Thread: Lifting heavier=More gains?

Yes number 2 in that scenario, im a big believer in more weight = more strength = more hypertrophy, there is studies behind this with a hell of a lot of anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by freenick

Assuming all other factor remaining constant assume two scenarios.

if all factors remain constant, then scenario 2 will need to rely on better neural recruitment to get the better performance.
scenario 2 will need more food to make the better muscle gains.

Originally Posted by freenick

1. Person increases military press from 100lbs to 120lbs in a month.
2. Person increases military press from 100lbs to 140lbs in a month.

Does this mean the muscular growth will be greater in scenario 2? Is trying my best enough to make the max possible gains or numbers are more important?

Im gonna say no.
First,in this particular case,going from 100 to 140 in a month will be almost impossible.
Even if someone was to do it,the form will hardly be as good as 8 x 3 with 100.
Strenght,i agree is a great factor in this sport,but this sport is hardly ALL about strenght.Assuming all your conditions remain constant,or not,the way you stimulate your muscles will have more saying in their growth,not the poundage on the bar.

Originally Posted by freenick

Very simple question for everyone. Assuming all other factor remaining constant assume two scenarios. In both cases the person has tried his best to lift as much as possible for 8 reps 3 sets.

1. Person increases military press from 100lbs to 120lbs in a month.
2. Person increases military press from 100lbs to 140lbs in a month.

Does this mean the muscular growth will be greater in scenario 2? Is trying my best enough to make the max possible gains or numbers are more important?

all other things being equal makes this a ridiculous question.

Of course.

Things don't really work that way though, except in Econ 101 maybe.

Originally Posted by gomez26

if all factors remain constant, then scenario 2 will need to rely on better neural recruitment to get the better performance.
scenario 2 will need more food to make the better muscle gains.

True story.

Originally Posted by pumplikecumming

Strength = muscle. No matter how many reps, or how you do it....

False. Strong misinformation stated matter-of-factly.

Originally Posted by freenick

Thanks for the replies. But I think I need to clarify my question a little better.The numbers I gave are just imaginary, so it doesnt matter whether it is realistically possible or not.

The main issue is, giving maximum effort (proper form also) suppose I lift 120 lbs (any exercise). This is the best my body can do. But 'IF' I was able to lift 140 lbs would it mean more muscular growth?

I am no expert but it seems logical to me that if someone tries his best to lift as heavy as possible (keeping proper form) the numbers achieved should not matter at all. I am just looking for validation on this issue.

Given proper form, it could be more muscle gains, or it could be great neural adaption.

Strength =/= mass.

You can gain mass as you get stronger. But you can also stay the same size while getting stronger.

Ever seen the guys who are "strong for their size"?

In order to give an accurate response, I'll need to know how often each person poops per day.

Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick

In order to give an accurate response, I'll need to know how often each person poops per day.

I prefer 2 a day. Generally at least once.

Today ,I'd rate it as 1.5x. It started out good to go, then kind of went to hell. THen there was a continuation of said hell later at work. Was worried about messing up my shirt.

Originally Posted by chazzy1864

I prefer 2 a day. Generally at least once.

Today ,I'd rate it as 1.5x. It started out good to go, then kind of went to hell. THen there was a continuation of said hell later at work. Was worried about messing up my shirt.

Wow, strong deload.

Without getting into all this scientific mumbo jumbo, it is my belief that all beginners should focus purely on strength and if they eat enough, they will get bigger.

And imo, 8 reps is not heavy OP, try some singles or triples.

Originally Posted by DerReise

The whole argument over low reps for strength and more reps for size is illogical, IMO.

If I'm eating over maintenance, whether I do lower reps or higher reps does not change the fact I'm going to grow muscle if I tax my muscles properly (regardless of ranges).

No one is denying that. it is what will you make the most progress in?

It was probably about a year ago, there was a guy on here for a little bit. Many of us declared e-stats on his lifts, becuase he did not have the build. He had legit lifts, but was like 6' @ 200lbs or so. He had an athletic build. Not a power lifters build. Yet he was cranking out crazy lifts, that if there were no videos (and many at that), the BS flag would be thrown by everyone.

Originally Posted by pumplikecumming

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/ph...-photo/1841161
if you wana look like this guy take his advice

Exactly, and I betcha I'm stronger than you, not to mention smaller than you, and less bodyfat than you.
Dig a little deeper, and you might find a picture even older (than 3 years old), if you want examples where I'm even smaller.


Again, strength =/= size.

Originally Posted by Dan_S

I've got a question somewhat related to this, and I didn't want to start a new thread. The example I use is just based on convenience, but should hold true for all muscle groups.

I've been lifting already, and at 160 lbs of body weight I can do 90 lb EZ bar curls for 3 sets of 8. My biceps are about 13" cold.

Assume I decide I want to put on 10-15 lbs, but I don't change the weight or repetitions of my curls. So essentially all I'm changing is the amount of calories I eat, but nothing else changes. Will my arms continue to grow? Or do I need to increase the stimulus?

If you did not increase the stimulus at all, eventually your arms would plateau. There would probably be minimal changes, but after awhile, it would simply be the weight required for endurance training, yet not even in the endurance reps.

Originally Posted by chazzy1864

No one is denying that. it is what will you make the most progress in?

It was probably about a year ago, there was a guy on here for a little bit. Many of us declared e-stats on his lifts, becuase he did not have the build. He had legit lifts, but was like 6' @ 200lbs or so. He had an athletic build. Not a power lifters build. Yet he was cranking out crazy lifts, that if there were no videos (and many at that), the BS flag would be thrown by everyone.

DevilsSon


http://www.youtube.com/menace3000

Originally Posted by pumplikecumming

Your so ignorant if you believe size =/= strength. BTW
Bench=225x4
Squat=355x5
Dead=405x3
What are your lifts....oh and I have before and after pics, I am alot bigger than you home slice....I don't train volume......

I didn't say size =/= strength.
I said strength =/= size.
Strength can equal size. But here, let's look at this video of a fellow forum member, who is one great example.

There is a difference. Sort of like:
All hyperbole is an exaggeration
Not all exaggeration is a hyperbole.


Only lift you beat me in is squat. Due to your light dead, I have to question your squat depth.




You're 193 with 3 inches on me. 16lbs @ 3" isn't real big. You also lack ALOT of muscle mass. I can tell by your back shot, with what appears to be more fat, than trap muscle.

Originally Posted by Lencho

DevilsSon


http://www.youtube.com/menace3000

Yeah! That guy.

Best example of Strength =/= Size. He had a good build, but never would suspect he could deadlift 700lb @ 220lb.

Originally Posted by chazzy1864

I didn't say size =/= strength.
I said strength =/= size.
Strength can equal size. But here, let's look at this video of a fellow forum member, who is one great example.

There is a difference. Sort of like:
All hyperbole is an exaggeration
Not all exaggeration is a hyperbole.


Only lift you beat me in is squat. Due to your light dead, I have to question your squat depth.




You're 193 with 3 inches on me. 16lbs @ 3" isn't real big. You also lack ALOT of muscle mass. I can tell by your back shot, with what appears to be more fat, than trap muscle.

Maybe not big in my height class, but I started at 155 (no lie it was embarrassing) all the way to 193 and yea I added maybe 10-15 pounds of fat, but I don't really care cause that comes off fast, but so does glycogen, and if you train for reps....your training for glycogen storage, which is not muscle. Myofibrills are the only thing that contract, and are the muscle....it takes longer to hypertrophy the muscle than it is to just fill up the muscle with glycogen. So I don't consider water weight and glycogen muscle....I consider Dorian yates type of physique muscle....cause he was rock hard, but his physiques takes longer to build since he focused on myofibrillar hypertrophy

Originally Posted by pumplikecumming

Maybe not big in my height class, but I started at 155 (no lie it was embarrassing) all the way to 193 and yea I added maybe 10-15 pounds of fat, but I don't really care cause that comes off fast, but so does glycogen, and if you train for reps....your training for glycogen storage, which is not muscle. Myofibrills are the only thing that contract, and are the muscle....it takes longer to hypertrophy the muscle than it is to just fill up the muscle with glycogen. So I don't consider water weight and glycogen muscle....I consider Dorian yates type of physique muscle....cause he was rock hard, but his physiques takes longer to build since he focused on myofibrillar hypertrophy

You really have no clue what you're talking about do you?


BTW, I started lighter than you (so I can empathize, not to mention the 106lbs I was at 15), and I've been just a couple pounds shy of your weight.... a few times. But I'm done getting in a pissing contest with someone who is clueless, who decided to call out my knowledge based on old ass photos, that still look better than your physique.

I think we need a bitchslapping section in the forums where we can really battle it out.

From my experience, there are some skinny guys in my gym, (where I am much wider and thicker than them), who are putting up 225 for 3 sets of 10, which I can only do 185lbs for 3 sets of 10. But on the same hand, I am putting up 290lbs for 3 sets of 10 on squats where they struggle to do 215lbs for 10.

It means that:
#1 I am physically bigger in SIZE (249lbs over their 200lbs max).
#2 I am physically less STRONG in the chest.
#3 I am physically STRONGER than them in my legs.
#4 My overall muscle MASS is more than them HOWEVER my chest MASS is less than theirs.

I agree with pumplikecumming... strength = muscle mass .

There are hundreds of other factors that can be put into this, but as a generality -- strength = muscle mass .