Building Strength First ENHANCES Muscle Growth Later?! (New Study)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 มี.ค. 2021
- Strength before size?
Could building strength first help you build more muscle later?
A new study by Carvalho et al. explored this.
26 trained men were assigned to a hypertrophy or strength plus hypertrophy group.
Both groups trained 2X per week for 8 weeks, training the back squat and leg press each session.
The hypertrophy group trained each exercise with 4 sets of 8-12 reps to failure with 1 min of rest between sets.
The strength plus hypertrophy group, for the first 3 weeks, trained each exercise with 4 sets of 1-3 reps to failure with 3 mins of rest between sets. This was their strength phase.
For the last 5 weeks, they trained identically to the hypertrophy group. This was their hypertrophy phase.
Increases in 1RM on the back squat and leg press, at the 3rd week, and after the 8 weeks, was significantly greater for the strength plus hypertrophy group.
Vastus lateralis thickness increases at week 3 favored the hypertrophy group. However, by the end of the 8th week, increases were greater for the strength plus hypertrophy group.
What might explain these intriguing results?
The authors speculated using heavier weights in the hypertrophy phase meant the strength plus hypertrophy group experienced greater mechanical tension and thus muscle growth.
But, I'd argue this is unlikely.
Mechanical tension is currently the best-understood mechanism of hypertrophy. A large component of this is active tension. This is equal to the force generated by the contractile units of a muscle. Simply put, high levels of muscle fiber recruitment and force produced by those recruited muscle fibers would mean high levels of active tension.
When your effort is low, there are low numbers of muscle fiber recruitment and low force produced by the recruited muscle fibers. As your effort increases, increased muscle fiber recruitment and force produced by fibers occurs.
In the last 5 week, all subjects would have been exerting the same relative effort, they all used a load that enabled them to perform 8 to 12 reps to failure. So they all would have been experiencing high levels of active tension.
However, there is some research suggesting training with heavier loads results in neural adaptations that enable a person to experience greater muscle fiber recruitment and/or force produced by those recruited muscle fibers.
So, it's possible the strength plus hypertrophy group, in the last 5 weeks, despite training with the same relative effort, would have been able to recruit more muscle fibers and/or produce greater force with the recruited muscle fibers thanks to the neural adaptations from their previous strength phase.
But some evidence suggests that neural adaptations primarily occur in the early months of a person's training career, with little thereafter. Though, I have come across evidence indicating trained individuals can still experience neural adaptations, so it's not completely clear.
Let's explore the idea of resensitization.
Unfortunately, the authors of the study did not report how the subjects trained previously. But given the popularity of using 8-12 reps, it's possible they consistently trained with this rep range before this study.
Taking some time off from using 8-12 reps and training with 1-3 reps for a couple of weeks could resensitize an individual. Meaning that when the strength plus hypertrophy group returned to using 8-12 reps in their hypertrophy phase, they were more sensitive to this rep range and gained grew resultingly. But, I'm not aware of any strong evidence to support these claim.
Moving on, this is only one study.
There is research somewhat related that conflicts with this study.
Prestes et al. found that in trained women, linear periodization (progressing from 12-14 reps to 4-6 reps over 12 weeks) produced greater increases in fat free mass versus reverse linear peridizaiton (progressing from 4-6 reps to 12-14 reps)
The reverse linear group is slightly comparable to the strength plus hypertrophy group. In that they began with low reps and heavy weight and ended with more traditional hypertrophy training.
Now, skinfold calipers aren't the best measurement tool for muscle growth. Ultrasound, as was used in the Carvalho et al. study, is considered much more reliable,
Nonetheless, this study does slightly conflict with the Carvalho et al. study.
Looking at other research, if low rep training in a hypertrophy-oriented program improves muscle growth, we would expect alternating your rep ranges to produce greater hypertrophy than using only one rep range.
However, as we detailed in our last video, the research finds no difference between alternating rep ranges or using a constant rep range for hypertrophy.
Ultimately, more research that is identical or near identical to the Carvalho et al. study is required to fully understand is getting strong first helps build more muscle later.
Music:
1) Nymano - Sleepover chll.to/4c41c32d
/ nymano - กีฬา
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel is criminally underrated.
Thank you dude! :)
Not anymore
This channel needs more clout ASAP. Fantastic work!
Thank you! :)
Great work once again! This is one of the best channels to keep up with new information in strength training :)
I appreciate that, thank you :)
Love your take to explain the difference in results between the strength+hypertrophy and hypertrophy protocol groups. Thanks.
Awesome to hear my friend, thank you!
Wow, excellent again my Man, a lot to take in!! I’ll have to watch this again. Learning so much from you, thank you again. Algorithms haha
If I understand his theory correctly, basically the strength gains were more neurological rather than an actual result of muscular strength. Thus, when they hit the hypertrophy phase, they didn't necessarily have muscles that were significantly stronger, but rather they had more ability to recruit their muscle because of better CNS development.
"they didn't necessarily have muscles that were significantly stronger," This is true to a point. However their bones and tendons would have been subjected to heavier loads and hence be stronger than the fluff and puff crew. So not just CNS improvement. Where's Jason Blah Ha when you need him.. LOL!
Anecdotally speaking, I've heard novelty is always good for hypertrophy. So breaking up your traditional hypertrophy workouts with more of a strength based approach tends to work.
My problem is I'll always marry one or the other. Typically you can gain a good bit of strength if you start training it after you've made good size gains and I'll always fall into the trap of doing strength for a long time however going back into hypertrophy afterwards gives you almost nooby like stimulus. You can find yourself pretty overtrained in the first couple weeks if you're not careful.
Wonderful job man! Thank you
No problem! Thank you for the kind words :)
This video is a favourite of mine. Will be interesting to see if similar studies are published in the future
That's awesome to hear. Agreed, hopefully future studies can see if these results are replicable!
Thank you for watching! A like, comment or share would significantly help out the channel :)
Do you have a video on what to do when you Plateau I was stuck at 225 for ab 6-7 months and I just hit 230 today
Not at the moment. In the future, I plan to make a video on the potential use of training breaks (as there seems to be some research to indicate training breaks could resensitize an individual, but I need to did into this area more).
Generally, with plateaus, I like to first assess the basics (are you eating/sleeping/training sufficiently?). If all of these are good, there are a few things that might be worth trying
1) If recovery is all good, you could add more sets to the exercise(s) plataued on
2) Add in supplemental exercises that could help the plataued lift
3) Switch up the program a bit (experiement with different rep ranges, training frequencies, etc.)
4) Take a break from training for a week or two (though, I still need to dig into this area more).
I think it's sensible to not try all these strategies at once. Rather try them one by one over time. This way, you probably get a better idea at what may be more effective for breaking plateaus for you (or you may find multiple of them are equally effective).
There probably are other ways to deal with plateaus, but these are the ones that came to my mind. Hopefully this was somewhat useful!
Brilliant video! makes me think about my training regime...
Thank you :) If it's something you think you'd enjoy, I definately recommend trying it out!
Many distinctions without any differences. So I guess I’ll just plod along always seeking slight progressive overload each week.
I like this concept
The group that did both got two different adaptations, usually you get some initial "newbie" type gains when you tweak a variable. So it seems logical that training in both rep ranges would produce superior results. Testing it the other way around too would be interesting
I think when you understand what’s actually causing growth you can pick out potential flaws in these studies. Reality is that there’s no difference between rep ranges other than some muscles activating more under a lighter load but even that doesn’t matter much when we know a set needs to be taken close to failure to get high stimulus. I’m guessing that in terms of making the most out of an individual set anything beyond 15-20 reps has no benefit. 3x5 is similar to a 3x20, 3x20 is more but not 3-4x the stimulus like we use to think. We use lighter weight bc it’s better for recovery and injury reduction. The last 5 reps on higher rep sets is the same as starting with a weight you can only get 5 reps of far as your muscles are concerned. So there’s no reason to think changing from high rep range to lower results in more muscle growth. The only way it would benefit you is if you do heavy sets on top of the volume. High intensity low volume is less fatiguing than moderate intensity high volume. But at the same time it might be counter productive to do anything that increases your strength more than necessary which is what low reps will do. I’ve always preached that for naturals 90% of strength comes from how much muscle you have but that was with ppl doing sets of 8-12 in mind. If you’re much weaker from doing sets of 20-30 that could actually shift things even with pre fatigue in mind
This is a great channel glad I joined before you had 1000 followers so Ik I’m one of the originals💪🏻😂
Hahah, thank you for the kind words :)
Great content bro 👌👍 subscribed !
Thank you :) I hope the videos can continue being useful and informative to you!
This is the best training channel on youtube
Thank you my friend, that's very kind of you!
ı was searching this, thx 👌
Glad I could help :)
fantastic underrated channel - did they do the study again with the reverse like hypertrophy first then strength and the results were the same IIRC?
Thank you :) I don't think so, I'm not aware of any study that had a reverse design to the Carvalho et al. study.
Prior to even watching this video, I intuitively started varying my rep ranges every workout. 5-6 reps, 10-12, 15-17, 8-10, 3-5, etc. ( well, I do in beach presses, anyway)
Going to share your stuff more, people would benefit immensely!! No BS , Facts from Studies and what your personal opinions are, in which you can take it or leave it, love it. Oh nearly forgot Algorithms!!!
Thank you dude, your support truly means a lot to me!
Your welcome
For this one, I’m curious about between-bout recovery and impact on fatigue accumulation
im glad i started for strength first,,,
You should have performed a hypertrophy versus hypertrophy+strength test over 6 weeks only.
also sleep and hydration is an important factor that wasn’t considered
aAddiontally the tempo of the lifters and the diet wasn’t measured, therefore though they are going to failure, the weights and the intensity of the last sets can be much different
Maybe the strength training improves the form of the training so it stimulates more muscle
I watched this when it came out, but I was a pretty much a beginner. Now that i've ran couple of strength programs, my squat went from 90kg to 150kg in a year. I can see why this 100% makes sense. I used to to 4x6 with 60kg before my strength training, now after a year of strength training cycle i reckon i can do 4x6 with 120kg. This is like 2 times more volume even though on paper it sounds the same. The only thing i'm wondering is, since i'm not a "noobie" anymore does 4x6 with 120kg actually produce more muscle growth than with 60kg? I assume yes, since strength training in itself does not produce that much muscle growth, my squat has gone up by 60% but my legs maybe grew only 2 inches. I'll start a hypertrophy phase in the next month or so, I'll keep you updated.
That's some awesome progress dude, congrats!
Also, yep, 4x6 with 120kg would be a much better stimulus for you than 4x6 with 60kg, as you would be training closer to failure (the tension on the working muscles would be higher) with the 120kg load.
You can develop a heavy weight for reps hypertrophy program.
Or you could lift moderately for hypertrophy to begin with.
training for strenght gives you way faster gainz
I always guessed this was true from my bro science.
Weight increases after set or it was same for all sets in study ??
Great video as always!
I usually do a mix of them,go heavy at compound movements like deadlift, squat, military press etc 1-5 rep and 8-12 reps during isolate exercises, i think this is the most optimal for me.
Thanks, awesome to hear!
when you train hypertrophy, you naturally gain strength anyways due to your muscles being able to take on more load anyways due to sheer size, so it kinda pays off.
I've spent years focused primarily on strength. Bench never did too well, but got my squat and deadlift in the 5-600s. I feel like I'm already about as big as I want to get, but I mean I can do 8-12 reps for multiple sets with 405 and I can only imagine the difference vs someone who's messing around with 225 or something.
Almost nobody will get to a point where they can knock out sets with 405 on the bench naturally though.
However, if a natural trainee with typical genetics got to a point where they could perform sets of 20-30+ reps *strict* with 225, they would probably be at or close to their natural genetic limit for the development of the associated musculature.
Maybe 300-350 for squats & deads.
@@blackphoenix8932 if someone cud bench 225lbs for 30 reps they aint natural
@@drabnail777 I've done 225lbs for 22 on a swiss bar as a lifetime natural, & I'm not particularly genetically gifted. So I could see how a natty could get 30+.
@@blackphoenix8932 225 for 30 would give an estimated 1RPM of 440lbs . Not natural
@@drabnail777 1. The higher the reps, the more unreliable 1rm calculators become, when I hit 225 lbs for 22, my max was 330lbs.
2. Don't judge others by your own limitations. There are genetic outliers who are capable of putting up that kind of weight. In much the same way there are people walking around at 7ft+ tall.
Wait does it also meximize strength??????????? I am curious I don’t know if you will answer my question
05:07 wrong❌️
The strength + hypertrophy group used heavier loads and thus, they experienced a greater hypertrophy. That's because after the 3 weeks strength phase, they were stronger than the hypertrophy group, and thus had a greater untapped "hypertrophy potential". In the first 3 weeks, they experienced mainly nueral adaptations from using a 1-3 rep scheme and a relatively small muscle damage and growth.
Once they increased their rep scheme from 1-3 to 8-12, they'd realized their strength gains related hypertrophy potential, and grew at a much faster rate than the hypertrophy group.
*03:15 Eventually, at the end of 8 weeks the 2 groups grew similarly, so it might not matter much whether you're using a linear periodization method or keep the rep scheme the same. WHAT ACTUALLY MATTER IS CONSISTENTLY APPLYING PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD (increasing weight, reps, sets etc) and the rep scheme itself doesn't matter that much.
One thing this video makes a mistake on is saying the weight difference doesn't matter because it's relative to the lifter. Weight is objective. The force of gravity isn't equal across all objects obviously, so the person squatting 300 for 8 reps is putting his body through more stress than the person squatting 100 for 8, even if they're both hitting the same level of failure. So while the point if the video may be and probably is a factor, the conclusion of the team who did the study is probably a factor too.
I warm up with a bike ride to the gym. When I get to the gym, I always max out on the first lift. Then I lower the weight enough to get 6-8 reps till failure. Then sometimes I lower the weight again and repeat for about 5 sets. Until I'm spent. I do full body for 3 hours twice a week. I love the gym. I would go more often but I don't take steroids. My recovery time is natural and painful. The day or two after is horrible but I try to go on long walks everyday. Not sure if I'm over training.. But I thought the whole point of lifting weights is to get stronger.. I'm seeing massive gains for the first time in my life. My whole body is responding. I get more results if I mix it up. And attack the muscle. Keep the muscle guessing what exercise we will do.. Intensity and focus on form. Pausing at the bottom of a lift for a sec.. With low time for resting in between. Attitude and mindset is key. I'm 45. I eat a high protein diet but it's hard for me to stay away from the pizza and cheese burgers. None the less, I'm still losing fat and gaining muscle at a crazy rate. My gains are drastic. But I'm still wondering what I can improve or correct. Or even if I'm doing it wrong.
Fucking TH-cam constantly playing commercials as soon as I start typing a comment.
It is very limited time
Hey I just started working out and found it so hard , I couldn't lift in the correct form maybe I'm just too weak idk but I can't even lift the lightest weight correctly without doing movement and shaking arm.
So what should I do ?
Hey dude. That's no problem. Start slow and gradually progress. Focus on acheiving good form with whatever load. (lightest dumbbells you can find, only the barbell, etc.). From there, you'll without a doubt progress.
@@HouseofHypertrophy do I need to focus on strength exercises first ?
Based on what you described, I wouldn't worry about deliberately getting strong now. Simply select any exercises you wish to train, and train them as light as possible while trying to perfect your form and confidence with them. Overtime, when you are comfortable, progressively increase the load you use with them. From this point, then you can start to truly focus on how exactly you may structure your sessions optimally for building strength and/or hypertrophy. I'd be happy to answer anymore questions you may have :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy I've heard strength exercises ( compound exercises) are the best way to build muscle & also heavy weights with lower reps , is this true and is there a quite difference between training for strength and mucle building ( bulking)? I mean are the exercises different?
Strength is often specific. When people say they want to get stronger, they're probably talking about getting stronger on a certain exercise (for instance, someone may want to get stronger on the bench press). To achieve this, simply training the bench press with heavier loads (85%1RM + loads) is likely going the main thing you do. Of course, individuals often have the goal of getting strong an array of exercises, so training all of these exercises with heavier loadings is what their training is likely going to look like. Some additional exercises can be done (perharps specific supplemental exercises), and additional work with other loadings may be done depending on the structure of training.
On the other hand, for building muscle, you'd want likely want a fair degree of exercise variety (not too excessive). This would include both a range of compound and isolation exercises, as together they likely do a great job at stimulating hypertrophy at many regions of all your muscles. Also, light (30%1RM loads) and heavy weights (80-85%1RM loads) can be equally effective for building muscle, so long as you perform repetitions with a given load probably within 3 reps from failure.
This study doesn’t matter since frequency and volume is absolute doodoo
Data are mean 😢
So start with 4 reps stay with it till it's 15 ? That's what I'm getting. Seems logical.