If strength training is more about making muscles harder then

>>39798159
Still need energy to make the muscles more dense.

>strength training is more about making muscles harder then bigger,

are you a literal idiot?

File: israetel recomping.png (85KB, 487x887px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 487x887px

>>39798159
it isn't, you started from a false premise

hypertrophy does not differ significantly between low reps and high reps (except at the extremes), it is the overall volume (think of this as number of hard sets) of training that determines hypertrophy

bbing routines tend to work in higher rep ranges, which correspond to lower percentages of your 1RM, which can be tolerated in far greater volume (therefore bodybuilding routines have high volume at a moderate intensity and use higher rep ranges)

strength programs use higher percentages of 1rm, which correspond to lower reps, but cannot be tolerated in volumes as high as lower percentage work, so these result in less hypertrophy but more specific adaptation to lifting heavy weight

both types of training still result in neural adaptation and hypertrophy, and after the rapid neural adaptation of your beginner stage of lifting you will need to build more muscle mass to progress (which is why intermediate programs are higher in volume, see Sheiko templates or GZCL vs something like SS or GSLP)

so strength training is about making muscles bigger, just not to the extent bbing training is (because we want to also retain/improve those neural adaptations to lifting heavy weight)

to make muscles bigger past the beginner or early intermediate phase, without steroids or some special circumstances (like being detrained or training a muscle group you haven't trained before) you need a calorie surplus unless you would like to "recomp" and gain about a pound of muscle a century

File: E6171_504805_ebook_Main.png (62KB, 580x299px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 580x299px

>>39798268

Muscle-protein-synthesis requires a buffer of excess calories to function. That's why calories are important for gaining strength and not solely protein.

>>39798295
nice old study but here's a meta-analysis of a whole bunch of them

http://strengtheory.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/

tl;dr rep range doesn't matter as much as people think it does, except at the extremes, for hypertrophy

the volume you can do does (which is higher at lower percentages)

>>39798308
But still there two types of hypertrophy, right?

GOTTA EAT BIG TO GET BIG CMON

>>39798806
>only valid response in this thread

>>39798159
Who the fuck is that omg mahhh dick

>>39798757
Possibly, there hasnt been any real concrete evidence to prove that you can purposely create one over the other.

>>39798159
My eyes are fucking with me mang. How can someone so THICC look slim?

>>39798159
m-mummy

>>39800846
Google says Maria Moore

>>39800955
the power of ratios
mathemagical, isn't it?

>>39798159
even if u train for strength the muscles r still gonna grow so just eat more to experience more gains. simple