Training for size vs. strength

[ramacher]

I assume there are different training methods if you want to go for size versus if you want to gain strength. But in simple words what would you do or recommend to train for size. I mainly want to get added size and not so concerned about strength.

[RugbyKid]

Not pro by any means, but from what I've read and seen size differences, cutting or bulking, come way more from diet than the actual lifting. Also doing a weight that you can do 3-4 sets of 10-12 reps

[AD]

supposedly our muscles are divided into strength fibers and endurance fibers. so i guess for the max size, you'll need to stimulate both types of muscle fibers. one way is to alternate between heavy/strength days and light/endurance days. you may find that the light days are actually more painful than the heavy days!

[mirin_serratus]

noobies need to train for strength, because in the long run the guy repping 300 on bench will be way bigger than the guy repping 200, assuming other variables are the same

[hex]

stronger you are the bigger you can possibly get is what i have read so far. start with strength slowly add weight each week and see what size you get the reevaluate

[ramacher]

Any vets chime in?

[monstr85]

noobies need to train for strength, because in the long run the guy repping 300 on bench will be way bigger than the guy repping 200, assuming other variables are the same

i find this furthest from the truth, i am not a huge guy by any means, but i bench press max at 375lbs, and rep at 345lbs, compared to my lifing partner who is around 36lbs bigger than me and about 4" taller than me can max at 315lbs and rep 265lbs, so i dont think size and strength have an exact match. i think its all about muscle fibers and how strong and how tight and multiple they are. my muscles arent huge, but my muscle fibers are much tigher and i believe i have more fibers but smaller as my arms are shorter therefore giving me more leverage to have more strength. just my .2

[jypoll]

i find this furthest from the truth, i am not a huge guy by any means, but i bench press max at 375lbs, and rep at 345lbs, compared to my lifing partner who is around 36lbs bigger than me and about 4" taller than me can max at 315lbs and rep 265lbs, so i dont think size and strength have an exact match. i think its all about muscle fibers and how strong and how tight and multiple they are. my muscles arent huge, but my muscle fibers are much tigher and i believe i have more fibers but smaller as my arms are shorter therefore giving me more leverage to have more strength. just my .2

i agree with this^^^ that the above post is not correct by any means. competitive strength athletes will be both smaller and stronger than bodybuilders because they need to lift more compared to their weight. there are two types of muscle growth: myofibrillar hypertrophy, in which there are more muscle fibres and thus more strength( smaller stronger muscle), and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (bodybuilding) where the muscle size is larger due to increased plamsa and more capillaries, BUT less densely packed with muscle fibres and thus less strength. I have been to many gym and the biggest guys are never the strongest, as they train for size not strength,

[600@50]

Tendon and ligament strength greatly affect one's strength levels in a particular lift. Mike MacDonald was a lifter in the 70s and 80s that broke many bench world records in the 181, 198, 220 and 242 classes and he only had maybe 17" arms. He credited his strength to a lot of work to strengthen the tendons and ligaments.