Let's say you get stronger, but don't eat...

[Tom Treutlein]

This has been on my mind for some time, and I can not seem to find an answer. Let's assume we take a lifter who has a squat of 300, a bench of 200, and a row of 195. Now let's say he's about 180, and not near his potential in terms of size OR strength.

Said lifter gets put on a routine, such as Bill Starr's 5x5 Dual-Factor Method. He eats maintenance, never quite getting in enough food to grow. Regardless, he adds, over the course of time, 150 lbs. to his squat, 90 lbs. to his bench, and 85 lbs. to his row, giving us a squat of 450, a bench of 290, and a row of 270.

Obviously, without a caloric surplus, he would not have gained any weight. Now, usually if one is eating enough, size gains can accompany strength gains.

What happens, however, when a scenario such as this presents itself? All that strength was gained, yet there wasn't an abundance of calories to support muscle growth. Would this person have a "spurt" of growth once they started eating over maintenance, and make up for all that lost time and hypertrophy? Or is it forever lost?

I never quite understood this, and I really would like this issue to be quelled once and for all.

 

[|D_J^B_J|]

They only way of finding out is to see for yourself.

Why don't you try doing Bill Starr's dual factor routine focusing solely on strength gains and not muscle gains by eating at maintenance level.
Then do another cycle of the routine eating more than your maintenance requirements and see whether you grow more rapidly than usual.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

That's funny, 'cause I just posted in your thread as well.

I know I can try and discover the answer for myself, but I'm horrifically impaitent, and waiting five or so months to get the answer doesn't suit me. Besides, other variables could come in to play to screw with my results. I'd like to hear from a bunch of people who are more or less qualified, or have some sort've anecdotal evidence.

 

[Illuminati]

This has been on my mind for some time, and I can not seem to find an answer. Let's assume we take a lifter who has a squat of 300, a bench of 200, and a row of 195. Now let's say he's about 180, and not near his potential in terms of size OR strength.

Said lifter gets put on a routine, such as Bill Starr's 5x5 Dual-Factor Method. He eats maintenance, never quite getting in enough food to grow. Regardless, he adds, over the course of time, 150 lbs. to his squat, 90 lbs. to his bench, and 85 lbs. to his row, giving us a squat of 450, a bench of 290, and a row of 270.

Obviously, without a caloric surplus, he would not have gained any weight. Now, usually if one is eating enough, size gains can accompany strength gains.

What happens, however, when a scenario such as this presents itself? All that strength was gained, yet there wasn't an abundance of calories to support muscle growth. Would this person have a "spurt" of growth once they started eating over maintenance, and make up for all that lost time and hypertrophy? Or is it forever lost?

I never quite understood this, and I really would like this issue to be quelled once and for all.

training for strength and straing for size are two completely different things. look at your typical BBer's routine. they come up with these elaborate splits, doing countless reps and sets, and worry about their diet more than a high school girl worries about what dress she is going to wear to the prom. where as if you look at your typical PLer routine (ill use WSB for example) you have 4 days. 2 max effort days, and 2 "speed" days. you pick a main exercise each day, do a few accessory movements, and your done.
hypertrophy is not a by-product of strength, but strength is a by-product of hypertrophy.

 

[casualbb]

hypertrophy is not a by-product of strength, but strength is a by-product of hypertrophy.

.

 

[drbones2]

Sounds like you would be promoting neural efficiency if you were able to gain strength.

 

[curgeo]

I know some powerlifters that stay in the same weight class and get stronger every year. It is like Drbones said, neural efficiency. It is the ability to train your CNS to fire your muscles in a certain sequence and also a maximum amount of fibers being recruited.

One of my training partners is a perfect example. He is not too much bigger than me. I am 5ft5 at 181 and he is 5ft4 at 198. His upper body is bigger while my lower body is bigger. My max squat isn't within 200lbs of his and my bench although decent is nowhere near his. Tendon strength and adaption come into play, but the most important is CNS training.

When WS does work over 90 percent they are training the cns, not muscle hypertrophy....only when they back down the weights and do reptition methods do they put on size in the upper back, tris and such.