Strength Without Bulk

[delirium]

uh gymnasts have big upper bodies and small lower bodies...

a more muscular person is usually the stronger person.
you can build "strength" in a certain lift without building muscle, but strength derived from muscle gives more cross over strength to other movements.

 

[Mauby]

Honestly, if you're not getting stronger from rock climbing, you're not doing it right.

 

[millionaire75]

Originally Posted by breakdown

This blog is pretty much built around the idea of strength/fitness over bodybuilding and mass

http://fitnessblackbook.com/

You may find a lot of information you're looking for there.

has anyone else had experience with this site? your thoughts?

 

[thekunk07]

checked it out and it pretty much sucks.

 

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by infinittiii

look at gymnastic people for example, not alot of them are very big but they strong as ****

 

[mgoose]

I'll give you what I follow as far as volumes go for strength v hypertrophy (btw volume is the total amount of reps I'll do over a given number of sets, usually 4 for me)

Hypertrophy ranges from 32 to 40 total reps, so 4x8-10

Strength ranges from 11 to 24 total reps, with 4x6 to pyramid schemes ie 5,3,2,1

 

[bawlin]

Originally Posted by infinittiii

look at gymnastic people for example, not alot of them are very big but they strong as ****

Yep. Usually small frames but their forearms are bigger than their calves.

 

[camhard]

Originally Posted by Mauby

Honestly, if you're not getting stronger from rock climbing, you're not doing it right.

Oh, I have no problem getting stronger, I just want to do it with as little additional weight/awkward bulk as possible. I am also mostly concerned about getting an enormous lower body from cycling. I could stand to gain a little size in my upper body, though I still don't want to get huge.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

 

[thekunk07]

thanks these kind of arbitrary generalizations are truly helpful.

Originally Posted by mgoose

I'll give you what I follow as far as volumes go for strength v hypertrophy (btw volume is the total amount of reps I'll do over a given number of sets, usually 4 for me)

Hypertrophy ranges from 32 to 40 total reps, so 4x8-10

Strength ranges from 11 to 24 total reps, with 4x6 to pyramid schemes ie 5,3,2,1

 

[millionaire75]

Originally Posted by thekunk07

checked it out and it pretty much sucks.

why?

 

[thekunk07]

i just didn't find the info very useful or relevant.

 

[Mauby]

Originally Posted by camhard

Oh, I have no problem getting stronger, I just want to do it with as little additional weight/awkward bulk as possible. I am also mostly concerned about getting an enormous lower body from cycling. I could stand to gain a little size in my upper body, though I still don't want to get huge.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I don't think cycling will give you an enormous lower body. You'll gain a little muscle in your legs of course, but we're not talking weightlifter's legs. Also, rock climbing won't give you an enormous upper body. You'll definitely gain some muscle in your upper back though. If you're really THAT concerned about adding a little muscle with strength gains, my advice would be to ditch cycling & rock climbing and start focusing on something like yoga or pilates. In theory, those are supposed to keep you lean & toned.

 

[turbozed]

I see a lot of people here just referring to just hypertrophy as if it were just one concept.

You can indeed increase strength without as much 'bulk.' Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy increases the amount of fluid in the muscle cells but does not increase muscle strength per se. Myofribilar hypertrophy increases muscle fibers (actually myofibrils) and strength. There's a small amount of muscle size growth, but not as significant as sarcoplasmic.

This is partly the reason why there are olympic weightlifters that are 3x stronger than bodybuilders twice their size. If you're interested in avoiding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, do less reps. Under 5 reps per set. Do heavy doubles and singles.

 

[thekunk07]

^dunno that there's a perfect formula. what about cummulative reps? how different are 5 x 5 and 3 x 8? not very

 

[turbozed]

Originally Posted by thekunk07

^dunno that there's a perfect formula. what about cummulative reps? how different are 5 x 5 and 3 x 8? not very

It's more about % of 1RM. I just assumed people would be doing higher % with the low reps. I guess they could be doing low reps of submaximal loads. Bad assumption on my part.

Lower reps higher weight.