Does muscle hypertrophy contribute to strength gains?

[jfsully]

Exercise-Induced Changes in Muscle Size do not Contribute to Exercise-Induced Changes in Muscle Strength

Exercise-Induced Myofibrillar Hypertrophy is a Contributory Cause of Gains in Muscle Strength

OK, so this is in fact interesting. The two articles above are in the same issue of the same journal. They're not officially published yet, so there will possibly be an editorial discussing the two articles and trying to synthesize their findings.

This may be frustrating to @FatButWeak, but this is how science works, and when there is seemingly contradictory evidence, this is where science gets interesting. If all we needed was the evidence before our eyes and the wisdom of our grannies, we would have known everything we needed to know a few thousand years ago, and wouldn't have vehicles, cell phones, or antibiotics. So yes, science is messy, and often people identifying as "scientists" (or who are identified as such by others) produce silly bullshit, but this is the case with pretty much every field of human endeavor.

You get bigger from training. You get stronger from training. So are you stronger *because* you are bigger? Maybe. But are two guys with the same height and lean body mass the same strength every time? Can smaller guys be stronger than bigger guys? I think so, some times. Why do we track progress with 1RMs rather than with body measurements? Maybe because it's more fun, but also maybe because they are related but not the same thing. Many obvious explanations turn out to be undone by mistaking correlation for causation. It's worth thinking about. Personally, it doesn't change what I do: I want to be bigger and stronger, so I train based on what I have learned around here. But, I am definitely curious what these guys come up with.

I don't have an opinion or feel like I have any horse in this race: I want to be bigger AND stronger, and thanks to Rip and others I know a way to do that. What the academics decide may lead to some fine-tuning and makes for interesting debate.


"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

[Brodie Butland]

This is a classic example of why we should ignore Science(!) when it totally contradicst your eyes, your experience and your granny's wisdom, as I have argued before on these boards. Science(!) also tells us there are 5,286 genders. Now its telling us that Doug Young was a pussy. Get the fuck out of here with your "Science(!)." Next it will tell us water isnt actually wet.

No, you should ignore studies that use shitty methodology and flawed reasoning. Which Science(!) at its core requires.

Your eyes, your experience, and your grandmother can be and often are wrong, and are pretty crappy reasons in themselves to ignore well-reasoned analysis to the contrary. A lot of things we know with certainty are true (evolution, heliocentrism, plate tectonics, gravity, constant speed of light in any inertial frame of reference, electrons acting as both particles and waves at the same time, etc.) are completely counterintuitive. Particle physics has discovered things that are absolute mindfucks and completely contrary to everything we experience on a macro level.

Progress has been made in our understanding of the universe despite our personal prejudices, not because of them. People who claimed they knew The Truth because they saw it, or their predecessors told them so, are precisely why it often took centuries for scientific truths to take a foothold in popular consciousness. Galileo was clearly wrong and a heretic, because all wise people at the time KNEW he was wrong...their forefathers told them so, and hell, I don’t feel myself moving, no way that heliocentric claptrap is right. It’s also why we constantly have people being released from prison after being convicted of crimes they didn’t do—because believe it or not, oftentimes you do have lying eyes and faulty memories.

Personally, I hope I never get to a period in my life where I’m unwilling to reconsider what I believe. It’s admittedly a lot harder to critically think than to be cocksure about everything and refuse to engage with information that might question it...but then again, becoming a better person is never supposed to be easy.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

After five years of progression on the SS program, it’s extremely hard to make any further progress in strength gains. What’s even more frustrating is that one has to constantly work extremely hard just to maintain one’s strength.

I am not qualified to give advice on this subject, but perhaps sharing what has helped my sanity against these frustrations can help some others in similar situations.
For me, seeing daily progress in something gives me emotional satisfaction.

I can easily progress in aerobic ability, as I’m in poor shape in that arena. I can also make some progress in physical appearance by doing some hypertrophy programming and body building protocols such as focusing more on inclined bench, and/or isolation exercises for biceps or certain areas of deltoids that appear underdeveloped. I’m thinking about taking up Tai-chi and perhaps get some boxing lessons. At 55 years old, my blood pressure has gotten a little out of hand, so focusing on aerobics, flexibility (stretching) would probably benefit my heart-health. I also had some tendinitis issues in my pecs that held back my bench, and I’ve found that high volume work on rotator cuffs has been beneficial for this.

Long story short, all this alternative physical activity is shoring up my physical weaknesses (a chain is as strong as its weakest link) and benefiting my overall health, while the lapse from the SS protocol has resulted in some losses in power-lifting strength. I’ve managed to minimize losses by maintaining a power-lifting protocol once a week, and I plan to cycle back into SS on and off in the future.

My main point is that by getting out of the tunnel vision of ONLY SS programming, for me personally, I see incorporating hypertrophy protocols with a broader array of programming will benefit my mind and health and in the long run (10-20 years from now) I feel that I will be able to lift heavier than would I focus my entire life exclusively on power-lifting.

Ummmmm.......well you really aren't supposed to run the STARTING strength program for 5 years. This is a novice program that lays an excellent foundation of both strength and muscle mass, upon which, you can build out intermediate and advanced programming tailored to your individual response to training and your more specific goals. Everyone would like to see daily progress but unfortunately this is not something that is possible beyond the first few months of training. Very few power lifters rely only on the Squat / Bench / Deadlift to get stronger on the Squat / Bench / Deadlift. Very few coaches or programs recommend this, including PPST3.

Forgive me if I sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm not really, but rather clarifying what is often a criticism of SS/PPST3 that our programming does not extend beyond "Squat a set of 5...add 5 lbs." This is our position for the novice phase of programming, which if done correctly, should last a few months, not a few years. But literally nothing in the intermediate or advanced sections of PPST3 advocates this for the post novice phase of training. In fact, it states the opposite.

[MAD9692]

Article advocates for a greater emphasis on high intensity rather than lots of reps at low intensity. I find I personally get stronger by lifting heavier than spamming volume

Yea, me too. But what if we and the article are wrong? What if we just judged intensity on how the weights feel that day? What if if we stopped gauging our progress in strength gains by not increasing the weight on the bar from last week, but by how we feel about how heavy the weights are this week? We could put a number around it. Ground breaking. A system based around feelings.

[Ivan Stepic]

No, you should ignore studies that use shitty methodology and flawed reasoning. Which Science(!) at its core requires.

Your eyes, your experience, and your grandmother can be and often are wrong, and are pretty crappy reasons in themselves to ignore well-reasoned analysis to the contrary. A lot of things we know with certainty are true (evolution, heliocentrism, plate tectonics, gravity, constant speed of light in any inertial frame of reference, electrons acting as both particles and waves at the same time, etc.) are completely counterintuitive. Particle physics has discovered things that are absolute mindfucks and completely contrary to everything we experience on a macro level.

Progress has been made in our understanding of the universe despite our personal prejudices, not because of them. People who claimed they knew The Truth because they saw it, or their predecessors told them so, are precisely why it often took centuries for scientific truths to take a foothold in popular consciousness. Galileo was clearly wrong and a heretic, because all wise people at the time KNEW he was wrong...their forefathers told them so, and hell, I don’t feel myself moving, no way that heliocentric claptrap is right. It’s also why we constantly have people being released from prison after being convicted of crimes they didn’t do—because believe it or not, oftentimes you do have lying eyes and faulty memories.

Personally, I hope I never get to a period in my life where I’m unwilling to reconsider what I believe. It’s admittedly a lot harder to critically think than to be cocksure about everything and refuse to engage with information that might question it...but then again, becoming a better person is never supposed to be easy.

Well written Brodie.

However the Science in question here is something we absolutely do know. The fact that these two studies seem to be in opposition is the reason why Exercise Science is crap. Statistically underpowered, short term, non specific studies on "trained" individuals. Combine that with studying a single variable in a multi variable system and you get all kinds of masturbatory material.

[Brodie Butland]

Well written Brodie.

However the Science in question here is something we absolutely do know. The fact that these two studies seem to be in opposition is the reason why Exercise Science is crap. Statistically underpowered, short term, non specific studies on "trained" individuals. Combine that with studying a single variable in a multi variable system and you get all kinds of masturbatory material.

Sure...Exercise Science as a whole is shit-tastic. You won’t hear an argument against that from me. But saying the field is generally shitty is different from saying that if a study goes against our preconceived notions, we should automatically reject it without looking at it (and conversely, we shouldn’t automatically laud a study that conforms to our preconceived notions without looking at it either). That approach is every bit as flawed as its opposite argument-from-authority fallacy.

As the Starting Strength position statement said, we believe in Science, not Scientism. Although implicit and not expressly stated, we also don’t believe in Anti-Scientism either for the same reasons. The proper approach to rejecting a study shouldn’t be “if I disagree with it, or my elders said it’s bullshit, then I disregard it.” The proper approach is to examine the specifics of the study, look at the methodology and results, and determine its limitations. It may very well be GIGO. Or it may be largely GIGO but there is an interesting tidbit that seems supported. Or the method and data may be sound but it shows a different conclusion than the author made. Or it may be pretty well done overall with well-reasoned conclusions, but there are limitations to the study that should qualify our discussion.

So as I said, I don’t have a problem with recognizing that Exercise Science as a whole is very poorly done. But that doesn’t justify (or excuse) intellectual solipsism.

[jfsully]

Well written Brodie.

However the Science in question here is something we absolutely do know. The fact that these two studies seem to be in opposition is the reason why Exercise Science is crap. Statistically underpowered, short term, non specific studies on "trained" individuals. Combine that with studying a single variable in a multi variable system and you get all kinds of masturbatory material.

Neither of these articles are studies.

They are thoughtful reviews of a whole mess of evidence, set up in a point/counterpoint fashion to highlight what we actually do and don’t know.

We do know that if you train, you get bigger AND stronger. When it comes to how size and strength are related, we may not know as much as we think, because what’s obvious is not always true.

It’s fun to bash “Science” when absurdities are published, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. As my wise grandmother used to say.

[Erik Y]

Yonason, I would highly recommend against taking up tai chi. If you think about it for a second, long periods of time doing nearly isometric movement at low weight is not good for your joints. Imagine sticking your arms in front of you and slowly turning your palms over for ten minutes and this will be pretty obvious. Modern slow tai-chi has emerged as a form of exercise less because of its effectiveness than because certain people have an interest in promoting it. Boxing is less of an issue, although some boxing trainers have very strange beliefs about exercise.

Scientific literature doesn’t seem to have come very far on this matter, but I think it’s clear to everyone who goes to gyms that it’s impossible to train for strength without increasing size as a byproduct, and the reverse seems to be less true. At the same time, it seems to me that one would have to engage in some very special programming to increase muscle size without at least some increase in strength.

[wiigelec]

one would have to engage in some very special programming to increase muscle size without at least some increase in strength

You mean like supersetting 20 different tricep extensions bicep curls and cable flys?

[Erik Y]

You mean like supersetting 20 different tricep extensions bicep curls and cable flys?

Maybe. I don’t know, does that work? It doesn’t seem to be working too well for some of the guys at my gym.