UnderGround Forums
 

S&C UnderGround >> Question for Vermonter re hypertrophy


3/1/13 6:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32011
 
You have said previously that fighters only really need to lift weights to build muscle as any non-muscular strength has very little carry over.

Is training for hypertrophy different to training for strength? How do you do it?

Thanks in advance. Phone Post
3/1/13 7:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chocolate Shatner
130 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32522
Leigh, I'm no Vermonter, but let me give you my answer.

There is plenty of evidence that muscles can grow independent of strength gains. Bodybuilders are a prime example. Let's face it, pound for pound bodybuilders are actually much weaker than a lot of other athletes. You see many guys who are 250, 270, 300 pounds who can't lift what a powerlifter or strongman who is 30 to even 100 pounds lighter can do.

Dougie can explain the mechanisms behind it more, but it has something to do with the different types of hypertrophy. Basically, one type makes your muscles bigger but doesn't really make them stronger, while the other doesn't have the muscle fibers divide and grow until they are maxed out eneergy sytems wise.

Obviously, for a fighter who is trying to go up in weight class, a balance of both is best, but for a fighter trying to either go down or stay within a weight class, getting stronger while keeping hypertrophy to a minimum is ideal.
3/1/13 9:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
NeoSpartan
490 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/9/09
Posts: 10724
And also if the above statement is true, or at least in Vermonter's opinion true, I'd like to hear his reasoning.

If I may have a shot at it:

We know that miniscule changes in technique can effect your expression of strength. 1-2 inch changes of hand position on the bench press can cause fairly substantial changes in poundage used. Adding a larger grip on the bar re-wires it into nearly a whole new exercise.

Therefore is the above statement ("fighters only really need to lift weights to build muscle as any non-muscular strength has very little carry over") because most programs oriented towards strength are based on neural improvements, which being specific as they are, have very little carryover to performance in combat sports.

IE, improving your bench 1rm is mostly neural improvements. Meanwhile your 5rm, 10rm, or repeated effort spread through a set/rep scheme (10x3, 5x5, etc) is mostly tissue based. Thus having larger/more/improved mitochondria will allow you to express your improved strength in whatever you have practiced the most neurally (your sport).





Now excuse me while I slink back into my corner and let the adults talk...
3/1/13 10:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
abick23
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/19/11
Posts: 35
Sub Phone Post
3/1/13 11:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gusto
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 36023
good to dsee things come full circle. i think geoff langdale(not sure) used to post about this in 1999

now all we need is scrapper to start up the puke club again
3/2/13 3:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32015
Cheers for the responses guys.

When Doug first posted this, I had a hard time believing it but I think he's right. Yes, strength gains can be neural and the cross over tapers off very quickly.

I have trained with guys, both bigger and smaller, who I can outlift but they still feel strong on the mat - and these are guys I have more experience than and can tap them out.

And of course vice versa - guys who can outlift me but I can over power.

This isn't evidence enough, because people are individual. A proper study would involve measuring an individuals mat strength vs his gym strength and vs his body weight, then varying the second 2 variables.

I have noticed a loss is mat strength when I stop lifting for a few weeks. That's no surprise because I start to get smaller, too. My reason for the post is because strength training can be hard on the CNS and I'm wondering if hypertrophy training would be any different and therefore possibly less taxing. Phone Post
3/2/13 4:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gokudamus stole my name
93 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 21818
Problem with putting on muscle is the potential decline in conditioning. Its a fine line to walk on

3/2/13 6:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32019
Agreed but if you're upper part of a weight class, may help to put a little on rather than have a big cut Phone Post
3/2/13 9:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chocolate Shatner
130 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32524
Leigh, on Elite FTS there is a good article by Dr. Yessis talking about that called "Training For Maximum Strength," that talks a lot about it, as well as another I read recently (I forget where, but most likely Breaking Muscle by Bob Takano, since I think the article focused on Olympic lifts) talking about the constant pounding on the CNS by constant high intensity training and the resultant problems.
3/2/13 9:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
banco
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/22/05
Posts: 10101
Leigh -  You have said previously that fighters only really need to lift weights to build muscle as any non-muscular strength has very little carry over.

Is training for hypertrophy different to training for strength? How do you do it?

Thanks in advance. Phone Post

I don't really get what you mean by "non-muscular strength". If you saying that the added bulk will make you stronger due to leverage etc. then wouldn't other training that was more neural based also be of use?

Seems like there would be a pretty low ceiling with hypertrophy as far as cost/benefits go as well. If you're say a fighter who's less than 6 foot it's probably not worth putting on more than 10-20 pounds of lbm as you'll just end up an undersized lhw or hw if you bulk up.
3/2/13 9:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BryanH
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/23/09
Posts: 106
Im a bit confused, more muscle built from lighter weights/higher reps..has more carry over than less muscle but maximal strength at a lighter weight?
3/2/13 9:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32023
BryanH - Im a bit confused, more muscle built from lighter weights/higher reps..has more carry over than less muscle but maximal strength at a lighter weight?
I didn't mention any rep or weight scheme.

I think the idea is that you build the muscular component through diet/hypertrophy training. Neural component comes from hypertrophy training and playing your sport a lot. Phone Post
3/2/13 1:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BryanH
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/23/09
Posts: 107
Leigh - 
BryanH - Im a bit confused, more muscle built from lighter weights/higher reps..has more carry over than less muscle but maximal strength at a lighter weight?
I didn't mention any rep or weight scheme.

I think the idea is that you build the muscular component through diet/hypertrophy training. Neural component comes from hypertrophy training and playing your sport a lot. Phone Post

Ah ok... Im a layman on lifting in general..hypertrophy i thought was just a case of more protein and calories/ higher reps!

3/2/13 1:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32027
It could well be but in my experience, strength training and hypertrophy training have been the same thing - lift heavy to failure. However, Vermonter's training methods are based on science and logic and have been 100% correct when I have tested them, so I'm interested to hear his thoughts on the topic.
3/2/13 2:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gokudamus stole my name
93 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 21832
For me hypertrophy = less rest between sets and a lot more volume. It doesnt have to specifically be 12 reps x 3 sets but the weekly volume should still be a fair bit higher than most strength programs like 531

3/2/13 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Taku
157 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/02/13 7:59 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6549

I know I was not aksed but...Personally I think the strength Vs size thing is much more about ones genes then ones training methodology. I have said it before...Put 100 people on the same program, and you will get 100 varied results.

An easy example of this is that most professional football teams use the exact same strength training programs for all players and all positions. And although they all train basically the same, you get a broad range of bodies...Huge heavy guys, smaller leaner guys, etc etc.

This is also true with Olympic weightlifitng. They all train in a very similar fashion...however look at the broad range of outcomes based on Weight category etc.

Even among elite gymnasts (although the variations are less) you get a lot of differnt looking bodies despite essentially identical training methodology.

The genes control the ultimate expression. The whole Myofibrillar vs. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy thing is a bit over hyped IMHO. It's more Pavel babble.

TAKU

3/2/13 9:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HERTSWENIP
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6433
Chocolate Shatner - Leigh, I'm no Vermonter, but let me give you my answer.

There is plenty of evidence that muscles can grow independent of strength gains. Bodybuilders are a prime example. Let's face it, pound for pound bodybuilders are actually much weaker than a lot of other athletes. You see many guys who are 250, 270, 300 pounds who can't lift what a powerlifter or strongman who is 30 to even 100 pounds lighter can do.

Dougie can explain the mechanisms behind it more, but it has something to do with the different types of hypertrophy. Basically, one type makes your muscles bigger but doesn't really make them stronger, while the other doesn't have the muscle fibers divide and grow until they are maxed out eneergy sytems wise.

Obviously, for a fighter who is trying to go up in weight class, a balance of both is best, but for a fighter trying to either go down or stay within a weight class, getting stronger while keeping hypertrophy to a minimum is ideal.

I'm of the opinion the whole sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy point is moot when it comes to natural athletes. Ie; on a cellular level, the type of hypertrophy a natural trainee is going to elicit from ligher loads and fatigue oriented training (not too light!), won't be dramatically different from the type of hypertrophy than one would get from heavier loads.

Why do I believe this?

AAS dramatically augment intramuscular energy substrate storage. The massive but weak body builders didn't exist until the advent of certain types of AAS.

In the days prior to the advent of anabolic-androgenic steroids, the men with the most impressive levels of hypertrophy, were also the strongest.
3/2/13 10:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BshMstr
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/13/09
Posts: 1413
HERTSWENIP - 
Chocolate Shatner - Leigh, I'm no Vermonter, but let me give you my answer.

There is plenty of evidence that muscles can grow independent of strength gains. Bodybuilders are a prime example. Let's face it, pound for pound bodybuilders are actually much weaker than a lot of other athletes. You see many guys who are 250, 270, 300 pounds who can't lift what a powerlifter or strongman who is 30 to even 100 pounds lighter can do.

Dougie can explain the mechanisms behind it more, but it has something to do with the different types of hypertrophy. Basically, one type makes your muscles bigger but doesn't really make them stronger, while the other doesn't have the muscle fibers divide and grow until they are maxed out eneergy sytems wise.

Obviously, for a fighter who is trying to go up in weight class, a balance of both is best, but for a fighter trying to either go down or stay within a weight class, getting stronger while keeping hypertrophy to a minimum is ideal.

I'm of the opinion the whole sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy point is moot when it comes to natural athletes. Ie; on a cellular level, the type of hypertrophy a natural trainee is going to elicit from ligher loads and fatigue oriented training (not too light!), won't be dramatically different from the type of hypertrophy than one would get from heavier loads.

Why do I believe this?

AAS dramatically augment intramuscular energy substrate storage. The massive but weak body builders didn't exist until the advent of certain types of AAS.

In the days prior to the advent of anabolic-androgenic steroids, the men with the most impressive levels of hypertrophy, were also the strongest.

i'd say this is a case of the chicken/egg....


for a long time, nobody lifted weights except for strength athletes, and bodybuilding generally included strength events, as well. most folks used to lift to get big and strong, whereas today's bodybuilders lift to get big.

i know with my own lifting, i gained the most size when i focused on getting a "pump," as well as a lot of protein/calories....

i wasn't the strongest at this time, tho.....
3/3/13 2:43 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32038
Taku, I fully agree genetics play a HUGE role. I am unable to change them though. I CAN change my training. Phone Post
3/3/13 11:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SmellyBelly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/26/13
Posts: 3
Taku - 

I know I was not aksed but...Personally I think the strength Vs size thing is much more about ones genes then ones training methodology. I have said it before...Put 100 people on the same program, and you will get 100 varied results.

An easy example of this is that most professional football teams use the exact same strength training programs for all players and all positions. And although they all train basically the same, you get a broad range of bodies...Huge heavy guys, smaller leaner guys, etc etc.

This is also true with Olympic weightlifitng. They all train in a very similar fashion...however look at the broad range of outcomes based on Weight category etc.

Even among elite gymnasts (although the variations are less) you get a lot of differnt looking bodies despite essentially identical training methodology.

The genes control the ultimate expression. The whole Myofibrillar vs. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy thing is a bit over hyped IMHO. It's more Pavel babble.

TAKU


Wow! I never heard that football example before. Really something to think about!
3/4/13 2:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
NeoSpartan
490 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/9/09
Posts: 10734
Just to throw this into the mix-

Glenn Pendlay. I assume everyone here knows just who he is (pendlay rows ring a bell?), but if you don't, he's awesome do some googling.

http://www.pendlay.com/MMA-Strength-Training-and-Conditioning_df_91.html


I am also not sure why an MMA guy would do the same exercises if variations are possible. If you really want a big bench, sure, bench 2 or 3 days a week. If you just want to be overall strong, then pick 3 or 4 different exercises that work the same muscle group and rotate them. This would be more useful for MMA.



Add to this about 10 minutes of a fairly heavy conditioning exercise. These should also be rotated. Remember, the goal is overall strength and condition, not to get good at any one particular thing.



Rotating exercises as such will probably be seen as more bodybuilder oriented. You'll have slower progression on your exercises and it will probably be harder to track progress because there will be more exercises rotated.

I think in this mode of thinking its about just going heavy, with consistent exercises. So lets say rotating dips, bench, and incline presses for sets of 5.

Like in starting strength you rotate bench and overhead press 3x5 (sets across) but and just add 5lbs. I think the alternative is to keep the exercises the same and rotate intensity, ala 5/3/1.
3/5/13 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sly fox
22 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/26/06
Posts: 219

good thread..

3/6/13 2:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32103
It would be if he turned up and posted on it.

But yeah, thanks for all the input guys :) Phone Post
3/6/13 2:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
NeoSpartan
490 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/9/09
Posts: 10809
surely someone has his email
3/6/13 4:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Leigh
826 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32107
I do. I've FBed him to come look.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.