File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Strength or size, /fit/, which should be first?

There are pros and cons to each. The more mass you have, the easier it is to cut fat, but that also means your muscles will tire more easily due to the increased demand for energy. With primarily strength training you throw up awesome numbers with fatigue taking longer to set in, allowing you to lift more longer, essentially burning more calories. Yet at rest your strong fibers don't burn as much calories.

In conclusion if you are going for an endurance sport, choose strength. If you are just wanting to look good, choose size.

amidoinitrite?
>> Anonymous
Do whichever one you want to do.

/thread
>> Anonymous
Training for strength will bring greater size gains than training for size.
>> Anonymous
yea uhh... I lift for strength. the knowledge that I'm a strong motherfucker motivates me more. size/cut comes with it to a degree, but functionality trumps form in my opinion. still, do whichever you'd like.

I mean if you're more motivated by looking good, then well, I think you have your answer.
>> Anonymous
>>95047
That... makes no sense.
>> Anonymous
Ok I think my real question is which should be first with regard to the effects they may have on one another.

To clarify: If I train strength first will this allow me to maximize size gains later? If I train size first will this allow me to maximize strength gains later?
>> Anonymous
>>95055
I say fuck it and just start lifting for what you want. If your body needs to become larger to support what you are lifting it will become bigger.
>> Anonymous
>>95062
OK pretend like this isn't about me for a second. I've already chosen strength. I was just wondering if there was any support for the 'size before strength leads to better strength gains' theory.
>> Anonymous
Also, I will switch it up later, I just want to know from the long-time trainees whether they notice more of a strength gain after packing on more fibers.
>> Anonymous
>>95072

the only time I ever lifted for size was to bring my biceps up to par. I noticed immediate gains. it could be related to the fact that my biceps already got plenty of action with all my other lifts, it could be because I gain muscle quickly naturally. in other words, I don't know and this is a worthless post. I also think it dosn't matter that much. chose one or the other and switch whenever, who cares.
>> Anonymous
>>95053

If you do 10 repetitions, you're working your muscles but not incorporating as many muscle fibers as you possible could. The muscle swells with hypertrophy there are less strength gains.

If you lift for 4-6 reps you're incorporating more muscle fibers into the lift and working the muscle more thoroughly. The response of a muscle being worked this way is to add more fibers rather than swell up like in hypertrophy.

Anecdotally, I can say since I've switched from 10-rep hypertrophy to 6 rep strength training, I'm gaining muscle faster.
>> Anonymous
>>95076
I like how you pepper in the idiocy. Worthless post? Yes that was, as it told me nothing that I wanted to know. Who cares? I fucking care. Anyone else care? No? Tough shit, I'm age-ing this anyway.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>95080
thank you kind sir, have some sideboob and ass for your troubles.
>> Anonymous
>>95083

thanks brodawg, I been working on my technique for awile now. go rage some more.
>> Anonymous
>>95080
I'm confused:

Wiki:
"Strength training typically produces a combination of the two different types of hypertrophy; contraction against 80–90%[citation needed] of the one repetition maximum for 2–8 repetitions causes myofibrillated hypertrophy to dominate (as in powerlifters, olympic lifters and strength athletes), while several repetitions (generally 12 or more) against a sub-maximal load facilitates mainly sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (professional bodybuilders and endurance athletes)."

Of course this is assuming wiki is never wrong. But this means both 6 reps and 10 reps cause muscle hypertrophy, just different types.

Fuck terminology. Doesn't less reps simply lead to bigger volume, but less endurance strength?
>> Anonymous
muscle volume is not necessarily corelated to strength. Example: Olympic weightlifters.
While not being built like a pro-body builder, they can lift huge weights.
Their muscles are more dense.
>> Anonymous
could be wrong, but doesn't more reps lead to being more cut and higher endurance, and less reps but more weigh just make the muscle bigger?
>> Anonymous
>>95080

Not to make you sound like an idiot or anything but you are born with every single muscle fiber you will ever have. You don't grow any new ones.
>> Anonymous
>>95125
no, it does not.

>>95139
truth
>> Anonymous
>>95113
myofibrillated hypertrophy means that the muscle is producing more contractile fibers/they're getting bigger.

In sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the sarcoplasmic reticulum of the muscle cells(which releases Ca2+ which causes contraction) gets larger thus allowing you to lift for more repetitions.

Since the Sarcoplasmic reticulum is not as as dense and tightly packed as the contractile fibers, more size is seen, however, the muscle is not as dense or strong.
>> Anonymous
>>95139
you can grow new ones, just not common. What you don't get is new muscle cells
>> Anonymous
strength 4-6

size 8-10

endurance 10+
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)