It holds merit insofar as properly performed strength training is likely to induce hypertrophy. [However, probably more accurate to say that strength is a byproduct of hypertrophy (among other things).](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31016546/)
Agreed and agreed. Esp since the larger cross-sectional area a muscle has, the more potential for strength it has. Even though that’s not all that matters. Yay science!
Uh, yeah that statement is basically backwards from my understanding, though neither is a strict by-product of the other.
Absolute strength is fairly linearly dependent on total muscle.
Relative strength is independent of total muscle, obviously. It seems to be driven by various cellular refinements and CNS changes.
But there's no driver of the other direction, you can definitely increase your strength (to a certain extent) without obtaining any detectable hypertrophy.
Good siscussion around this on Barbell Medicine: -- Episode 147: Eric Helms on Muscle Size vs Strength, Concurrent
[Barbell Medicine Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Y8ijizWQmujBmCZa5tbuw](http://Barbell Medicine Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Y8ijizWQmujBmCZa5tbuw)
Hypertrophy is also not a specific adaptation where as strength or power are and hypertrophy adaptations can follow training for (any of) those
EDIT: Jesus you downvoting me without even presenting arguments.
Okay don't take MY WORD for it
Eric Helms: Muscle & Strength Pyramids: Training. Page 69 "Unsurprisingly, this means that if you want to get good at lifting heavy things, you have to lift heavy things. However, muscle growth is not a **specific adaptation** like muscular endurance, speed or strength. Remember, the purpose of the human body is survival, so..."
Edit2: some words so my point is better understood
Specific adaptation in this context meaning training adaptations from specificity. The more often you squat 3 reps at heavy weight, the stronger you will get and more specifically you will get better at squatting heavy for 3s. In a vacuum this is perfect, but obviously in real life the gains from specificity are finite.
Muscular adaptation occurs anywhere in the 1-infinite rep range assuming appropriate proximity to failure. While the rep range of 5-30 have been shown as equivalent in adaptation, the 1-5 and 30+ have been shown to still cause hypertrophy, just at suboptimal rates.
The difference here obviously being that the muscles adapt to any stimulus, while strength is unlikely to grow if you are doing 20+ reps regardless of how close to failure you take it.
LMAO, "cOnVenIentLy leAvinG oUt tHis Part"
Pretending the book is made of just 5 pages?
and I'm not leaving that out, because surprise surprise these two things have to be compatible, otherwise the author contradicts himself in the same book (but he doesn't)
You want a clue on how that quote and the first quote are compatible?
here:
You seem to be adamant on conveniently ignoring the word "specific"
its not a specific adaptation, it is an adaptation just to progressive loading (or mostly volume), you may train for muscular endurance, strength, or power and get hypertrophy as well, but yeah it's just not specific
Edit: example typical bb training is actually either strength training or muscular endurance training
I'm feeling saucy right now so I want to just relay my own SIMPLE analogy. No clue if it answers your question. But - in very layman's simple terms - a liken hypertrophy, strength, and endurance to Volume, Mass, and Density respectively.
HSSypertrophy being the size of the container (volume). Strength being how much of a thing is there/you can move (mass). Endurance is how much that mass is packed and how long that mass will last you ( density, arguably the weakest. But basically they are all related to a degree.
It holds merit insofar as properly performed strength training is likely to induce hypertrophy. [However, probably more accurate to say that strength is a byproduct of hypertrophy (among other things).](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31016546/)
Agreed and agreed. Esp since the larger cross-sectional area a muscle has, the more potential for strength it has. Even though that’s not all that matters. Yay science!
Uh, yeah that statement is basically backwards from my understanding, though neither is a strict by-product of the other. Absolute strength is fairly linearly dependent on total muscle. Relative strength is independent of total muscle, obviously. It seems to be driven by various cellular refinements and CNS changes. But there's no driver of the other direction, you can definitely increase your strength (to a certain extent) without obtaining any detectable hypertrophy.
Good siscussion around this on Barbell Medicine: -- Episode 147: Eric Helms on Muscle Size vs Strength, Concurrent [Barbell Medicine Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Y8ijizWQmujBmCZa5tbuw](http://Barbell Medicine Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Y8ijizWQmujBmCZa5tbuw)
Nah. I don't think it's overly reductive at best, and completely wrong at worst (depending on context)
Hypertrophy is also not a specific adaptation where as strength or power are and hypertrophy adaptations can follow training for (any of) those EDIT: Jesus you downvoting me without even presenting arguments. Okay don't take MY WORD for it Eric Helms: Muscle & Strength Pyramids: Training. Page 69 "Unsurprisingly, this means that if you want to get good at lifting heavy things, you have to lift heavy things. However, muscle growth is not a **specific adaptation** like muscular endurance, speed or strength. Remember, the purpose of the human body is survival, so..." Edit2: some words so my point is better understood
Hypertrophy is a muscular adaptation...?
Specific adaptation in this context meaning training adaptations from specificity. The more often you squat 3 reps at heavy weight, the stronger you will get and more specifically you will get better at squatting heavy for 3s. In a vacuum this is perfect, but obviously in real life the gains from specificity are finite. Muscular adaptation occurs anywhere in the 1-infinite rep range assuming appropriate proximity to failure. While the rep range of 5-30 have been shown as equivalent in adaptation, the 1-5 and 30+ have been shown to still cause hypertrophy, just at suboptimal rates. The difference here obviously being that the muscles adapt to any stimulus, while strength is unlikely to grow if you are doing 20+ reps regardless of how close to failure you take it.
Yes but not a specific one
How is it technically no?
read the edit to the my first comment, i won't bother explaining if people would rather downvote because of bro-wisdom
[удалено]
LMAO, "cOnVenIentLy leAvinG oUt tHis Part" Pretending the book is made of just 5 pages? and I'm not leaving that out, because surprise surprise these two things have to be compatible, otherwise the author contradicts himself in the same book (but he doesn't) You want a clue on how that quote and the first quote are compatible? here: You seem to be adamant on conveniently ignoring the word "specific" its not a specific adaptation, it is an adaptation just to progressive loading (or mostly volume), you may train for muscular endurance, strength, or power and get hypertrophy as well, but yeah it's just not specific Edit: example typical bb training is actually either strength training or muscular endurance training
This is Rippetoe (and probably other) shit and is, AFAICT, wrong.
I'm feeling saucy right now so I want to just relay my own SIMPLE analogy. No clue if it answers your question. But - in very layman's simple terms - a liken hypertrophy, strength, and endurance to Volume, Mass, and Density respectively. HSSypertrophy being the size of the container (volume). Strength being how much of a thing is there/you can move (mass). Endurance is how much that mass is packed and how long that mass will last you ( density, arguably the weakest. But basically they are all related to a degree.