all posts post new thread

Barbell Is a mass building phase necessary to keep building strength?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Maybe a good question is: at what point improving the lifted weight relative to bodyweight becomes too difficult?

For instance, as far as I know, deadlifting more than 2.5 BW is not easy, and is not common. So my guess is that after 2xBW, or close to 2.5 BW, the easiest way to improve the lift is to get bigger.
It’s specific to individual leverages, strengths and weaknesses, and the like. We have 132 lb lifters pulling 4x body weight.

-S-
 
Well, I tried to stay on topic, though I thought about sharing my bromance with Tom Ritchey's mustache.

Anyway, Easy Strength, Even Easier Strength and the 40 day workout are so similar that Dan John considers them essentially the same. Most often people are referring to the high frequency, 4-5 day per week low load version. BUT the version of Easy Strength described in the book is 2-3xwk but going heavier. I see it as a spectrum of load and frequency that each individual can dial in as needed. Otherwise, the sets, reps, exercise selection are the same.
 
I have the book on my shelf downstairs, but my understanding is that Dan also explained the protocol online somewhere. If someone could find that and provide a link, perhaps we can all be on the same page.

-S-
 
Can a person follow a pure strength program employing Easy Strength principles (not the 5 day per week 40 day program) indefinitely and continue to build strength, or is it necessary to insert a mass building phase from time to time?

I'm a weightlifting coach, so from that perspective:

To simplify, the absolute strength is related to two factors
1) size/cross-section of muscle fibers
2) neural drive of muscles.

One can achieve a serious strength by neural way only, however there is a limit or the progress stalls. In order to gain the absolute maximum of strength and use the full genetic potential, the individual needs neural AND hypertrofic training. Without weight class limits, get as big as you can, train your neural network as good and efficient as possible. That has been known for decades and used widely in all kind of sports.
 
I'm a weightlifting coach, so from that perspective:

To simplify, the absolute strength is related to two factors
1) size/cross-section of muscle fibers
2) neural drive of muscles.

One can achieve a serious strength by neural way only, however there is a limit or the progress stalls. In order to gain the absolute maximum of strength and use the full genetic potential, the individual needs neural AND hypertrofic training. Without weight class limits, get as big as you can, train your neural network as good and efficient as possible. That has been known for decades and used widely in all kind of sports.


Will the ES principles produce the needed hypertrophy?
 
Also another question is "who needs to build mass to further increase strength?"
The needs of a powerlifter training under Simmons with the Westside method are different than @Jeff 's who probably only wants to increase his strength to improve his health and life.
 
Will the ES principles produce the needed hypertrophy?

I havent ran the program, but I think the answer is that ES will not produce much hypertrophy. It might also depend to some extent on the sets x reps scheme you choose: 2x5 might create more hypertrophy than 5x2, and both schemes fall under Easy Strength philosophy. Not sure.

Maybe someone who has done either Easy Strength or PTTP can give you a better idea.
 
Also another question is "who needs to build mass to further increase strength?"
The needs of a powerlifter training under Simmons with the Westside method are different than @Jeff 's who probably only wants to increase his strength to improve his health and life.
Yes
 
Will the ES principles produce the needed hypertrophy?

For sure for most of us "average joes and janes" as well for the competitive athletes when absolute maximum strength is not the main purpose or sport (=powerlifting, strongman or superhw-weightlifting). 5RM "easy" reps around 75-85% 1RM are kinda good combination of strength and hypertrophy, developing both ST and FT -muscle fibers as well cross-section (=hypetrophy). So one will get really strong and gain some useful functional muscle mass.
 
@kennycro@@aol.com, you're discussing the difference between the meaning of the words "best" and "optimal."



If I may suggest, please try a google on "definition of optimal" - for me, the first thing is comes up with is "best."

I'm outta this one.

-S-

Steve,

I googled it and, as you requested and got this...

Optimal Definition
Definition of OPTIMAL

"most desirable or satisfactory"

This falls in line with my use of "Optimal".

An Example

You can use a crescent wrench to drive a nail. It works fairly well.

However, a hammer is a more efficient "Optimal" tool.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Kenny, if youre goinng to keep beating a dead horse: optimal is a synomyn of best. It comes from the latin “optimus” meaning best. When I looked up optimal in the dictionary, it said “most favorable or desirable; best”. Our gracious moderator kindly bowed out when it came to a simple semantic misunderstanding, but if you want to continue belaboring the point in a condescending way, check the facts. Theres no clinical study on the relationship of these words but I hope the thesaurus, dictionary and etymology combined will do for you.
 
Last edited:
...
Anyway, Easy Strength, Even Easier Strength and the 40 day workout are so similar that Dan John considers them essentially the same. Most often people are referring to the high frequency, 4-5 day per week low load version. BUT the version of Easy Strength described in the book is 2-3xwk but going heavier. I see it as a spectrum of load and frequency that each individual can dial in as needed. Otherwise, the sets, reps, exercise selection are the same.

This is how I've understood it. I've been getting confused with the ES/40 day workout discussions here, I must admit.

From reading Easy Strength and PTTP, the 2-3 days a week Easy Strength described in the book sounds a lot like PTTP with higher percentages and lower frequency. The book suggests deadlifts and floor presses from PTTP as well as the 5-3-2 rep format (as one of the options), as well as suggesting cycling the weights in the same way.

So, as you say, lower frequency with higher percentages.
 
optimal is a synomyn of best

As I noted in my previous post, in regard to the definition that I am using...

"This falls in line with my use of "Optimal"

""most desirable or satisfactory"

In future post, I will make an effort to be more definitive with my application of word and terms in regard to my use of them.

Kenny Croxdale

.
 
Will the ES principles produce the needed hypertrophy?
No I don't think it will. @Kettlebelephant answered this earlier positively but to be frank, I'm very skeptical.

ES is supposed to be pure CNS strength. You practice the lift very frequently, for very low volume. You get "good" at it. You don't need much volume or intensity and that's precisely why it gets the "Easy" name. It's perfect training for athletes or the common person.

Muscle building, on the other hand, does require fatigue. It requires blood occlusion, it requires metabolic waste buildup, it requires heavy weights (to turn on as many muscle fibers as possible) and higher volume (to create the fatigue level necessary for the physiological adaptations).

Easy Strength is a great strength program, but that doesn't mean it's a great hypertrophy program. Pavel has released hypertrophy protocols in the past (and a book dedicated to it) so if you're looking for mass without compromising strength, I'd start there.

Just my 2 cents
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom