Wanna Get Stronger, But NOT Bigger?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a quote from the text Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir Zatsiorsky

"Whatever the mechanism for stimulating muscle hypertrophy, the vital parameters of a training routine that induce such results are exercise intensity (the exerted muscular force) and exercise volume (the total number of repetitions, performed mechanical work). ...."

in other words, if you're missing one of those two parameters, there will be no hypertrophy. And that is how weight class athletes (powerlifters, olympic lifters, boxers, etc.) train for strength without building mass. Ever read a book by Charles Staley, Pavel Tsatsouline, Ross Enamait, Charles Poliquin, Mell Siff or Zatsiorsky? All of them have explained it quite well.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying differs from what Pavel says.

You are also drawing an incorrect conclusion. The quote above does not say what you said, at all. There is no such thing as missing one of the parameters, for instance.

[ QUOTE ]
You can recommend a bodybuilding program, but they sure do suck for someone who wants to get stronger but not bigger. I would tend to recommend a bodybuilding program for someone who wants to get bigger and not care if he gets stronger. Thats just me though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That part makes sense.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

If you want to get strong, but not big, eat your maintenence cals, probably a little less than maintenence, and tax the [censored] out of your CNS, lift heavy, static contractions, heavy negative reps, etc. do this and dont eat a lot you will get strong, but you wont get big (your CNS is adapting).

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you have meaningful fat reserves, same deal?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you want to get strong, but not big, eat your maintenence cals, probably a little less than maintenence, and tax the [censored] out of your CNS, lift heavy, static contractions, heavy negative reps, etc. do this and dont eat a lot you will get strong, but you wont get big (your CNS is adapting).

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you have meaningful fat reserves, same deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what meaningful is... But yes. You aren't going to turn your "fat to muscle" or really see much of a recomp when you're tubby.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you want to get strong, but not big, eat your maintenence cals, probably a little less than maintenence, and tax the [censored] out of your CNS, lift heavy, static contractions, heavy negative reps, etc. do this and dont eat a lot you will get strong, but you wont get big (your CNS is adapting).

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you have meaningful fat reserves, same deal?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, same deal, if you eat at a slight negative calorie balance though you will get strong and lose weight.

[longbody]

Blarg, you haven't read Power to the People if you think this is wrong. Pavel has one program for wiry strength with no mass, which calls for 2 sets of 5.

He also has the Bear Program which which calls for 4-6 reps, for 10-20 sets on average. This will develop myofibrillar hypertrophy.
Total volume is what separates these two, and he also recommends a compression of the rest periods for GH production. He also says to eat a hell of a lot. If you eat a lot on 2 sets of 5, you will only get fat.

If anyone here thinks they can build muscle on 2 sets (or 3,4 or 5 sets) of 5, with 3-4 sessions/week, just because they eat a lot, need to quit smoking the PCP. They are hallucinating. It won't happen for a majority of the population. I have followed such a routine for years and have not gained an ounce.

And I would also like to know what is better than periodization? No examples Thremp, Kyle? I think everyone here is smoking something. Here is a quote from the Bill Starr article in the FAQ


}
[ QUOTE ]
Advanced Lifters:
After a while, linear progress doesn't work so well. You want to do this for as long as you can. And I mean, resetting and running at your records, changing some exercises, rep ranges, whatever, just keep trying to get some linear progress as you want to milk this kind of progression for all it's worth. After a while it will become pretty obvious this doesn't work for you any more. Welcome to periodization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg, lets argue about this one.
[ QUOTE ]
You are also drawing an incorrect conclusion. The quote above does not say what you said, at all. There is no such thing as missing one of the parameters, for instance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an example of missing the vital volume parameter:
change the sets in a workout from 10-20 (the bear) to 2 (PTP). Voila. The volume is now insufficient for hypertrophy.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone here thinks they can build muscle on 2 sets (or 3,4 or 5 sets) of 5, with 3-4 sessions/week, just because they eat a lot, need to quit smoking the PCP. They are hallucinating. It won't happen for a majority of the population. I have followed such a routine for years and have not gained an ounce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Clearly I must be a genetic freak since I gained fairly nicely following a program with almost the same exact amount of volume.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone here thinks they can build muscle on 2 sets (or 3,4 or 5 sets) of 5, with 3-4 sessions/week, just because they eat a lot, need to quit smoking the PCP. They are hallucinating. It won't happen for a majority of the population. I have followed such a routine for years and have not gained an ounce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Clearly I must be a genetic freak since I gained fairly nicely following a program with almost the same exact amount of volume.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ya. 5x5 are what a lot of full body programs describe where the goal is strength and SIZE.

[longbody]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone here thinks they can build muscle on 2 sets (or 3,4 or 5 sets) of 5, with 3-4 sessions/week, just because they eat a lot, need to quit smoking the PCP. They are hallucinating. It won't happen for a majority of the population. I have followed such a routine for years and have not gained an ounce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Clearly I must be a genetic freak since I gained fairly nicely following a program with almost the same exact amount of volume.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ya. 5x5 are what a lot of full body programs describe where the goal is strength and SIZE.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I'm a retard. 5 sets of 5 are a typical program for strength and size, but 2 sets are not sufficient for almost everyone but freaks. There is a big enough difference in volume there for different purposes.

[SmileyEH]

longbody, for essentially 3 years my only weight training was 1 or 2 sets til failure of various bs exercises. I went from skinny kid to skinny kid with more muscle than 90% of non-athletes. Suboptimal yes, but it does work.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
longbody, for essentially 3 years my only weight training was 1 or 2 sets til failure of various bs exercises. I went from skinny kid to skinny kid with more muscle than 90% of non-athletes. Suboptimal yes, but it does work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eww.... HIT practitioners.