Does strength really mean anything when training for hypertrophy? Does it matter?

[Followyourdreams]

Okay so i'd like to know the answer to this question once and for all.

Does it really matter how strong you are if you're training for hypertrophy?

Like for example let's take Bob..

Bob has a 1 rep max on bench press for 120 pounds
Now Bob in a different universe has a max bench of 250 pounds.

Bob wants to start training for hypertrophy by blasting that muscle down.

Is either Bob at any advantage for gaining muscle? Some people think that because it's heavier weight that it's going to break the muscle down more but is this true? I mean does it really matter when your goal is just to break the muscle down? This is something i've heard soooo many times in the fitness community and i'd like to know if it's true or not.

[MuscleScience]

Increase in strength is one objective major of a muscles adaptation to exercise. There are several components to strength such as the nervous system starts building better motor pathways and movement patterns that coordinate muscles to work more together, the release of adrenaline, the increase in insulin sensitivity of the muscle cells and so on.

Hypertrophy is one of those key components in building of strength. Breaking the muscle down is one of the stimulatory affects of training. This causes the muscle fibers to grow and repair stronger with each workout to adapt to the training.

Current research is somewhat ambiguous about which is better heavy weight and lower rep ranges or lower weight and more reps. I think the majority of exercise scientist, strength coaches and exercise professionals would say the former.
But really, each individual is different.

Lastly, you have to remember that. Growth doesn't happen in the gym, it happens at rest and at night provided that you properly feed the sleepy beast so it can grow.

[ScotchGuard02]

As for me, I like strength training. I've strength trained for most of my life, mostly sports specific training. I've been involved with bodybuilding, well I'm doing physique competition, for the past five years or so. So I'm no BB expert but I'll give you my take on your question. Strength is an elusive definition to me. If a guy can arch his back like a camel so just his butt and shoulders touch the bench, and then he lowers six inches and pushes a bench press of 300lbs, is he strong? I saw a guy on YouTube that bounces 365lbs off his stomach for 7 reps! Is he strong? I've seen a farmer who's NEVER trained with weight, ever, lift a 55 gallon drums full of diesel fuel and stack it two high. Is he strong? When a guy takes 20lb dumbbells, light right?, and does 100 reps of lateral raises, is he strong? To me, strength is very specific to the motion of the activity that one trains to perform. I don't think you can compare the "strength" of a power lifter to the "strength" of a gymnast because their end objective is totally different. In BB, the goal of lifting weight is not to increase strength. The goal of lifting weights is to maximize hypertrophy of the said muscle to increase muscle volume and define symmetry. I do have to say that basic physics will play a role in strength. A guy with 20" arms will most likely curl more than a guy with 15" arms because the is more muscle fiber contracting to initiate the movement the the moment arm in the elbow. Basically, if you're bigger, you should be stronger. Whew, a mouthful. I don't even know if I answered your question. I always combine strength training with bodybuilding exercises to get a more well rounded look. Well, that's the plan anyways. Take a look at my avatar that a combo of strength and bodybuilding training.

[Marsoc]

I seen an video where arnold says to get growth U have to stress the muscle with heavy enough weight and still nice amount of volume. I personally say I don't need o be strong enough to lift a truck but I don't want to do anything higher then 10-12 reps. Only when isolating or post or pre exhausting. Cuz I don't wanna be lifting for the cardio. Might as well do aerobics. I like power reps. 6-8. I don't listen to wht Arnold says but rather general Intel intake and consider if deemed worthy. And he says anything less then 4-5 reps isn't enough time under stress for growth. ..

[ironbeck]

"strength is very specific to the motion of the activity that one trains to perform. I don't think you can compare the "strength" of a power lifter to the "strength" of a gymnast because their end objective is totally different. In BB, the goal of lifting weight is not to increase strength. The goal of lifting weights is to maximize hypertrophy of the said muscle to increase muscle volume and define symmetry. I do have to say that basic physics will play a role in strength."ScotchGuard02
I like this description. I see ppl at the gym who have bad form and use heavy weight as opposed to someone using lighter weight with slow controlled movements with great technique. The latter is better for building muscle......burn baby burn!

[DocToxin8]

The post about movement is so true.
Bench press is as such really bad to compare "strength",
as technique is so heavily involved.

My professor in human physiology, who was also a boxer, said this about training for muscle growth;
When doing light weight you don't recruit all the muscle fibers, before you tire out the smaller motor units. This doing 30reps was pointless in her way of thinking, as you'd only be recruiting all the motor units (muscle fibers) when you have tired out the smaller ones.
Because when you lift something light, like a glass, you're recruiting small motor units of which you have very good control over, that is, fine motor skills.
With heavy weight you eventually recruit all motor units and have less "control", that is you don't have the same fine motor skills moving a heavy weight as you have moving a pen f.ex.

She also said that experimentally there's a direct relationship between thickness of the muscle fiber and force.
(This gets more complicated in real life, with where the muscle fibers are attached and how you do the movement)

[DocToxin8]

She also said you never truly damage a muscle during training, at least not any observable damage can be seen under an electron microscope.
If you damage the muscle, then you're actually quite fuxked, cause it can take up to 6 months to regain your strength, sometimes more.

So what u want is to train the muscle just enough to increase protein synthesis, without damaging it.
Which is pretty much what we're all doing.
By damage think rabdomyolysis.

We actually don't know why you get weaker when you train a muscle.
Several mechanisms are proposed, any many of them are probably involved.
One of them is simply a defense mechanism; to prevent you from damaging the muscle.

[75 Dogs]

Yeah, I think there is a school of thought about training Type 1 and Type 2 muscle fibers. And the way you train will determine which type of fibers you are recruiting. Supposed to be the way body builders can gain muscle and be bigger, but powerlifters can be stronger (generalization). So the ideal way of training in this scenario is to go back and forth between the types, so that you can build a foundation for supporting heavy weights...and also put big muscles on that foundation.

I know this doesn't answer your direct question, but could be factored in when deciding how you're going to "break the muscle down". Anyway, I'm not an expert but thought I'd throw this in there.

[ryobi1]

I see ppl at the gym who have bad form and use heavy weight as opposed to someone using lighter weight with slow controlled movements with great technique. The latter is better for building muscle......burn baby burn!

I was in the gym the other day and a guy was telling his buddy,
weight first, form later...stacking on as much weight as possible,
varying range of motion...\
All I could think was he is going to hurt his buddy,
havent seen either of them in the gym for quite some time

[MuscleScience]

The post about movement is so true.
Bench press is as such really bad to compare "strength",
as technique is so heavily involved.

My professor in human physiology, who was also a boxer, said this about training for muscle growth;
When doing light weight you don't recruit all the muscle fibers, before you tire out the smaller motor units. This doing 30reps was pointless in her way of thinking, as you'd only be recruiting all the motor units (muscle fibers) when you have tired out the smaller ones.
Because when you lift something light, like a glass, you're recruiting small motor units of which you have very good control over, that is, fine motor skills.
With heavy weight you eventually recruit all motor units and have less "control", that is you don't have the same fine motor skills moving a heavy weight as you have moving a pen f.ex.

She also said that experimentally there's a direct relationship between thickness of the muscle fiber and force.
(This gets more complicated in real life, with where the muscle fibers are attached and how you do the movement)

As a motor unit starts to fatigue, more motor units are recruited do to efferent feedback at the level of the spinal cord causing more motor units to be involved. I think the old term was "summation of recruitment," or something to that effect. Even as the smaller motor units fatigued, you go from fine motor to gross motor control, that is the thought as to why skill based movement patterns degrade in quality as one fatigues.

She also said you never truly damage a muscle during training, at least not any observable damage can be seen under an electron microscope.
If you damage the muscle, then you're actually quite fuxked, cause it can take up to 6 months to regain your strength, sometimes more.

So what u want is to train the muscle just enough to increase protein synthesis, without damaging it.
Which is pretty much what we're all doing.
By damage think rabdomyolysis.

We actually don't know why you get weaker when you train a muscle.
Several mechanisms are proposed, any many of them are probably involved.
One of them is simply a defense mechanism; to prevent you from damaging the muscle.

They call the damage micro trauma, that is to the contractile proteins or filiments.

The golgi tendon and and muscle spindle fibers ( intrafusal) send signals that cause inhibition of full muscle force production. Theoretically these two sensory pathways can gauge muscle tension and limit the full recruitment of alpha motor unit neurons (extrafusel) presumably by a direct cross over effect from the gamma motor unit neurons. So that there is no lag on information relay.

[DocToxin8]

Yeah,
Micro trauma, but it's not so easy to see that trauma.
But I also tend to believe it might exist.

The Golgi tendon and muscle spindle would be good candidates for being involved in fatigue. They normally balance the muscles agonist/antagonist contractile force; they're the reason you drop a ball into someone's hand and his arm won't drop or rise while he catches it. Another ex. They're why you can hold a glass of water steady in your hand even after you take sips from it.

Summation of recruitment was what I was thinking about yes.
It does sound perhaps a little to easy, but I think it's quite relevant.

[DocToxin8]

I seen an video where arnold says to get growth U have to stress the muscle with heavy enough weight and still nice amount of volume. I personally say I don't need o be strong enough to lift a truck but I don't want to do anything higher then 10-12 reps. Only when isolating or post or pre exhausting. Cuz I don't wanna be lifting for the cardio. Might as well do aerobics. I like power reps. 6-8. I don't listen to wht Arnold says but rather general Intel intake and consider if deemed worthy. And he says anything less then 4-5 reps isn't enough time under stress for growth. ..

But nobody has defined how long it takes to do 4-5 reps as opposed to 8.
Yet i tend to agree about this time under tension thing.
Still, look at a powerlifter, some are big some are small,
they usually train pretty much the same way with low reps.
(At least some I knew)

But do they look like bodybuilders, no.

[AR's King Silabolin]

Pianas take. And mine. When you are on drugs more reps with ligther weigths are best for growth. Like 2/3 of your workouts.
Off its opposite, for every high rep workout you do two heavy workouts.

Why?...Because growth is very much related to stretching the muscle foscia and when on its easy to get a big bump and look twice as big as you are. And you get more burn and pump when doing high reps.

[DocToxin8]

It can be more difficult to get pumped by low reps, but pump isn't everything.
When doing squats I can't say that's an excersize that give me the greatest pump, but I think it's an excellent excersize for overall growth.

And while I also like to do higher reps in some excersizes and get really pumped, I've discovered that I can get just as pumped with doing 8reps all out.
Like 4reps, then 2 reps with help on the positive, then 2 reps with help all the way.

I feel the amount of reps that's been best for me in the past has varied according to excersize.
Doing deadlifts I noticed that slow strict form at 5 reps works better than 8 or 12 reps. Even tried 30 reps deadlift, but that caused my back to hurt.
(It's so easy to fuck up, because when doing 30 reps the weight feels so low you think it can't hurt you, but yes it definitely can)

But I'm always wanting to get pumped when I train.