Training For Strength Only

[Tom Treutlein]

Let's say one is at the size they wish to be. They want nothing more. No tweaking, no nothing. What would they do for strength? I see Westside, but I notice a lot of the work is also to help induce hypertrophy, almost like a jack-of-all-trades routine.

Could one simply squat/deadlift/bench in triples and preform other lifts with fairly low reps to improve overall strength?

 

[casualbb]

...I think the hypertrophy work in westside, even if you're not eating to gain, is useful to maintain muscle size. I wouldn't drop it

 

[coolcolj]

strength is nothing without speed, and when combined you have power

you can get stronger by working on power too

some nice quotes

quote:
Nevertheless, envision strength as a rectangle(it's really the area under the force-time curve). Force being the height of your box, or mag as we call it, and the width of your rectangle is the duration you can strain(measured in time of course). You gains in strength came from raising your mag abilitiesor the height of your strength boxeven though the width of your box, your duration abilities, went down. So if you started with a 10 x 10 box(100 units of strength) you went to, say, a 20 x 6 box (120 units). I hope that helps you understand your strength gainsand why the rep was performed so fast this go around.

But, of course, our strategies for strength development raise your width and height concurrentlyleaving you with a 15 x 15 box (225 units)- or something of that nature.

Kelly Bagget

A lot of it is just training the force curve and knowing when to introduce certain programming. There are plenty of guys like you who are fast with 70% weights using up a lot of their time training what they're already good at. If the distance between f-max (amount of force you can create in your performance movement) and absolute strength is small, or one is able to demonstrate peak power at a relatively high % of their 1rm strength, then an increase in absolute strength will also tend to simultaneously bring up the other qualities. The relationship between f-max and absolute strength is very important for any athlete - powerful and fast athletes will always have a small ratio between the 2.....if you're an athlete you never want to cause a permanent increase in the relationship between them.

For a powerlifter it's not such a big deal because there is no specific need to be fast there is only a need to be strong. However, it's useful to determine training focus because sometimes speed or power can increase strength. When you get to the point where you push your absolute numbers up high enough so that the % of your 1rm that you can be explosive with declines to around the ~50% range then you will have swapped out an increase in absolute strength for a decrease in speed. At this point methods like speed and reactive bench become golden because they enable you to drive up the speed and absolute level of force production. If you analyze the force curve of a reactive bench and compared it to the force curve of a heavy bench you'd probably see that the peak level of force would be higher and sharper in the reactive bench....like a checkmark...down very quickly then up very high followed by a sharp dropoff......in the heavy bench the height of the force curve would be lower but spread over a longer duration. So a reactive bench and other associated lifts can help lifters push up their strength if their force curve is low but spread out, due to an increase int he ceiling of force production, and vice versa. This is one reason why explosive athletes like gymnasts and sprinters can go in the gym and even without any training soon be throwing up some heavy weights. They're able to produce a high and sharp level of force.

Step #1 is just knowing where to direct your focus. Step #2 is choosing how you're gonna attack that focus. If you're a lifter who lifts with a very sharp force curve then the training method directly opposite to that is a heavy isometric and other heavy/slow/long training methods. You could go in the gym and perform regular singles, triples, etc. but your force curve will still largely be the same during those movements so "curing" the weakness of your force curve will occur slower then training with other more direct methods.

I hope some of that makes some sense.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

As always, a good reply CCJ.


Bastard...

 

[Carmen]

tom, pm me if you want a link to routine's for strength only. i have a good one for you.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Oh, so I have to PM you?

Tease.

 

[Carmen]

Oh, so I have to PM you?

Tease.

ok, don't.
i will send it to you. maybe.

 

[wnt2bBeast]

im not aware that WSB was used to induce hypertrophy..you will gain size from their routine but the purpose of the assitance is just that to assist the lifts..if one should gain size from it so be it but it is not the goal..

 

[Illuminati]

im not aware that WSB was used to induce hypertrophy..you will gain size from their routine but the purpose of the assitance is just that to assist the lifts..if one should gain size from it so be it but it is not the goal..

you will get some (minimul compared to a BBing workout) on the DE days. you are still doing a fairly high volume, yet the set/rep schemes are different when compared to a BB routine. where a BBing workout would 3 sets of 10, WSB uses 10 sets of 3. then accessory work.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Uhm, you wouldn't just get size from the DE days. The ME and DE days use the same accessory lifts and sets and rep schemes (generally, they vary but follow the same idea) - they use the repetition method. This is what will induce hypertrophy - and a good deal of it. The muscles will get hit twice a week, and you'll be doing something like 3-5x6-15. They vary the set/rep schemes a lot since not one range works for everyone (according to them).

 

[crew9]

im not aware that WSB was used to induce hypertrophy..you will gain size from their routine but the purpose of the assitance is just that to assist the lifts..if one should gain size from it so be it but it is not the goal..

WSB does indeed do lifts specifically for hypertrophy

 

[wnt2bBeast]

WSB does indeed do lifts specifically for hypertrophy

whats the benefit of hypertrophy vs strength?

 

[casualbb]

whats the benefit of hypertrophy vs strength?

If your muscle is an army:

The size of the muscle is the number of soldiers you have
The strength of the muscle is how well they work together

Obviously more soldiers means more potential for teamwork.

 

[wnt2bBeast]

If your muscle is an army:

The size of the muscle is the number of soldiers you have
The strength of the muscle is how well they work together

Obviously more soldiers means more potential for teamwork.

not quite sure im understanding you? are you saying that if a muscle is bigger it is stronger?

 

[Carmen]

If your muscle is an army:

The size of the muscle is the number of soldiers you have
The strength of the muscle is how well they work together

Obviously more soldiers means more potential for teamwork.

the size of your muscle is not related to your strength.
look at the female olympic atheletes... some are quite small and are working with weights you could probably not move.
i bench more than my old training partner who was a bb and fairly muscular looking, where i am not at all.

 

[crew9]

the size of your muscle is not related to your strength.
look at the female olympic atheletes... some are quite small and are working with weights you could probably not move.
i bench more than my old training partner who was a bb and fairly muscular looking, where i am not at all.

You're partly right. A smaller muscle can be stronger than a larger one if it is trained to be strong. A bigger muscle will be stronger than a smaller muscle if they are both trained to be strong. The more muscle you have the stronger you have the capability to be. The more effective you can use your muscle the stronger you will be. This is why WSB has ME, DE, and hypertrophy work.

 

[crew9]

not quite sure im understanding you? are you saying that if a muscle is bigger it is stronger?

It has the capability to be

 

[Carmen]

You're partly right. A smaller muscle can be stronger than a larger one if it is trained to be strong. A bigger muscle will be stronger than a smaller muscle if they are both trained to be strong. The more muscle you have the stronger you have the capability to be. The more effective you can use your muscle the stronger you will be. This is why WSB has ME, DE, and hypertrophy work.

if you train for strength rather than just size, you'll be stronger. but i train for strength and don't LOOK the least bit muscular, so saying that a bigger muscle (or more "soldiers") means more strength simply isn't true.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Right. He's saying there's more of a capacity for strength. Same as a 180 lb. lifter can only get so strong, but all things equal, the guy weighing 250 lbs. will, in the end, have a greater potential for lifting greater weights.

 

[crew9]

if you train for strength rather than just size, you'll be stronger. but i train for strength and don't LOOK the least bit muscular, so saying that a bigger muscle (or more "soldiers") means more strength simply isn't true.

I never said that a bigger muscle will always be stronger

 

[WalkingBeast]

not quite sure im understanding you? are you saying that if a muscle is bigger it is stronger?

I think hes saying, the bigger a muscle is the more potential it has to be stronger. The idea is neural efficiency. How well the brain activates the muscle in relation to the weights. Supposedly that comes with practicing movements. Just like when a beginner starts training for the first time. He/she will make great gains in strength for the first few months, just from learning how to use his muscle more efficiently on each movement. His/her size may stay the same. The idea makes sense. The mind/muscle connection. But Id also take into account muscle density and things like that. I think thats often overlooked. Some people seem to have useless muscle to me. Maybe Im wrong. Ive seen alot of puffy BB type lifters who cant move shit. This even includes various pro BB videos Ive seen. Very unimpressed. My training isnt merely to gain size, but to have the strength to back it up as well. It also comes down to training as well. The muscle will adapt to what you train it for.

 

[casualbb]

I think hes saying, the bigger a muscle is the more potential it has to be stronger.

Nail on the head, bro. Keep kILLING that shit!!

 

[WalkingBeast]

Nail on the head, bro. Keep kILLING that shit!!

ThanX brother!! Keep KILLING that shit yourself! Solid information as always

 

[wnt2bBeast]

the size of your muscle is not related to your strength.
look at the female olympic atheletes... some are quite small and are working with weights you could probably not move.
i bench more than my old training partner who was a bb and fairly muscular looking, where i am not at all.

exactly..i dont get this "potential" thing either..you either can move x amount of weight or you cant..that is exaclty what walking is saying some BB'ers have huge muscles and you would expect them to move a ton of weight but in some cases it just isnt true.. how do you explain some female pl'ers that are squatting a hell of a lot more than most here as well as deadlifting more..i left benchng out because i dont want to get into the specifics about shirts and all that crap..deads are pure strength no ifs ands or butts..heres a clip
http://www.irongame.com/videos/PriscillaRibic.2004,July10-11th,USAPLMen'sNationals(Women'sInvitational),BatonRouge,[email protected]

 

[Carmen]

exactly..i dont get this "potential" thing either..you either can move x amount of weight or you cant..that is exaclty what walking is saying some BB'ers have huge muscles and you would expect them to move a ton of weight but in some cases it just isnt true.. how do you explain some female pl'ers that are squatting a hell of a lot more than most here as well as deadlifting more..i left benchng out because i dont want to get into the specifics about shirts and all that crap..deads are pure strength no ifs ands or butts..heres a clip
http://www.irongame.com/videos/PriscillaRibic.2004,July10-11th,USAPLMen'sNationals(Women'sInvitational),BatonRouge,[email protected]

i'm in 100% agreement with you.
i know a woman who deadlifts 320lbs. she weighs... 103. she's BONY.
so, forget the fact that she's deadlifting over 3 times her bw, she's also deadlifting as much as a bodybuilder might. and she's got NOTHING showing for it.

 

[Debaser]

i'm in 100% agreement with you.
i know a woman who deadlifts 320lbs. she weighs... 103. she's BONY.
so, forget the fact that she's deadlifting over 3 times her bw, she's also deadlifting as much as a bodybuilder might. and she's got NOTHING showing for it.

You're not getting it bro. No one ever said that there aren't those who are strong but aren't muscular. These people obviously train with strength in mind. Training for strength is basically training the muscle you already have to be more efficient (stronger). But more muscle brings the potential for more strength. Do you think that woman will be able to increase her strength until she can deadlift 900 lbs, without putting on any muscle? No way. But there are certainly powerlifters that can do that, and they had to put on quite a bit of muscle beforehand.

Casual's example is accurate, read it again. An trained army of 100 would own an untrained army that was twice as big, but if that army became trained, 200 is simply greater than 100.

 

[crew9]

exactly..i dont get this "potential" thing either..you either can move x amount of weight or you cant..that is exaclty what walking is saying some BB'ers have huge muscles and you would expect them to move a ton of weight but in some cases it just isnt true.. how do you explain some female pl'ers that are squatting a hell of a lot more than most here as well as deadlifting more..i left benchng out because i dont want to get into the specifics about shirts and all that crap..deads are pure strength no ifs ands or butts..heres a clip
http://www.irongame.com/videos/PriscillaRibic.2004,July10-11th,USAPLMen'sNationals(Women'sInvitational),BatonRouge,[email protected]

BahhhhHHH

 

[Carmen]

You're not getting it bro. No one ever said that there aren't those who are strong but aren't muscular. These people obviously train with strength in mind. Training for strength is basically training the muscle you already have to be more efficient (stronger). But more muscle brings the potential for more strength. Do you think that woman will be able to increase her strength until she can deadlift 900 lbs, without putting on any muscle? No way. But there are certainly powerlifters that can do that, and they had to put on quite a bit of muscle beforehand.

Casual's example is accurate, read it again. An trained army of 100 would own an untrained army that was twice as big, but if that army became trained, 200 is simply greater than 100.

a. i'm not a bro. i'm female.
b. can that woman deadlift 900 without putting on muscle? no, eventually her muscles would get bigger. but bigger muscles are not an indication of strength. just as no appearance of muscle isn't an indication of weakness.

 

[crew9]

a. i'm not a bro. i'm female.
b. can that woman deadlift 900 without putting on muscle? no, eventually her muscles would get bigger. but bigger muscles are not an indication of strength. just as no appearance of muscle isn't an indication of weakness.

We aren't saying big muscles makes you stronger than someone with smaller muscles. We are saying that a bigger muscle has more capability to be strong than a smaller muscle.

 

[Carmen]

We aren't saying big muscles makes you stronger than someone with smaller muscles. We are saying that a bigger muscle has more capability to be strong than a smaller muscle.

i'm pretty sure i still don't agree with you.
i used to workout with this girl, linda. she was a bodybuilder. (i'm using her as an example cause she's also a woman like me).
she was HYUGELY muscular- people thought she was a guy from the back.
on the other hand, i don't look like i even lift weights. she struggled with benching 135 while my lifts kept going up.
her muscle size had nothing to do with her strength and her potential wasn't any better than mine.

 

[crew9]

i'm pretty sure i still don't agree with you.
i used to workout with this girl, linda. she was a bodybuilder. (i'm using her as an example cause she's also a woman like me).
she was HYUGELY muscular- people thought she was a guy from the back.
on the other hand, i don't look like i even lift weights. she struggled with benching 135 while my lifts kept going up.
her muscle size had nothing to do with her strength and her potential wasn't any better than mine.

You still aren't understanding what I'm saying about capability. A big muscle, trained for strength, will be stronger than a smaller muscle, trained for strength. If linda switched to powerlifting, my guess is, she'd catch you rather quickly. Unless of course the weight difference was extremely large?


Ok I'll bite. Now Linda was a bodybuilder yes. I imagine she lifted like a bodybuilder. Bodybuilders don't really emphasize strength too much. Though strength does come. BBers often use high reps, slow controlled reps. How beneficial is going slow to being powerful? Being powerful is basically moving a weight fast. So if I'm doing slow reps how powerful can I become? Not very. As WSB has said in an article or two, can you jump slowly? The answer is no. This is my assumption as to why Linda was weaker, like I said it was only an assumption.

 

[Illuminati]

You're not getting it bro. No one ever said that there aren't those who are strong but aren't muscular. These people obviously train with strength in mind. Training for strength is basically training the muscle you already have to be more efficient (stronger). But more muscle brings the potential for more strength. Do you think that woman will be able to increase her strength until she can deadlift 900 lbs, without putting on any muscle? No way. But there are certainly powerlifters that can do that, and they had to put on quite a bit of muscle beforehand.

Casual's example is accurate, read it again. An trained army of 100 would own an untrained army that was twice as big, but if that army became trained, 200 is simply greater than 100.

lol. you called sugarplum bro.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Oh my fucking lord...

POTENTIAL for strength.

Size doesn't have to mean strength. Right. We all know that. We're not saying you need to be big to be strong.

However, the bigger your muscles, the greater their capacity for strength.

 

[wnt2bBeast]

Oh my fucking lord...

POTENTIAL for strength.

Size doesn't have to mean strength. Right. We all know that. We're not saying you need to be big to be strong.

However, the bigger your muscles, the greater their capacity for strength.

your contradicting yourself if size doesnt have to equal strength ( i agree with this)

if your legs are 30 inches and you squat 500 they DONT need to be 32 inches in order to squat 600..

again this may piss some off but you know what (KISS) just fuckin lift!!!
this is getting off the topic, no?

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Right, they don't need to be 32". You might get up to 600 or even a 650 lb. squat with 30" legs. Point is, the cap will be placed. Let's say, hypothetically, at 700 lbs.

If you can't break that 700 lb. barrier, what can you do? Get bigger muscles. 31" legs or 32" may allow for another 100 lbs. Maybe only 20. Case and point - there's a greater potential for strength.

By the by, I'm not contradicting myself at all.

 

[Debaser]

GAHHH!!!

This is frustrating. Not trying to butt heads, but I really don't see the difficulty in grasping this!

 

[wnt2bBeast]

Right, they don't need to be 32". You might get up to 600 or even a 650 lb. squat with 30" legs. Point is, the cap will be placed. Let's say, hypothetically, at 700 lbs.

If you can't break that 700 lb. barrier, what can you do? Get bigger muscles. 31" legs or 32" may allow for another 100 lbs. Maybe only 20. Case and point - there's a greater potential for strength.

By the by, I'm not contradicting myself at all.

ok im with you on that but what about strength gains that dont translate into size? its happened to me with my deadlift...

im sure you know i do agree that to get bigger you need to get stronger but they may not always move in tandem..

to comment on your original i think that doing all 3-5 reps will cause burnout..you will need to switch up your reps every few weeks..i highly doubt doing 8-10 reps for a few weeks will induce severe hypertrophy

 

[casualbb]

oh goddamit. it's time to get more complicated.

People are referring to lifters that are big and not strong and saying "look, bigger doesn't equal stronger"

Well yeah. Duh. The biggest dudes usually aren't the strongest because there's more to strength than just size. Bone structure, tendon insertion, blah blah blah all these things make people unequal in strength. Otherwise every dude who weighed 200 would put up the same numbers

But, WITHIN a person... when that person gets bigger they increase the potentential for strength

The strongest dudes are also big. Coincidence? nope.

 

[wnt2bBeast]

oh goddamit. it's time to get more complicated.

People are referring to lifters that are big and not strong and saying "look, bigger doesn't equal stronger"

Well yeah. Duh. The biggest dudes usually aren't the strongest because there's more to strength than just size. Bone structure, tendon insertion, blah blah blah all these things make people unequal in strength. Otherwise every dude who weighed 200 would put up the same numbers

But, WITHIN a person... when that person gets bigger they increase the potentential for strength

The strongest dudes are also big. Coincidence? nope.

i think we're in agreement lol..you should have inlcuded the word relative..i think that would have cleared things up a lot!!!!! just to play devils advocate take a look at the 165 weight class form the arnolds wpo winners total was 1955 then 1934 then 1840..i weigh 235-240 even if i were to chisel down i could weight in 220 60 lbs heavier than these guys yet they outlift me..
i dont want to debate anymore im tired besides i think we were on the same page from the beginning just had different way of expressing it

 

[coolcolj]

There's a reason why the heavier weightclasses in both Olylifting and powerlifting have higher records than the lighter classes....

size does matter!

Yes you can put on non-functional size if you don't train the right way.
But with all things being equal, a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle

Although a bigger msucle may end up being a slower muscle too, which may make it a weaker muscle

 

[wnt2bBeast]

There's a reason why the heavier weightclasses in both Olylifting and powerlifting have higher records than the lighter classes....

size does matter!

Yes you can put on non-functional size if you don't train the right way.
But with all things being equal, a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle

Although a bigger msucle may end up being a slower muscle too, which may make it a weaker muscle

the john kerry flip flop answer lol..i agree with what you said..the key word that i wasnt getting is "relative"..

i was thinking there argument was faulty because i was in my mind i was thinking take a a large bb'er (other than ronnie) say markus ruhl and put him against chuck vogelpohl..quite a large size difference..yet id bet chuck v would destroy ruhl

 

[coolcolj]

the john kerry flip flop answer lol..i agree with what you said..the key word that i wasnt getting is "relative"..

i was thinking there argument was faulty because i was in my mind i was thinking take a a large bb'er (other than ronnie) say markus ruhl and put him against chuck vogelpohl..quite a large size difference..yet id bet chuck v would destroy ruhl

yes, but if Markus trained for strength and power, he would probbaly destroy Chuck after a few years

Ronnie comes to mind - he trains for size, but also lifts for strength as well, but in a general way, but if he specialised in strength he would be even stronger than he'd be now

 

[guldukat]

But, WITHIN a person... when that person gets bigger they increase the potentential for strength

THANK YOU.

When we say "a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle" (within reason, of course...hopefully no one will nitpick about the extremely unlikely/near impossible), we're saying that if an INDIVIDUAL builds bigger muscles, those same muscles will be stronger.

It's not saying ANYTHING about size v. strength comparisons between DIFFERENT PEOPLE. We'll almost ALWAYS find examples of the "smaller but stronger" guy/gal. That comparison is ILLICIT, and misses our point: we are saying is if that skinny person got bigger, he'd/she'd be stronger still. We're saying if the muscular guy rapidly lost LBM, his strength would go down as well.

Greater muscular cross-sectional area (again, to a point) = greater demonstratable strength. Painfully simple.