intensly, which leads to a much lower frequency workout which is detrimental to gaining size overall. You will still gain, just not as much as you could have if you worked out more frequently and instead of trying to up your rep maxes that frequently used a minimally effective load after a period of time off. The frequency of the workouts is important for size. In the research I've read all the signalling that leads to protein synthesis essentially stops after 36-48 hours from the end of a workout. To keep your body in that state as consistently as possible you have to keep the stimulus coming. That means a workout at most every other day, full body, with an effective (heavy enough) weight would be best for hypertrophy. That would make the kind of intensity and volume necessary for strength training very hard to maintain. Plus, if you start to use a lower weight on a consistent basis you will likely lose size. The rep question just kind of irks me. It takes people's attention off of what matters and focusses it on something that really doesn't, an artificial construction that they believe if they blindly adhere too will produce results. You see people doing light weight high rep work for cutting because they heard high reps were good for that, meanwhile they're more likely than not losing more muscle mass than necessary because of suboptimal loading, and getting a relatively inefficient cardio workout because they aren't mobilizing nearly as much muscle mass as they need to.
69.113.232.89
: The one point I disagree is about the reps and that less weight
: will usually cause strength loss. Perhaps I am just being picky
: about language but strength gains (and therefore growth)can
: happen by doing very few reps with light weight to work on form
: and be active recovery in which technique or some other quality
: is learned (such as speed).
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
(Responses are not allowed)