Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Do you need to bulk if going for strength? (Possibly a dumb question)
- Thread starter lavi
- Start date
you can increase strength a lot without eating a bulking diet or gaining weight. In time that would result in leaning out at the same weight. If your goal is to be as (absolutely) strong as you possibly can, you'll eventually want to gain weight, but you can attain a huge strength-to-bodyweight ratio and a really good level of absolute strength without getting large. Lots of little ripped guys in lower oly lifting weight classes cleaning multiples of bodyweight.
Tom Treutlein
New member
I agree with Tagio. I have a question, though...
How does one go about doing this? Just lifting like they normally would?
Also, I know that having excess weight helps to support the tendons/ligaments and prevent injury. Well, I don't know it. Just what I've heard. Truth or not, you tell me.
How does one go about doing this? Just lifting like they normally would?
Also, I know that having excess weight helps to support the tendons/ligaments and prevent injury. Well, I don't know it. Just what I've heard. Truth or not, you tell me.
Creepusmaximus
New member
I agreee you can get strong as Hell without gaining weight. There is a limit though based on body. 2x body weight 3x body weight.
T
The Shadow
Guest
Of course not.......most powerlifters stay in the same weight class for YEARS
Tom Treutlein
New member
Oh yeah? What kind of diet?
Re: Re: Do you need to bulk if going for strength? (Possibly a dumb question)
Eventually your CNS would maximally adapt and i think at that point you would need more muscle size. Luckily, i believe that most people are not even close to the most their CNS could put out. IMO
d3track said:
Eventually your CNS would maximally adapt and i think at that point you would need more muscle size. Luckily, i believe that most people are not even close to the most their CNS could put out. IMO
strength and size does come hand in hand. end of story
find me a guy who can do dips with 250lbs+ who has a small chest....find me a guy who can curl 135+ who has small arms....or find me a guy who can olympic squat 400+ who has small legs..
people who say low reps adds strength high reps adds mass dont know wtf they're babbling about. strength usually=size but size doesnt always=strength.
bigger lifts like deadlift, power lifter squat, and bench press are easier to manipulate cns wise because they involve so many large muscles.
find me a guy who can do dips with 250lbs+ who has a small chest....find me a guy who can curl 135+ who has small arms....or find me a guy who can olympic squat 400+ who has small legs..
people who say low reps adds strength high reps adds mass dont know wtf they're babbling about. strength usually=size but size doesnt always=strength.
bigger lifts like deadlift, power lifter squat, and bench press are easier to manipulate cns wise because they involve so many large muscles.
coolcolj
New member
Umm there are tons of olylifters who fullsquat over 500lbs with stick legs..ie Ivan Charkarov 
Neural adpation, as long as you keep the calories at mainatenaince, you can gain a lot of strength without much size gain
Yes its true that to be the strongest you can be you need to add muscle mass, but many olylifters fullsquat in the triple bodyweight area with stick legs. Genetics does come into though. Some people just don't gain much size, while other gain a lot doing the exact same workouts
Neural adpation, as long as you keep the calories at mainatenaince, you can gain a lot of strength without much size gain
Yes its true that to be the strongest you can be you need to add muscle mass, but many olylifters fullsquat in the triple bodyweight area with stick legs. Genetics does come into though. Some people just don't gain much size, while other gain a lot doing the exact same workouts
CoolColJ said:Umm there are tons of olylifters who fullsquat over 500lbs with stick legs..ie Ivan Charkarov
Neural adpation, as long as you keep the calories at mainatenaince, you can gain a lot of strength without much size gain
Yes its true that to be the strongest you can be you need to add muscle mass, but many olylifters fullsquat in the triple bodyweight area with stick legs. Genetics does come into though. Some people just don't gain much size, while other gain a lot doing the exact same workouts
ok squats are kind of an exeption because of cns adaptation, and there such a large compound movement. but i still hold by the statement about isolation movements. cns will only take you so far in this regard.
SquatPukeSquat
New member
I am more interested in gaining strength than size (although i do wanna get bigger). I follow a low rep (4-8) approach, with only 2 sets per exercise (3 exercises per bodypart generally). of course, since this is a la dorian yates, you've gotta take it to absolute failure. i find my strength goes up regularly by focusing on my lifts the previous week, and trying to beat them by one rep or more the next. by forcing yourself to beat your previous week's workout, you will ensure that you won't be pussy footing around the gym, and thus allow yourself to make regular strength gains. hope this helps. later.
p.s. i focus on compound lifts.
p.s. i focus on compound lifts.
T
The Shadow
Guest
The Shadow said:
No one wnats to argue this point with me?
leatherface
New member
HP_816 said:
Well I'm not very big, about 5' 7" 165lbs and I can hit those above marks, or very close(if the 250lbs on dips includes BW, if not then I'm off by a bit more). I'm not small, but I wouldn't say im big by any means
leatherface said:
you can curl 135lbs for multiple reps?? if this is the case i bet your arms are pretty big. and i was talking about bodyweight plus 250lbs...and at 5 feet 7 you have a hell of a lot better leverage then someone taller, maybe that explains why your lifting such large weights for your size.
leatherface
New member
HP_816 said:
I'm sure I could bang out atleast a couple reps, although i have never done more than 135 for 1, but that was months ago(besides u didn't say for reps anyhow
). My arms aren't too big at all, and what they do have, is allllllll tricep lol. I haven't measured them like ever though..so no clue. As for the dips, BW + 250, no way I could get that but ill have to see what i could do sometime, ive never been able to attach more than 120lbs b/c of accessibility(i just use a dumbell i hold up with my feet, but even 120 was very easy). Anyhow I dunno, I guess i just wanted to say that I dont believe size comes with strength, maybe a little bit, b/c you WILL add SOME muscle no matter what, but I mean if i stayed at this weight for the next 5 years, and I would be lifting ALOT more in 5 years, where does that theory go then?
T
The Shadow
Guest
JT Iron said:
90% of those who answered this thread state that size and strength must go together.
BY far - the majority of plers get stronger w/o mass gain......
Tom Treutlein
New member
I can't argue it, because I agree with it. I don't seel size must come with strength. I think the diet will dictate that mostly. People who I've seen train DC style, for example, complained they never got bigger but all their lifts sky-rocketed. The answer? Eat more. When they did, guess what? They grew.
The Shadow said:
This is true ONLY if they are already VERY Elite Strong or already VERY large...
The guys who put up the biggest numbers...are all in the SHW class.
Beyond that...one begins to look at who cut 20 pounds of water via various methods the day before, what kind of equipment they are wearing now (not gaining strength though), as well as chemical enhancements, AND they become smarter and more efficient lifters.
Flat out...if you want to be the strongest...you need to be HUGE.
B True
if you interested in strength without putting on mass keep reps very low, 1-3 reps to muscle failure, although I cant guarantee that you will not get some mass too.
with reps 4-8 size will normally come with strength, but it also depends much on diet, you cant build muscles from nothing.
with higher reps much of the size you put on will be due to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and not myofibrillar hypertrophy.
that is why size and strength not always go together, apart from other reason like neural adaption. thats why poerlifters often have less mass than BBs but much more strength and a somewhat denser musculature.
see also this text for explaination
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/hale6.htm
with reps 4-8 size will normally come with strength, but it also depends much on diet, you cant build muscles from nothing.
with higher reps much of the size you put on will be due to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and not myofibrillar hypertrophy.
that is why size and strength not always go together, apart from other reason like neural adaption. thats why poerlifters often have less mass than BBs but much more strength and a somewhat denser musculature.
see also this text for explaination
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/hale6.htm
JKurz1
Banned
High reps have gotten a bad rap for long enough..........if you have the opportunity to watch a pro or even an amat. bodybuilider train in the offseason, VERY rarely do any of them go below 6 reps......plain and simple.......your muscles need that constant tension and the 6-10 rep range is truly ideal........
T
The Shadow
Guest
b fold the truth said:
I think some of the new comers to WSM are putting that to the challenge. Pud and others havent been the largest in the finals yet they dominate.
In football, there was a segment on ESPN on how linemens weight is outta control and that some 300 pounders are running circles around those 350-400 pound guys...an essental part of power (strength) is speed
Who has more strength relative to size?
A middleweight who pulls 4x bodyweight or a Super Hvy who pulls 3x?
leatherface said:
I'm sure I could bang out atleast a couple reps, although i have never done more than 135 for 1, but that was months ago(besides u didn't say for reps anyhow
Can I ask how much you have gained from when you started lifting to now? And how much muscle have you gained?
The Shadow said:
Mariuz IS one of the biggest guys there...where do people think differently? At 6'2" and 286 with veins in his abs this year...the ONLY reason why people can't say he is the biggest is because he has a smaller bone frame, is shorter, and is leaner. He DOES have more muscle.
Also...Maruiz has gained over 20 pounds of muscle in the past year. Seriously...he has GAINED WEIGHT and is now even stronger.
Your comment about the football linemen has to do with athletic ability...and your original point was that powerlifters do not change weight classes yet they get stronger. Two TOTALLY different things.
WHY do the lightweights get stronger without gaining weight?
1) They learn the lift better
2) They train better
3) Probably the biggest reason...they equipment is better. Support gear plays a HUGEEEE role in powerlifting especially with the lighter weight classes...more so than with the heavier classes.
Also...you never mentioned weight to size ratios in your initial comment. I don't see weight/size to have any relevancy when it comes down to the end of the day when the bigger guy DOES lift more weight. The bigger guy looks at the light weight and says.."yeah, so what if you lifted more per body weight...I still can lift more weight than you can."
The guys putting up the BIGGEST numbers in powerlifting are the guys that it says SHW out by their name..NOT the guys who stay in the same weight class every year.
If you want to lift BIG weights...you need to gain it....plain and simple. It can be proven time after time.
B True
coolcolj
New member
height and frame size comes into too, most of the guys in the heavier divisions in oly and powerlifting tend to be taller.
there aren't many 6 foot guys in the lower divisions in oly lifting.
Obviously the taller guys will have more muscle mass relative to height and proportion when they attain their optimal bodyweight to be competitive.
There aren't going to be too many SHW that are 5 feet tall LOL
But you get some freaks like the triple jumper Jonanthan Davies who looks like a starving marathon runner, but yet powercleans over 315lbs
But I would say that you can get extremely strong without gaining much visual msucle mass, since increasing muscle fiber size itself doesn't make the muscle get a lot bigger, it just gets denser. Its all the crap around the fibers that bloat a muscle up a lot more, and that depends on how you train.
And Neural adaption creates no extra muscle mass, you just learn to recruit more of your existing fibers which nobody can full recruit all of anyway.
there aren't many 6 foot guys in the lower divisions in oly lifting.
Obviously the taller guys will have more muscle mass relative to height and proportion when they attain their optimal bodyweight to be competitive.
There aren't going to be too many SHW that are 5 feet tall LOL
But you get some freaks like the triple jumper Jonanthan Davies who looks like a starving marathon runner, but yet powercleans over 315lbs
But I would say that you can get extremely strong without gaining much visual msucle mass, since increasing muscle fiber size itself doesn't make the muscle get a lot bigger, it just gets denser. Its all the crap around the fibers that bloat a muscle up a lot more, and that depends on how you train.
And Neural adaption creates no extra muscle mass, you just learn to recruit more of your existing fibers which nobody can full recruit all of anyway.
Last edited:
T
The Shadow
Guest
CoolColJ said:height and frame size comes into too, most of the guys in the heavier divisions in oly and powerlifting tend to be taller.
there aren't many 6 foot guys in the lower divisions in oly lifting.
Obviously the taller guys will have more muscle mass relative to height and proportion when they attain their optimal bodyweight to be competitive.
There aren't going to be too many SHW that are 5 feet tall LOL
But you get some freaks like the triple jumper Jonanthan Davies who looks like a starving marathon runner, but yet powercleans over 315lbs
But I would say that you can get extremely strong without gaining much visual msucle mass, since increasing muscle fiber size itself doesn't make the muscle get a lot bigger, it just gets denser. Its all the crap around the fibers that bloat a muscle up a lot more, and that depends on how you train.
And Neural adaption creates no extra muscle mass, you just learn to recruit more of your existing fibers which nobody can full recruit all of anyway.
Yep.
I thought Pud was around 270ish the year he won...If I remember correctly 6 others in the finals outweighed him
The Shadow said:
When he won in 2002 he was around 268 and when he won in 2003 he was even leaner at 286...and A LOT stronger. Prime example of how gaining strength and size can VERY easily go hand in hand...especially in Strongman.
In powerlifting one can add a new suit, different type of wraps, different shirt, etc...and get a HUGE difference in their so called strength. In strongman...you just flat out have to have the strength raw.
I think that the rest of my points that I made before were pretty in depth as well. There are no absolutes though...I'm one of the smallest pro strongmen in the US yet I can beat a lot of them.
B True
BigBadBootyDaddy29
New member
B fold, I know what you mean.....Mariusz at 6'2" (if he is even that tall, I thought he was closer to 6') and a VERY lean 286 is bigger than someone 6'5 and 315lbs and he is bigger than a guy his own height who weighs 330lbs, but 100lbs of that is fat and water and other useless weight. Pudz is ripped, so people are deceived into thinking he isn't a big guy, his LBM (basically the entire 286 or whatever) makes him HUGE.
The comments about powerlifters is irrelevant, because tweaking equipment and gaining raw strength shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
The comment about the linemen is ridiculous because of course athletic ability is more important than anything, plus an in-shape 300 lb athlete with maybe 18% bodyfat will run circles around a guy who is 350 and 35% bodyfat, the 300lb guy si technically bigger because he weighs more if you look at LBM and not total weight, and that is where people are going wrong.
Bigger IS better and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Bigger in terms of LBM, not fat, water , and total weight. A lot of Joe Averages who are fat think they are big and strong and a lot of Joe Averages who are scrawny think they are fast and strong "for their size", the truth is they are both quite sad.
If two people have EQUAL skill, the bigger (lbm), stronger one will always come out on top, more lean muscle leads to more speed, people need to stop confusing fat and shit weight with lean body mass.
Any to finish off my rant, if a guy who weighs 87lbs benches 8 times his bodyweight in 9 layers of shirts, i am not impressed because the SHW still blow him away raw.....if you wanna be the best, you need to be the biggest, if you're happy being king of the midgets, then suit yourself.
The comments about powerlifters is irrelevant, because tweaking equipment and gaining raw strength shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
The comment about the linemen is ridiculous because of course athletic ability is more important than anything, plus an in-shape 300 lb athlete with maybe 18% bodyfat will run circles around a guy who is 350 and 35% bodyfat, the 300lb guy si technically bigger because he weighs more if you look at LBM and not total weight, and that is where people are going wrong.
Bigger IS better and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Bigger in terms of LBM, not fat, water , and total weight. A lot of Joe Averages who are fat think they are big and strong and a lot of Joe Averages who are scrawny think they are fast and strong "for their size", the truth is they are both quite sad.
If two people have EQUAL skill, the bigger (lbm), stronger one will always come out on top, more lean muscle leads to more speed, people need to stop confusing fat and shit weight with lean body mass.
Any to finish off my rant, if a guy who weighs 87lbs benches 8 times his bodyweight in 9 layers of shirts, i am not impressed because the SHW still blow him away raw.....if you wanna be the best, you need to be the biggest, if you're happy being king of the midgets, then suit yourself.
coolcolj
New member
There is still an optimal bodyweight range for every person depending on the sport and desired goals. You can get too big, muscle mass wise, which slows down recovery a lot and makes injuries much more likely. Chews up more energy and resources as well.
basicly as far as strength goes
Huge muscle mass 1+1=2
Small muscle mas and neurally effecient 1+1=2
Optimal muscle size and nuerally effecient 1+1=3
basicly as far as strength goes
Huge muscle mass 1+1=2
Small muscle mas and neurally effecient 1+1=2
Optimal muscle size and nuerally effecient 1+1=3
dzuljas
New member
HP_816 said:
You dont have to be big to lift a lot of weights. And training at lower reps with heavier weights WILL make u stronger than high reps and low weights. Read any exercise physiology textbook and you will find this out bro, there have been plenty of studies about this. You sound like youre talking from your gym knowledge.
dzuljas said:
ok smart guy why dont you find me some examples like i mentioned and maybe some pics. not bench press, squat, or deadlift. those 3 lifts have been manipulated to death with "equipment". find me one guy who can military press over 250lbs who has small shoulders. strength=size i dont even see how you people can argue this. sure you can lift heavier weights for your size doing low reps. but its not gonna magically allow you to lift heavy ass weights because your magical cns sais so...you better have mass to back it up. and its funny how people keep on bringing up so and so can clean 315 and is skinny...do you realize how compound and how many muscles you use when you perform a clean.? thats why cns conditioning comes into play much more for large lifts.
T
The Shadow
Guest
BigBadBootyDaddy29 said:
We are off topic......when he won he was in the 260's....by FAR the lowest weight of anyone in the finals.....so..I guess he is a good case for my argument......he wasnt even in the SUPER heavy class yet he still dominated...so now he is around 285 or so.....so still...he is one of the lightest there, correct?
D
Debaser
Guest
The Shadow said:
I don't see how this is a good case for your argument at all. You're comparing Marius to OTHER ATHLETES. He's stronger than them, plain and simple. This is completely irrelevent. There are 180 lb guys that are stronger than 300 lb guys, but this has nothing to do with what you're arguing. This is simply saying, "some guys weigh less than others and are yet stronger." Well, duh, who will argue that?
If you look at your original point about gaining strength while staying the same weight, you are actually CONTRADICTING yourself using Marius as an example, because he has gained a good amount of strength AND size since then; not merely strength.
T
The Shadow
Guest
Debaser said:
You need to re-read my statement...my reference was to Pud the year he weighed in the 260's...and DOMINATED EVERYONE in the finals with him......someone made the point that the strongest athletes were in the SUper-HWy class and that just isnt so.
Im comparing him with elite athletes who outweighed him by 50-75 pounds.
BigBadBootyDaddy29
New member
The Shadow said:
He was about 266 or so, with basically no bodyfat. The next year he got stronger and won in a more dominating fashion NOT at the same weight, NOT at a lighter weight, but at 20lbs HEAVIER. So, yes, you did contradictr yourself since the strength gain was accompanied by a gain in 20lbs of LBM, if anything you supported what I was trying to get across.
What I was saying is that LBM is very important in terms of raw, pure strength, and even at 266 ripped, Pudz is still bigger than a guy who weighs 310 and is carrying 80lbs of fat and water and other useless, shit weight, because when you look at lean body mass, Pudz was 266, and the guy I made up for argument's sake is about 230 if you look at lean bodyweight. If WSm competitors had their weight listed as LBM, Pudz would be one of the heaviest guys out there, he just doesn't carry excess crap that is useless anyway.
I still stand by what I said and that is to increase pure, raw, real, functional strength, muscle, thus weight gain is necessary. Powerlifting is an aweful example because equipment and changes/modifications in technique can be the cause for jumps in numbers, or as b-fold said "so called strength".
Like Debaser said, you compared Mariusz to the other guys, who he is stronger than anyway, then Mariusz went out and gained 20 lbs and was stronger, more dominant, and just as lean. so you did nothing but contradict what you initially said, and support my argument.
Maybe you'll put the argument aside for a minute and just see what I mean.....a 148lb powerlifter can increase his bench by 50lbs and stay 148 by using a different shirt, modyifing his shirt, arching his back, driving his legs, etc.....but he still benches the same thing raw with a constant form as he ever did, to illustrate my point that you need to add muscle weight to increase strength I'll say that you can only get stronger at the same weight to a point. You'll see some lighter guys stronger than some heavier guys due to genetics, tendon strength, joint structure, etc....but if you take say two identical twins, both are say 5'10", both have been following the same workout for the same time, and both are 10% bodyfat, however one weighs 170lbs and the other is 235lbs.....there is no way the lighter guy will ever be as strong as the heavier guy given that both maintain the same weight and bodyfat numbers, it just isn't gonna happen on this planet. NOW if they both have a LBM of 170lbs and one is 10% bodyfat and the other is 30%bf, the guy that is fat may weigh 250, but his functional, muscular weight is only about 153, the same as the 170lb guy......
As far as most people go, if you weigh 150 and you bench press 275 and you want to raise that to 405 without changing your technique or adding equipment, you're gonna have to get bigger, and thats all there is to it.
Last edited:
T
The Shadow
Guest
BigBadBootyDaddy29 said:
If you look at his LBM, he was NOT bigger than the others
BigBadBootyDaddy29
New member
We're going around in circles.....Unless one of us can find the bodyfat % of the competitors in the WSM finals in 2002 and 2003 (I am not 100%, but I doubt there is any such record) so we can calculate the LBM of everyone,neither one of us is going to budge, but thats fine. You didn't argue the rest of what I said about strength and bodyweight etc, so I will assume you at least see the point I am making.
T
The Shadow
Guest
BigBadBootyDaddy29 said:
YOu do have a valid point.....but there are NUMEROUS examples of those who get stronger while bnot gaining appreciable mass(weight)
Also - the Superhvies are usually very tall(as opposed to the average person) - thereofre the massive body weightsd
BigBadBootyDaddy29
New member
The Shadow said:
I see what you're getting at also.
T
The Shadow
Guest
BigBadBootyDaddy29 said:
Wanna fuck??
lol
BigBadBootyDaddy29
New member
lol...it's like resolving a dispute with the girlfriend
Similar threads
Domestic-Supply
Domestic supply Dbol sale! Beligas