In the NROL book, the example programs all have Hypertrophy programs before Strength programs, usually FL->Hyp->Strength->FL. I read in either NROL or Maximum Strength that you need to get strong before your muscles can grow, so it would seem to make more sense to do Strength before Hyper. Any reason why they recommend Hyper before Strength?
I am asking because I just finished FLI and FLII and I'm planning to start Strength I next, but I'm wondering if I'd be better off going to Hyper. I wouldn't mind getting bigger muscles, but my main goals are to get stronger and leaner.
My easy, short, non-scientific answer is do the Strength Workouts and eat accordingly if your main goal is to get stronger and leaner. I don't have a complex, long, science based answer....Sorry.
Thanks. Maximum Strength says you need to get stronger before you can get bigger muscles, and the NROL programs say that the extra size from the Hypertrophy workouts will allow you to gain more strength in the Strength workouts. I'm guessing that both of the these statements are true to some extent, and that each type of workout builds on the other.
The real key seems to be to change workout programs periodically so that as your body gets used to a particular routine and progress slows down you stress it with a different type of routine.
Here is my plan for the NROL workouts:
Break-In (done)
1. Fat Loss I (done)
2. Fat Loss II (done)
3. Strength I (start next week, to get strong for the skiing/snowboarding season. I do alpine snowboarding "carving", which is like repeated deep squats and requires a lot of strength and endurance)
4. Fat Loss III (to lose some fat prior to the holidays while maintaining strength)
5. Strength II (after the New Year)
6. Hypertrophy I
7. Strength III
8. Hypertrophy II
Sooooo...Here's the thing - in NROL chapter1, Rule#3 is "To build size, you must build strength" and states "muscle growth through increased strength is always your goal in the gym.
Also, regarding your "customized" NROL plan - I received a pm from Lou Schuler that in part said: "It doesn't matter which guy you decide you most resemble. All the workouts are good. Just do what you want to do. You can build strength and muscle mass on the fat-loss workouts, if you take in enough protein and total calories, and you can lose fat on the hypertrophy workouts, if you manipulate your diet to achieve that goal.
So just pick a plan and run with it, or make up your own sequence"
Sooooo...Here's the thing - in NROL chapter1, Rule#3 is "To build size, you must build strength" and states "muscle growth through increased strength is always your goal in the gym.
Yes, that's why I thought it was odd that all of his sample programs have Hyper before Strength.
For what it's worth (being a newbie), I'm gaining weight and strength on the first fat-loss program. I'm not overweight, so losing weight isn't my goal. I don't even care if I lose fat because gaining muscle is what I really want right now. So, Lou seems to be right in my case.
Jbb, maybe you could lose fat while doing Strength II instead of doing Fat-Loss III? Don't bother splitting Strength I and II like that? Just a thought.
The book aims to be simple, so too many options are just confusing for most readers. Most NROL readers are newbies.
Also, newbies gain strength just lifting weights. 0 to decent strength will just come. Going through the program up to Strength 1 will give you time to maximize that effect, allowing you to take advantage of the special techniques in the strength program. Before then, anything worked and we didn't need special.
I agree with all these answers, especially the one I gave to a previous reader.
The programs are set up so that Break-In, FL I and FL II work together in a linear periodization model. If you're doing those programs with some effort and intensity, you should see measurable increases in muscle size and strength, along with harder to quantify improvements in conditioning and weight-room efficacy. (In other words, you'll feel like you're starting to get the hang of it.)
The hypertrophy programs use undulating periodization, which is a technique that seems to work better for lifters who've achieved a base of strength, conditioning, and efficacy. Since you go a couple of weeks before repeating a workout, the record keeping is trickier. (And without careful records, you can't know if you're improving your performance.)
The training techniques in the Strength programs aren't necessarily more advanced than the ones Alwyn uses in Hypertrophy, but they assume that you need something that goes beyond basic periodization models.
IOW, when in doubt, go for the simplest techniques that you haven't yet employed. Use them until you've made all the adaptations you can, then go on to more advanced techniques when you need to.
The programs are set up so that Break-In, FL I and FL II work together in a linear periodization model. If you're doing those programs with some effort and intensity, you should see measurable increases in muscle size and strength, along with harder to quantify improvements in conditioning and weight-room efficacy. (In other words, you'll feel like you're starting to get the hang of it.)
How do you figure that will happen? Aren't most people going to eat at a deficit during FL programs?
How do you figure that will happen? Aren't most people going to eat at a deficit during FL programs?
They could, sure, but then we start getting into questions of training age. A novice, or someone new to structured, periodized training, will probably see the Holy Trinity of training outcomes: some fat loss, some hypertrophy, some strength gains.
Even without trying, most people new to this type of training will probably be at a slight deficit, assuming they were in caloric balance when they started the program. That's because they're burning more energy than they were before.
If someone is deliberately creating a calorie balance via diet while doing the progression from Break-In to FL I and II, okay, it would be hard to achieve visible increases in size.
But even then, when you're talking about a three-month period of training, I don't see how the body would avoid adding some size, given that you'd be working with progressively heavier weights and making substantial strength increases. Those gains couldn't all come from neural efficiency.
Whether the gains would be visible, I can't say. But the muscles would have to get bigger to continue getting stronger over that length of time.
They could, sure, but then we start getting into questions of training age. A novice, or someone new to structured, periodized training, will probably see the Holy Trinity of training outcomes: some fat loss, some hypertrophy, some strength gains.
Even without trying, most people new to this type of training will probably be at a slight deficit, assuming they were in caloric balance when they started the program. That's because they're burning more energy than they were before.
True
Quote:
If someone is deliberately creating a calorie balance via diet while doing the progression from Break-In to FL I and II, okay, it would be hard to achieve visible increases in size.
But even then, when you're talking about a three-month period of training, I don't see how the body would avoid adding some size, given that you'd be working with progressively heavier weights and making substantial strength increases. Those gains couldn't all come from neural efficiency.
Whether the gains would be visible, I can't say. But the muscles would have to get bigger to continue getting stronger over that length of time.
If you're burning more than you take in, how could that be possible. With what products are your muscles gaining in size?
Some aspects of muscle mass is water. You work the muscles and they expand to their current potential, sucking in water, which is calorie free.
Also, just because you are eating in a deficit, that's just a deficit on average. Over the week or day, there are period of surplus and periods of deficit.
Some aspects of muscle mass is water. You work the muscles and they expand to their current potential, sucking in water, which is calorie free.
So how is that adding any strength?
Quote:
Also, just because you are eating in a deficit, that's just a deficit on average. Over the week or day, there are period of surplus and periods of deficit.
I see the reasoning here, but if you go by that theory, you could simply do calorie or carb cycling while gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time, and that doesn't happen.
That, in and of itself, probably adds little to nothing. Most strength in the beginning is neural in nature. You're "learning" to lift heavier and heavier weights. It's why you can get stronger on higher reps at the early stages. The repetition is teaching you how to move more weight.
To some extent, bigger muscles provide more surface area, making you stronger, too. I think it's trivial compared to neural strength gains at this stage.
Quote:
I see the reasoning here, but if you go by that theory, you could simply do calorie or carb cycling while gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time, and that doesn't happen.
It can happen. It's just very slow to see change unless you do some extremes, so people might not keep it up. It takes willpower not to eat so high that you add on fat again. I would label it an advanced technique (Lyle McDonald's UD2.0, Kelly Baggett's No Bull, etc.).
But, "newbie gains" are somewhat an example -- a newbie eats around maintenance and gains some muscle as he continues to lose fat.
I don't want to get too nitpicky, but carb cycling only works if fewer carbs make you eat fewer calories, then more carbs have you eating more calories. When most people go low carb, they tend to eat fewer calories and lose weight.
It can happen. It's just very slow to see change unless you do some extremes, so people might not keep it up. It takes willpower not to eat so high that you add on fat again. I would label it an advanced technique (Lyle McDonald's UD2.0, Kelly Baggett's No Bull, etc.).
But, "newbie gains" are somewhat an example -- a newbie eats around maintenance and gains some muscle as he continues to lose fat.
I don't want to get too nitpicky, but carb cycling only works if fewer carbs make you eat fewer calories, then more carbs have you eating more calories. When most people go low carb, they tend to eat fewer calories and lose weight.
Yeah true about the carb cycling. I realize that. How exactly does that happen anyway, physiologically? If you're eating an maintenance and not cycling, how does your body manage to lose fat and gain muscle?
If you're eating an maintenance and not cycling, how does your body manage to lose fat and gain muscle?
If you give muscles a stimulus, and then give them well-timed protein to recover from the stimulus, they'll end up bigger as well as stronger, all else being equal. But we're talking about grams of new contractile tissue, not pounds.
If you're in caloric balance during this process, as I already said, you can't expect these muscle gains to be visible. But at some point muscles have to get bigger as you get stronger. The gains can't all come from improved neural efficiency.
If you're burning more than you take in, how could that be possible. With what products are your muscles gaining in size?
I can't explain to you the physiology. But, I can tell you that I've gained noticeable hypertrophy while on a long term calorie deficit. Since January I've lost about 30 pounds and gained noticable muscle in the process. Now, what is "noticable muscle?" I can't say for sure. But, every muscle on my body is larger than it was in January. Especially my legs and upper back where the largest muscles are located. Could it be two pounds of muscle? Six? Eight? I don't know. But, its very obvious. And its not just because I've lost fat and can see the muscles, because (for whatever reason) I'm one of those guys who doesn't gain fat on my legs. So, even at 245lbs. I had skinny pencil legs.
I'm going to get all "Bro" theoretical on you now:
I assume that everyone has a certain genetic potential for hypertrophy. And I look at that hypertrophy as though it were on a bell curve. There is a mid point which is where the body wants to be, and to get larger you have to put in greater and greater work. But, when you're further away from your genetic potential your body will strive to get you to that mid point.
I assume that this happens at the expense of other biological functions. In otherwords, your body prioritizes that hypertrophy over other day to day processes.
I could be way off base. This is simply how it makes sense to me.
Now, let someone who actually knows what there talking about come in and correct me!
If you give muscles a stimulus, and then give them well-timed protein to recover from the stimulus, they'll end up bigger as well as stronger, all else being equal. But we're talking about grams of new contractile tissue, not pounds.
If you're in caloric balance during this process, as I already said, you can't expect these muscle gains to be visible. But at some point muscles have to get bigger as you get stronger. The gains can't all come from improved neural efficiency.
Does this mean there's no magic pill or routine to turn my existing fat into big, beautiful muscle?
I can't explain to you the physiology. But, I can tell you that I've gained noticeable hypertrophy while on a long term calorie deficit. Since January I've lost about 30 pounds and gained noticable muscle in the process. Now, what is "noticable muscle?" I can't say for sure. But, every muscle on my body is larger than it was in January. Especially my legs and upper back where the largest muscles are located. Could it be two pounds of muscle? Six? Eight? I don't know. But, its very obvious. And its not just because I've lost fat and can see the muscles, because (for whatever reason) I'm one of those guys who doesn't gain fat on my legs. So, even at 245lbs. I had skinny pencil legs.
I'm going to get all "Bro" theoretical on you now:
I assume that everyone has a certain genetic potential for hypertrophy. And I look at that hypertrophy as though it were on a bell curve. There is a mid point which is where the body wants to be, and to get larger you have to put in greater and greater work. But, when you're further away from your genetic potential your body will strive to get you to that mid point.
I assume that this happens at the expense of other biological functions. In otherwords, your body prioritizes that hypertrophy over other day to day processes.
I could be way off base. This is simply how it makes sense to me.
Now, let someone who actually knows what there talking about come in and correct me!
I don't know what I'm talking about but I know enough to correct you.
You were a fat beginner. Thus with 30+ lbs of excess weight (lets say 20 lbs were fat) your body had 70,000 calories on board it utilized for energy. So your body did not prioritize hypertrophy over it's day to day processes but did prioritize hypertrophy over remaining fat.
In short, you experienced newbie gains.
If you want to test your theory against mine, measure your various body parts where there is little fat. Continue losing weight while pumping iron and see if your areas of measurement grow. Something tells me that your newbie superpowers will be missing now. Unless you happen to have extremely high natural levels of testosterone (or you're on steroids) you will find I am right and your theory was wrong.
I can't explain to you the physiology. But, I can tell you that I've gained noticeable hypertrophy while on a long term calorie deficit. Since January I've lost about 30 pounds and gained noticable muscle in the process. Now, what is "noticable muscle?" I can't say for sure. But, every muscle on my body is larger than it was in January. Especially my legs and upper back where the largest muscles are located. Could it be two pounds of muscle? Six? Eight? I don't know. But, its very obvious. And its not just because I've lost fat and can see the muscles, because (for whatever reason) I'm one of those guys who doesn't gain fat on my legs. So, even at 245lbs. I had skinny pencil legs.
I'm going to get all "Bro" theoretical on you now:
I assume that everyone has a certain genetic potential for hypertrophy. And I look at that hypertrophy as though it were on a bell curve. There is a mid point which is where the body wants to be, and to get larger you have to put in greater and greater work. But, when you're further away from your genetic potential your body will strive to get you to that mid point.
I assume that this happens at the expense of other biological functions. In otherwords, your body prioritizes that hypertrophy over other day to day processes.
I could be way off base. This is simply how it makes sense to me.
Now, let someone who actually knows what there talking about come in and correct me!
Haha, yeah I really wanted a physiological thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Schuler
If you give muscles a stimulus, and then give them well-timed protein to recover from the stimulus, they'll end up bigger as well as stronger, all else being equal. But we're talking about grams of new contractile tissue, not pounds.
If you're in caloric balance during this process, as I already said, you can't expect these muscle gains to be visible. But at some point muscles have to get bigger as you get stronger. The gains can't all come from improved neural efficiency.
I don't know what I'm talking about but I know enough to correct you.
You were a fat beginner. Thus with 30+ lbs of excess weight (lets say 20 lbs were fat) your body had 70,000 calories on board it utilized for energy. So your body did not prioritize hypertrophy over it's day to day processes but did prioritize hypertrophy over remaining fat.
In short, you experienced newbie gains.
If you want to test your theory against mine, measure your various body parts where there is little fat. Continue losing weight while pumping iron and see if your areas of measurement grow. Something tells me that your newbie superpowers will be missing now. Unless you happen to have extremely high natural levels of testosterone (or you're on steroids) you will find I am right and your theory was wrong.
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. I know that your body is using the stored fat. But, I can't believe that it's entirely due to having excess fat. It's the "newbie" gains where I think that my theory of being far from your genetic potential has some merit. I'm well aware that things will start to plateau. But, the hypertrophy can't be entirely because you have excess fat. Otherwise everyone would be able to gain muscle while cutting.
Additionally, excess fat storage can only be used for so many processes. Otherwise anyone with substantial body fat would be able to stay in a deficit for a prolonged period of time without repercussions.
But, hey I'm willing to listen and learn. That's why I'm commenting.
Beginners will partition calories in a very favorable sense, so that calories taken from fat tissue can actually go to support muscle growth/adaptation.
You don't see this outside of beginners unless the person is taking AAS and generally with some kind of metabolic enhancer like T3 or clenbuterol.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Beginners will partition calories in a very favorable sense, so that calories taken from fat tissue can actually go to support muscle growth/adaptation.
Hey speaking of beginners can you take a look at my log and see what I might be doing wrong? Can't send you a PM.
Why Hyper before Strength?
Linear Mode
