all posts post new thread

Barbell Limit of neurological strength?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

David Whitacre

Level 4 Valued Member
Hello all,

I was wondering recently- is there a point where hypertrophy is necessary to continue increasing one's strength? I understand that methods like GTG, or PttP, involve improving neurological signalling to the muscles, and fiber recruitment etc., but is there a point where we need to physically have more muscle to recruit in order to keep getting stronger?
 
Hyperthrophy is the easier way to get stronger after a While ...and if your body needs more muscle it will be surley builid if conditions are right. If you got a lot of muscle there is bigger chance you will be stronger. more muscles in right places protect and improve leverages
 
Hello,

A good way to gain strength, using both GTG and nutrition is to use GTG until you feel comfortable with your moves and reach a plateau. Then, you eat a little bit more (in muscle and masas building, we often talks about 250 kcal/day more) while using GTG.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
David Whitacre said:
... is there a point where hypertrophy is necessary to continue increasing one's strength?
Click to expand...
1. Look at weight-class athletes who continue to improve without moving up a weight class. Strength is a skill - if you can improve your skill, you can improve your strength without hypertrophy.

The other side of this, from my perspective as a weight-class athlete, is that a _little_ hypertrophy can go a long way. E.g., if you follow a protocol of heavy weights, short sets, long rests, and high volume, you will gain a little muscle, but not as much as if you use slightly lighter (but still heavy) weights, longer sets, and shorter rests.

2. Some lifts lend themselves to improvements in skill without hypertrophy more than others - the deadlift is perhaps the best example of a lift where learning to increase muscle tension can yield improvements in strength without hypertrophy. The Rite of Passage will likely put a little meat on your bones but 20-rep squats will likely add much more.

So, IMHO, the answer to your question is a firm No - the point at which hypertrophy is required is only the point at which you've decided you are as skilled at your chosen lift as you can ever possibly be; may none of us ever feel that way and may we all strive to continue to improve our form and technique.

-S-
 
I like Steve's last point; is there a biological limit to the amount of strength you can display? probably. Will an individual ever get to a point where you are getting absolute maximal fiber recruitment, firing, form, tension, technique, etc. that you are at a true physiological limit? I highly doubt it, even for the world class.
 
While we do see people improving within a weightclass, don't we also clearly see that the next weightclass up is stronger than the previous weightclass? Aren't there also strength athletes who dominate at a weight class, but put on mass to compete at the next weightclass and all their lifts go up, right? In order to lift more, they go to the next weight class? Granted, these people have already clearly stretched the biological limits within their previous weight class. While the question was "is it necessary", I think a very practical question is, "Is it easier" at a certain point to go for hypertrophy rather than continuing toward that asymptotic strength limit at your given weight.
 
@jca17, yes, people do move up a weight class to lift more.

Looking up powerlifting legend Rickey Dale Crain is interesting. He competed as a 148 and set a ton of records. Then he moved up to 165 and his lifts went up - a _lot_. Then he moved to 181 and his lifts only went up a little. (If someone wants to post a link to RDC's number, that'd be great. He's a very nice guy, btw, and has a great newsletter you can subscribe to for free.)

Is it _easier_? Yes. But.

-S-
 
David Whitacre said:
Hello all,

I was wondering recently- is there a point where hypertrophy is necessary to continue increasing one's strength? I understand that methods like GTG, or PttP, involve improving neurological signalling to the muscles, and fiber recruitment etc., but is there a point where we need to physically have more muscle to recruit in order to keep getting stronger?
Click to expand...
Yes, hypertrophy is necessary, if absolute strength is the goal. You can get as strong as possible for a given weight, but at some point you won't progress unless you build more muscle.
For weightlifting we know which bodyweight corresponds to a given height in order to lift the most weight overhead. A man of 1.75 m (5'9) height will eventually compete at 94 or better at 105 kg (235). Olympic champion Ilya Ilyin is a good example. He started out at 85 kg went on at 94 while breaking the world record in the clean and jerk with 233 kg. Then moving up to 105 kg class he opened with 233 and eventually set the new world record with 242 kg. A year later he increased his own record to 246 kg and it looked easy.

However, if your goal is just to be relatively strong at a comfortable bodyweight you don't need to care.
 
I've been thinking about how to tell the difference between meat and skill lately. In jumping you can look at the difference between your broad jump and your Quadruple broad jump divided by 4 for example. 1/4th of your quadruple broad jump should be greater than your single broad jump. Its a measure of your skill at absorbing and redirecting the force of landing.

I've been wondering if maybe the difference between your one arm KB Press and your Bottom up press might be a good measure of the general skill of strength. That is - presumably someone who can bottoms up press anywhere near their 1RM is very skilled.
 
Very interesting discussion; something I've always wondered about. If I may chime in, being in no way an expert, but just from my experience, what people have said seems to be pretty true, that if absolute strength is the goal, then hypertrophy is probably a massive asset to say the least. Having said that, most people probably have other priorities aside from max strength, some of which may be hindered by too much muscle mass. I for instance, believe that in boxing (weight classes aside), where strength certainly helps a lot, too much muscle mass can often hinder one's ability to move quickly and be light on one's feet. However, obviously a lot of individual differences are at play here as well, since some people can hold mass more comfortably than others (those who are 'big boned' for example). Just my opinion.
 
David Whitacre said:
Hello all,

I was wondering recently- is there a point where hypertrophy is necessary to continue increasing one's strength? I understand that methods like GTG, or PttP, involve improving neurological signalling to the muscles, and fiber recruitment etc., but is there a point where we need to physically have more muscle to recruit in order to keep getting stronger?
Click to expand...

One way to tackle this might be to simply look and see if world records have stopped moving up in lower weight classes. If they haven't stopped moving up, we can assume that this point hasn't been reached by anyone yet. Maybe a more personal route would be to ask is anyone in the world stronger than me and lighter?

Steve Freides said:
@jca17,

Is it _easier_? Yes. But.

-S-
Click to expand...

Young Apprentice: Is the hypertrophy side stronger?
@Steve Freides : No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Young Apprentice: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
@Steve Freides : You will know... when you are calm, at peace, passive.
 
I want to be clear that I'm saying don't add muscle to your frame - it's a good thing, and most of us could do a lot worse than to add some muscle and to drop some body fat at the same time. The part I don't get it the guy with a 500 lb. deadlift at 200 lbs. wanting to add 20 lbs. of muscle to his frame so he can deadlift 600 lbs. If this is you, don't think I'm criticizing; I'm not, but it would not be my choice.

-S-
 
I had to go find this on youtube after reading this thread.
Time and dedication are a must when it come to strength. Size is an option!


Al
 
Steve Freides said:
I want to be clear that I'm saying don't add muscle to your frame - it's a good thing, and most of us could do a lot worse than to add some muscle and to drop some body fat at the same time. The part I don't get it the guy with a 500 lb. deadlift at 200 lbs. wanting to add 20 lbs. of muscle to his frame so he can deadlift 600 lbs. If this is you, don't think I'm criticizing; I'm not, but it would not be my choice.

-S-
Click to expand...
Mine neither. At the end of the day you still have to carry your own engine.
 
offwidth said:
Mine neither. At the end of the day you still have to carry your own engine.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we need to mention those for whom gaining muscle is a good thing. The best example I can think of it people who play a contact/combat sport like American football and, from what I know about it, rugby. "Armor Building" is what has been proven to work for these applications and it's important to realize it has a very important place in the spectrum of things one can accomplish by lifting weights.

-S-
 
In Episode 169 of Mike Mahler's podcast they discuss the effect of weight loss and weight gain on certain exercises with guest Christian Thibaudeau. In their experience weight loss doesn't affect the deadlift much at all. The squat goes down, but the bench and the press decrease the most when one is losing weight. I think that is rather surprising but good to know.

The podcast episode is very informative as they discuss many topics from protein intake to keys to success in training.
Episode 169: Elite strength coach Christian Thibadeau on training frequency, high protein fallacies, and optimal Crossfit training - Mahler's Aggressive Strength
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom