muscle mass and tonnage

[henryjones]

A person does 3 x 5 with 180kg (sets across)

Same person does 15 singles with 200kg instead of the above.

Question:

Which gives him bigger (therefore stronger) muscles?

Rip says “When you program for strength, you are programming for size”. Santana says “Strength Training IS Hypertrophy Training”.

Question:

Why do many coaches, including Andy Baker, sometimes prescribe for strength and hypertrophy separately?

Andy Baker on Top Set / Back Off Set programming:

“This is mainly a hypertrophy based programming method. While you can certainly get stronger with this method (and even massively stronger) the way that I use this tends to be in the context of someone training for more muscle mass.”

[Mark Rippetoe]

Well, you got me, Henry. I don't know.

[henryjones]

It wasn’t a gotcha question Rip, I really like your work. I was re-reading the grey book section “Training induced muscle adaptations” and can’t get my head around the industry-wide conflictions. If strength IS hypertrophy, “a stronger muscle is a bigger muscle” et al, why do separate categories and programs for power / strength and hypertrophy abound?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Because complexity is just so fucking cool.

[Satch12879]

Indiana, why don't you ask Andy?

[henryjones]

Because complexity is just so fucking cool.

So where does that leave table 4.2 in the above chapter of the grey book which you say has been backed up by 100 years worth of data and Baker’s separate programming of top sets and back offs for hypertrophy specificity?

If “a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle” and “strength IS hypertrophy”, why bother making distinctions re. rep ranges and separate hypertrophy focused programming?

[Mark Rippetoe]

It leaves Table 4.2 squarely at the bottom of page 55. "Hormones of specific interest to training."