What's the difference between training for mass vs. strength?

>>41621078
none

>>41621078
Only dyels train for mass

>>41621078
Strength = size for naturals.

>>41621089
Why am I getting strong but not any bigger then?

For a beginner there's pretty much no difference. more advanced lifters need to specialize

>>41621078
Nothing untill you have been lifting for 3-5 years.
Just lift to beat your 5 and 8 rep maxes on main lifts.
On accessories one week do 4x8, next do 3x10, then third do 4x12.
Then push the weight up the smallest you can, do all over.
>Also do a beginner strength program before.

>>41621101
Because it takes time.

If you get to a 225 bench, 315 squat and 405 deadlift you will be significantly bigger than the retard who did a memesplit for the same amount of time.

>>41621101
because you're not eating a surplus. food makes you grow, not training. your training determines how much of that growth is fat and muscle mass.

>>41621130
I'm on 1/2/3/4. Muscles is a little more "toned", but not alot bigger. Still look like a dyel.

>>41621137
I do have 1/2/3/4 on Texas Method, and not alot bigger.

>>41621095
Size = strength for naturals

>>41621151
Try cutting if fat. Post what you look like.

>>41621143
>>41621151
1/2/3/4 is a only impressive if you are 160
>>41621137

>>41621226
I'm less than 160.

>>41621236
Impressive

>>41621226
I always thought 1/2/3/4 was 1x bodyweight, 2x bodyweight, etc. this makes a bit more sense doesnt it ?

>>41621283
Nah, it's pl8s. 4x bodyweight deadlift is world class. A 70kg guy would have to deadlift 280kg. Does that make sense to you?

>>41621078
One responds better to Intensity(strength) other to Volume(mass), weighted resisted training can get you both, however the longer you do, the more specialized it gets, but keep in mind it is a fairly specialized activity so quality of stimulus is necessary. Don't fall for the 4x8-12 is for mass and 5x5 is for strength rep scheme meme.

>>41621078
mass is potential strength, strength is effective use of existing muscle.

Look up block periodization you dumb nigz

>>41621095
>>41621178
I hope this is the same person, or one of you is very dumb

>>41621371
I don't see why not

I started 20 rep squat program last week and the effects have been pretty bloody good so far.
I upped my calories and started off on 85kg, im now on 100kg for 20 reps.
Its a killer, on the last 3 reps your legs are shaking, your heads shaking as if saying no but you just kinda keep going.
Your fucked afterwards but the high is amazing..
Anyway i started on 14 stone last week and am now 13,7 stone but my leg size is alot bigger, ive got 5 weeks left on this program.
Im not doing an all out bulk with milk but am increasing my calories for a clean bulk by 300 calories...give this a try

>>41621078
Strength is high weight, low reps. Mass is low weight, high reps

Strength training does not induce enough hypertrophy to grow the muscle significantly. You do not need to lift heavy weight to be big.

>>41623222
mirin trips, hating everything else

>>41623222
>Strength is high weight, low reps. Mass is low weight, high reps
>Strength training does not induce enough hypertrophy to grow the muscle significantly.
if volume is equal there will be no difference is hypertrophy

>>41623530
But IRL the volume will never be equal. The point of using lower weights to allow a higher rep range is precisely that, it allows more volume to be accumulated in a reasonable time, with less systemic stress, leading to more growth, but less top-end strength.

3x3 at 90% is the same volume as 1x8-10 at 75% and probably the same potential for muscle growth overall.

The 3x3 will be far more systemically draining and will rely on neural factors to train strength, and with the appropriate warmup sets, will take 15-20 minutes to perform, with 3-4' rests between working sets. When you're done squatting or benching 3x3 at 90%, you are done squatting or benching, for the most part.

The 1x8-10 will be done, including warmups, in less than half the time. You could tack on another 2-3 sets with 2' rests and wind up tripling or quadrupling the volume, in the same time spent, and still not have as much systemic or neuralogical stress as the 3x3 had.

> if volume is equal there will be no difference is hypertrophy
That quote, while technically true, is misleading as fuck, and retarded in real-world applications.

>>41623530
which hypertrophy?

File: 1466283105873.jpg (237KB, 999x999px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 999x999px

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/size-vs-strength/
amazing how people don't read anything outside of /fit/ and create their own brosciences

if you want to get bigger train for hypertrophy, if you want to get stronger train for strength, if you want both then do a mix

File: STRENGTH BASE.png (194KB, 449x449px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 449x449px

This is what you achieve after 10+ years of strength training + having elite numbers

>>41623530
THAT is the point though, unless you plan on training 1.5-2 hours per day with a pure powerlifting routine you can get equal volume by sets of 8-12.

Best thing for size gains is combining both, 1-5 for strength and progressively more weight and 8-12 for volume work (drawback is it's harder to up the weights at high reps)

>>41622728
>1/2/3/4
>means 1x bodyweight, 2x bodyweight, etc.
>can be done in 6 months
>i dont see why this isn't possible

>>41621078
strength train if you just want to be strong or you are in some sport. Some people can get big off strength programs and some don't necessarily get too big. You can see some olympic lifters look smaller compared to what they can lift but some look huge as well.

Do mass/bodybuilding routine if you just want to get big. Of course you can get strong doing this but it takes longer due to the high volume. But you can still get strong doing this.

>>41621283
The bodyweight version is 0,5/1/1,5/2. That's what used to float around here when I joined. A lot easier to achieve unless you're fat as shit

>>41625060
Those seem really fucking light, I've already done them and I'm weak, I train for hypertrophy

>>41625133
t. skelly

File: Screenshot_20170528-175103.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

For everyone saying "hurr durr strength = size, aesthetics programs suck"

I am 180lbs at 6'0" and have been lifting on a bodybuilding brosplit for years. I am barely stronger than 1/2/3/4.

Stfu, you can look good without being stronk

File: Screenshot_20170529-163025.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

>>41625163
Back for reference, and I guarantee my legs are bigger than any of you strength fags. There is nothing wrong with lifting for size without caring about strength.

>>41625145
Not that guy but at a BW of 190 that only means 95/190/285/380 in lbs. Thats not really impressive at all

>>41625163
>>41625180

Your word means jack shit, post legs

>>41625163
>Stfu, you can look good without being stronk

You don't look good tho.

>>41621078
One is fraud one is natty.

>>41621078
upperliplet

File: IMG-20170308-WA0006.jpg (76KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x480px

>>41625217

>>41625133
It was the standard for when you could switch from SS without getting ridiculed back in the good ol' Zyzz days before /fit/ became fanatical about powerlifting

>>41625230
Not very far from 1/2/3/4 except for the press. Maybe it was 0,75 and not 0,5

>>41625258
mirin

>>41625230

lmao stfu he does

>>41625145
I can ohp 55 kg and I'm 64 kg, my bench is shit but I could do 64 for a few reps, I can squat 105 and I deadlifted 140 kg when I was 62 kg
>>41625230
Yeah he does look at people that reached 1234 on starting strength and they won't look as good

>>41621078
Progress

>>41621078
Mass is for insecure virgins who still think girls will like them if they "GET SWOLE XDDDD"

Strength is for men who have taken the blackpill and accepted the fact that life doesn't magically get better, you just need the power to keep pushing through and leave others behind since in the end the only person you can rely on is yourself.

>>41623530
>if volume is equal there will be no difference is hypertrophy

This is true, but who the fuck goes for volume while strength training? The whole point of volume training is for hypertrophy, not for strength.

>>41625267
Second quote was supposed to be to >>41625187

>>41625276
He's been training for years he's obviously going to look better. Jesus Christ you're all retarded, train for strength want aesthetics? Switch to hypo program and with bigger lifts and proper programming youll look great. Lots of people do minimalist shit on splits

File: 1494951583330.png (573KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 900x900px

>>41625295
>not training for strentgh to pull your waifu out of the 2 dimensional realm

>>41625295
Nice excuse for why you look like shit and don't do meets with that thinking

>>41625258
I remember you do 4x20 on leg press, what else do you do for legs?
>>41625311
>He's been training for years he's obviously going to look better
Except a lot of people say just reach 1/2/3/4 and you'll look great man
You can just train hypertrophy from the start of your goal is to look big

>>41621078
Nothing, unless you're roiding

File: SSisAmeme.png (181KB, 1868x812px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1868x812px

>>41621078
There isn't a simpler way to put it other than: the difference is that if you train for strength you get strong, and if you train for mass you get big

If you're all elitist about strength lifting and you don't really want to be a competitive powerlifter, I'm sorry for you brah

>>41623222
Underrated post. Cept high reps is wrong that leads to muscle endurance. You have to pick a weight that causes you to fail in certain rep ranges
2-5: Strength
6-12: Size
12+: Muscle Endurance

Of course eat a surplus of calories and a gram of protein per lbs of LBM

>>41625376
After leg press I'll do 4-6 sets of extensions (8-20 rep range), same thing with leg curls, and then about 10 sets of calves raises to failure (weight doesn't matter)

>>41625407
This
Incorporate lifting into your life. Be consistent, stick with a program, eat and sleep well. No need to get emotionally attached to a certain kind of lifting. See what works for you. Take some of the stuff talked about here with a grain of salt

File: 1495224458446.jpg (22KB, 510x275px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 510x275px

>>41621078
your average internet bro should be training for both strength AND mass. If you are not competing in one or the other (powerlifting/bodybuilding) why not employ principles from both techniques? Strength for function and mass for aesthetics. In life you need both and there is much crossover and correlation between the two.

This constant X vs. Y analysis paralysis is fucking cancer

>>41621926
but that has been proven to work.
what yall talking about?
There are Formulas that use a % of one's own Body weight to determine how much to start with.
People are lazy and don't execute it correctly.
Most tend to just lift what feels heaver to them compared to last time and see how many reps they can manage to do then top that number next time.

>>41625534
Saying it works doesn't make it optimal.

Just avoid 6 rep sets. They're useless.

>>41621101
because you dont eat enough

>>41621236
Impressive

>>41626453
Holy shit, you mong, please tell me you haven't been doing 7 rep sets just to avoid doing only 6 reps.

>>41625163

You're pretty much my goal body dude, but I want strength too. This isn't exactly the place for neutral debate but if you could tell me your poundages for legs, chest, back+shoulders I'd appreciate it as some kind of target to aim for. (My lifts are currently hilariously shit)

>>41625533
Dubs of Truth.

>>41621137
Dude this is such a waste of time. I wanna get fucking natty in 6 months. This whole 2-3 year shit is dumb.

>>41621078
For size you would do more repetitions, shorter rest times and alternating movement speeds, etc.

It's supposed to cause additional kinds of stress to the muscle which usually gets compensated by the body with more muscle mass. Basically the bigger muscles that you get from size training are multi-tools that can handle various different kinds of stress, compared to the one-purpose muscles that you get from pure strength training. You have to decide yourself which you think is more desirable for your purposes.

That said, you will still get bigger muscles from pure strength training.

>>41628979
>That said, you will still get bigger muscles from pure strength training.
I mean they will still grow. Not as much as they would with size oriented training.

>>41625163
you speak the truth brother. thanks for helping to put autistic strengthfags in their place and help beginners understand they don't need to follow some dumbass strength program

>>41625533
But what's the fucking point of "functional" strength when the vast majority of people on this board are not athletes and have literally no use for strength. If you want to look good, you don't need to train for strength AT ALL if you know how to do exercises properly.

That being said, I personally like going heavy on bench and OHP, even though I am not training for anything other than aesthetics. You can do what you want, but know that if you just want to look good, training strength will not get you there

>>41629165
>what's the fucking point of "functional" strength

teaching all the muscles to work together rather than isolating them to work independently. This more closely aligns with real world tasks and labors.

>>41629256
My man he's saying that for the vast majority of people the most strenuous real world task is shit like mowing your lawn and carrying a vacuum up a flight of stairs. He's saying that, for the average modern person, functional strength has already blown past the requirements before you step foot in a gym.

>>41629165
There is only so much growth you can make while lifting 10kg dumbbells all day long. You also need to get stronger to grow more. It just shouldn't be your sole objective.

I've just been doing
2 warmup sets
2x8 at whatever I can manage
1x5 at whatever I can manage
2 cooldown sets

I figure a mix of everything can't really hurt.

>>41629404
>warmup
>cooldown

Please stop using these words. You are not a jet engine.

>not working on all (reasonable) rep ranges throughout the week

>>41629165
so when someone says "your'e really big, how much do you bench" you don't have to lie

>>41629404
could this work 3 days a week

>>41629958
I do it every day of the week. I'm an office worker so I get a ton of resting in.

>>41621078
The latest meme is that strength = size for natties. What will the next meme be I wonder? Probably that dumbbells > bars or something.

File: D841B717-B0B4-46A4-B37F-4EACD4BE9E5F-338-0000005C85B38A0D_tmp.jpg (23KB, 352x395px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 352x395px

>>41621078
How tall are you?

>>41630484
How is it a meme when studies show a clear correlation between bench press strength and pec size tho

>>41629404
That's awful. Since you're doing what weight you feel like doing you're never really pushing yourself. Say hello to no gains.

File: 1450509023673.jpg (32KB, 491x358px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 491x358px

>>41625230
he looks good, lets see you fatboy

File: 1494101756667.jpg (16KB, 415x367px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 415x367px

>>41624713
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPP

>>41625163
>People think this looks good
I want /nu/-fit to leave please. I've seen guys make better gains in <12 months

File: 1460234364088.png (26KB, 633x623px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 633x623px

>>41630893
too bad those people aren't you

I wonder why

>>41628024
Get memed on kid

>>41631210
do I want to know the story behind that image

>>41625163

Except you aren't that big so I wouldn't guess you could do that anyway.

>>41631268
https://youtu.be/jb3UobSZl34

>>41631555
he's clearly mentally challenged

peaking lmao thats it