From articles on this site and elsewhere, it is my understanding that muscular strength can be gained through neurological adaptation, hypertrophy, or some mix of the two.
What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of gaining strength through one mechanism versus the other? For example, do hypertrophic muscles have more endurance or less? Do muscles made stronger through neurological adaptation stay strong longer during breaks in training or do they become weaker more or quickly, for example? Thanks.
I hold strong opinions on this subject.
For me, the question of hypertrophy or not, rephrased to be even simpler, is, "Do you want to be you or someone else?" I don't mean to suggest my perspective works for anyone but me, but I will share my perspective for what it's worth.
First, of all, we must be sure not to paint hypertrophy with too broad a brush. Muscular hypertrophy isn't a monolithic thing. Different kinds of hypertrophy training and, indeed, different muscular targets for hypertrophy as well will yield different results.
E.g., you can press a heavy kettlebell with one arm for serious volume, like in the Rite of Passage from Enter The Kettlebell, and while you will put some meat on your shoulders, you're unlikely to need to move up to the next weight class. OTOH, if you start doing 20-rep squats and eating to support that, you can add some serious amount of muscle to your frame in a relatively short time.
But back to the fundamental question - what do you need to make your _life_ better in terms of hypertrophy? Speaking for myself, I don't compete at anything except weight-class powerlifting - I don't play a contact sport, e.g., American football, where some beef on my frame might be helpful. I'm not planning on posing for Men's Health any time soon, so I don't need fulsome pectorals and rippling abdominals.
So I'm confronted with the question - if getting bigger helps my weight lifting, and weight lifting helps my life, does that mean that getting bigger helps my life? For me, the answer is a resounding, "No." Weight lifting is a skill I enjoy practicing, and that practice is what helps my life, not picking up heavier and heavier things at all costs, and not eating more just to be able to lift more. Thank you but I'll eat less, weigh less, focus on the skill of lifting, and be very happy how _that_ improves my life.
As to the specific questions posed, e.g., do bigger muscles have more endurance, the answer is "no." Endurance is, certainly when one begins to train it, a function of one's relative effort, and therefore endurance is largely governed by relative strength required to complete a specific task. I have found, e.g., that if I can deadlift twice what I weigh, I can walk for hours, and I can walk under a load (weight in a backpack when I'm carrying home groceries, or uphill) easily.
My strength also means I'm strong enough to work on specific endurance as the urge strikes me, e.g., I'm strong enough to run with good enough form that I can continue to increase my running and therefore my running endurance, and I'm strong enough to snatch a kettlebell and train that for greater endurance when that's my choice. If one is stronger because one has gained muscle, will endurance improve in a manner similar to what I've just described? Yes, I'm sure it will.
The skill of strength is much like the skill of riding a bicycle - once you learn, you won't forget. That doesn't mean you'll be in peak form after a 20-year layoff, but it does mean you'll retain the foundation on which you can rebuild should you so choose.
Just my opinions, and your mileage may vary. For me, skinny-strong rulz.
-S-