INTELLIGENT / KNOWLEDGABLE FITIZENS:

this image is a classic

this is what I think and the stance I'm taking in this argument, but need more concrete sources

It's really difficult to show adamant proof of difference in training methods. Different people and people of different ages respond differently to various stimuli and training. Therefore by measuring the differences between two individuals with two different routines, some could still claim that their results weren't truly indicative of their training. Likewise, if you had one person undergo two different routines at different points in their life, some could claim that it was his age that led to certain results.

You might be able to do so by taking identical twins and subjecting them to different programs and measuring the difference in mass and strength, but even then I'd suspect some interference or overlap with the two subjects interacting.

>two individuals
thats why you use a larger sample size

Even a larger sample size has issues, given whats known about just how freaking variable training responses are.

Not only that, but you get other issues when trying to monitor and organize sample sizes large enough with such detail oriented data.

if its papers and concise studies you're looking for, forget it.

no one really knows the best way to gain mass (unless you introduce roids etc). there are many ways which work. whether any are optimal is entirely individual, hence the lack of cohesive research. well, its there, but good luck trying to draw alogrithms from it.

the majority of the evidence is empirical and conducted by people who aren'r interested in publishing papers. mostly coaches etc who are too busy.

generally, the stronger you want to be, the more volume you need per week, the more recovery you need, the more food you need. in my experience the upper body needs more workouts and more sets than the lower body.

the one thing i can faily conclusively draw from all sources is, if you want big legs, get a big squat. barely anyone with a big squat has small legs without training to avoid it or to fit in a weight class.

Every study like this has issues. But regardless, a larger sample size would smooth out most inconsistencies and individual variances to give you a useful mean for max gains.

After all, it's fitness we're talking about here, not experimental psyche meds. Running increases cardiovascular health and endurance, lifting heavy thing increases strength, etc. Certainly would could narrow down what the ideal hypertrophy routine would look like.

And monitoring and organizing data for this would be rather easy, imo. Simply have participants log caloric intake and exercises performed. Come and check on them after 4-6 months and wa-la. This would be a cakewalk for any respectable crew.

This is what I was looking for and the conclusion I had come to but made the OP just in case some user had some gems.

I'd dispute the claim about volume equating to more strength, and the claim about the upper body needing more sets. I just read a study claiming the upper body can get away with 1 set, while the lower body needs 3 (to keep up with gains made from individuals who do multiple sets).

But the big legs big squats thing I totally agree with, used this in the argument as well. And on the contrary, you won't really find people with huge legs with a weak squat.

You have an incredibly rosy view of what adherence rates are like in this sort of study. They're utterly terrible even in people who are paying for the services, random study participants are worse than a coin flip for doing it properly.

I am often asked why I keep a ball peen hammer on my nightstand. This image is why.

>I'd dispute the claim about volume equating to more strength, and the claim about the upper body needing more sets. I just read a study claiming the upper body can get away with 1 set, while the lower body needs 3 (to keep up with gains made from individuals who do multiple sets).
forget this as gospel, because it's not. just saying.

not sure what time scale your 1 set of upper body is over but it sounds wrong.

Those boys only target fish though. They actually remove the fish's tongue and they act as a replacement. Every time the fish eats, they easily get a share. Such cute interesting fellas.
Pic related.

These fuckers are delicious. Ate them in Hong Kong.

ho chi ah pi ao foo yung ji pi cao ya.

this means fuck you in chinese.

You don't need to go to Hong Kong for a bag a doritos m8

Greg Nuckols has a good series on rep ranges and strength vs. hypertrophy. That would be a good start. Basically getting strong will get you big and the best way to get big is to get strong. Hypertrophy rep ranges like 3x8 will still get you strong.

In terms of a beginner, you are able to recover from the stress within a 48-72 hour window. So when you are doing a beginner routine, something that is programmed AxBxAxx is pretty optimal. You want to do major compound lifts primarily, with a 2:1 focus on posterior vs. anterior chain. This will get you strong fast and if you happen to be eating at a slight bulk you'll gain muscle too - you can't not gain muscle while doing this right. You can throw in curls or whatever if you want, but if you're doing your chins, rows, and dips you're gonna get big arms. Don't forget that OHP and bench also help with big guns too.

There isn't any reason to waste time with 5x15 sets of 15 lb hammer curls - you'll get a pump, but that doesn't mean the muscle is actually going to grow. You need to put an adequate stimulus on the muscle and the best way is to keep putting on more weight.

Eventually, you'll hit a point where straight linear progression doesn't work that way anymore. You're simply not adapted to the stress by then. As your lifts start to do this, you're now stepping over into the intermediate range. You can do what GSLP does and drop weight and get more volume in on AMRAP sets which are nice. But eventually you'll have to move into intermediate programming.

Here's the great thing though - once you're an intermediate, you're moving pretty decent weight so that at a hypertrophy rep range you're doing significantly more volume. Or you can lift for strength and still get big but put up respectable numbers on a curl or weighted chin.

>time scale

I don't know either, and I didn't really care when reading since I need multiple sets to get ready for my 3pl8m8 (4pl8h8 for deads) lifts u mirin brah

Disgusting

thank u knowledge user.

Good stuff in hear and I will reference back to Greg Nuckols. I feel the same about the 5x15 curls too..

I got to the point when I had to switch over to an intermediate program (madcow) and the gains were nice. I hadn't done curls in years and had people asking how I got my arms. Ever since then I'm stuck on strength training as a means to gain size.

I always like the reasoning behind gaining strength before going for size for those reason mentioned too; when you do decide to go for mass, you're moving much more weight.

AMRAP = as many reps as possible?

ok brah.

>Will a strength straining program yield as much muscular gains as a hypertrophy one?
False dichotomy. The two are complementary for either goal. Hypertrophy training can be used to build muscle size while connective tissue recovers from pure strength training. Powerlifting movements are great for building overall size. Do both.

>What difference, such as volume, constitute a hypertrophy based program and why?
You asked for lack of anecdote and science but this is purely asking for anecdote. The generally accepted volumes are
>1-5 - Strength
>7-12 - Hypertrophy
>12+ Endurance

Obviously, this is a bell curve.

>I've googled this extensively and it's largely fruitless.
Nonsense, it took me a single search to find this article again.
strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/

Do your own homework. The reason there's such a lack of proof is because there's no black and white in measurement nor real life application because muscle twitch fibres work in ranges like everything else.

No prob. If you're natty the best way to gain size is to just lift heavy as fuck a lot. You get that "solid, thick, tight" body that way.

The problem is a lot of media thinks that you need to do specific isolations to grow a muscle. They're accessories for a reason. Get strong on your big lifts and bring up lagging weak points with alternative movements like front squats, sumo deads, rack pulls, RDLs, close grip bench, incline bench, push press, etc. Then throw in 2-3 sets of 8-12 of curls on OHP day and the same of tricep work on bench day. You're covered there.

Yeah that's what that means. In GSLP your last set of the main lifts are always AMRAP. So if you are doing squats and feel you have a sixth in you, do it. It works great for the deload. So if you're stuck on OHP, can only do 1x4 on your last set, drop 10% of the weight and round down. So say 135 to 120. Then your next OHP day, your last set you'd do to 5 but then AMRAP. If you can hit 10 then you can double the weight increase (2.5 to 5 for anterior chain movements in GSLP). So you can still hit a PR, just on volume over reps rather than intensity.

Those are different types of critters. The one in your picture is a highly specialized parasite. The ones in OP's pic are closer in habit to weird crabs. I do agree with you that isopods are neat little dudes though, diverse too.

1.A natural simply can't lift heavy as fuck a lot. You'll stall hard as fuck and with one fuck up you're screwed

2.You can build strength in the 1-5 rep range and 6-12 rep range. You only have to put weight on the bar. That's it. The 6-12 rep range is actually safer and is the suggested rep range for new lifters.

3.Isolations is indeed how you build specific muscles. I swear to god you're either retarded or a troll.

>I want to make gains in muscle size and strength without using steroids
Strength training
>I want to make gains in muscle size and strength while using steroids
Hypertrophy

I would just say cao ni ma

>.A natural simply can't lift heavy as fuck a lot. You'll stall hard as fuck and with one fuck up you're screwed

Objectively wrong. Natural people can get strong as fuck, you break through stalls by eating and working on complementary movements. What fuck ups are you talking about? Fuck, we all know people on gear are more prone to certain shit like bicep tears.

>The 6-12 rep range is actually safer and is the suggested rep range for new lifters

Yeah gonna do the new SL5x6-12. Oh wait Every decent beginner LP is 5 reps. You're a retard.

>Isolations is indeed how you build specific muscles. I swear to god you're either retarded or a troll.

Yup, totally retarded suggesting that a newbie work on compound exercises to get strong. Go wave your 5 lb pink dumbbells as you do your planet fitness circuit machine, faggot.

Bait

the fuck are you asking. That completely depends on what the fuck you define as 'gainz'

a strength program will make you stronger
a hypertrophy program will provide hypertrophy

/an/ pls go.

>Objectively wrong. Natural people can get strong as fuck, you break through stalls by eating and working on complementary movements. What fuck ups are you talking about? Fuck, we all know people on gear are more prone to certain shit like bicep tears.
Yes, natural people can get strong. But you can not just continue to do a 5x5 forever and continue to progress. That's fucking retarded and doesn't work in the real world. Only for completely new fucking lifters with fuck all in the way of lifting experience.
They'll stall hard as fuck and your suggestion spits in the face of your staunch "keep doing the compounds" thing.
Why not just fucking do a routine that has those "complimentary" movements in it in the first place?
And it's deeply fucking embarassing that you don't fucking know that once you get out of babby bitch weight and start lifting really heavy that one single fuckup in movement can lead to lifelong problems.
This is espescially true for naturals who don't have the infinite recovery, energy, and drive of an enhaned athlete.

>Yeah gonna do the new SL5x6-12. Oh wait Every decent beginner LP is 5 reps. You're a retard.
Every fucking beginner program says 5x5 because that's the new in vogue thing you faggot.
Not because it's fundamentally superior on some level.
You can easily put on mass AND strength on a 6-12 rep scheme.
And it's suggested to be superior because it's safer for obvious reasons and you build strength mass and strength endurance.

>Yup, totally retarded suggesting that a newbie work on compound exercises to get strong. Go wave your 5 lb pink dumbbells as you do your planet fitness circuit machine, faggot.

Is this using the "SKWAT R UR A PUZZY" thing on me? Come on. Just admit you're fucking retarded and all you know about lifting comes from reading the fucking sticky and your 5ish months of training and trolling the beginner sections powerlifting forums. Squat to get bigger biceps indeed.

>I'd dispute the claim about volume equating to more strength

Several training methods, including Texas Method involve manipulating volume in order to increase tolerance to intensity. IE having a volume day early in the week to drive intensity progression, an active recovery day, and then an intensity day wherein the trainee pushes for new maxes. it's explicitly stated throughout the program that the volume day is indeed intended to drive progression. i don't proclaim to be an expert, especially regarding strength vs. hypertrophy, but i did do a lot of research when transitioning from a novice program and experience strength coaches seem to come to the consensus that strength progression is derived from manipulation of volume vs intensity -- and this is evident from any of the tried and true intermediate to advanced strength training programs.

It's a rhetoric. You could hypothetically gain the actual talent of certain skills and lifts with the same muscle size or even possibly less but that's not a real thing to train for. Trying to gain strength with no muscle gains is just simply doing it way wrong.