Ryan A wrote:
So my main concern is that the CNS will get tired and therefore will prevent you from lifting heavy weights. This will in turn, keep you from getting size. As you said, the size you gain is completely a result of how much you can lift. If you are putting less tension on the muscle, then you get less growth.
It's just from what you lift. It's also how often. Training for strength requires an intensity that makes it necessary for most people to lower their frequency. If their overall goal is gaining mass, that will most likely slow their progress. Likewise, training for size over strength means emphasizing progressive overload, frequency with a relatively consistent overall work volume, which isn't the best way to gain strength quickly.
I guess I am just saying if you only do one exercise and are pushing yourself then you will likely burn out your CNS and this will result in not being able to lift. This to me is definately a concern for gaining size. Although the protein synthesis may be separated from the CNS, the muscle needs both in good order to function properly, and you need to be able to function properly to lift weights.
I wouldn't dispute that as we both know it's true. All I would say is there are different approaches when training for size as opposed to strength.
As for the bench example I say he would outgain them in both. The increased strength and freshness would allow more weight to be lifted more often.
It would allow more weight to be lifted which would give him a good range of weight to use for working out, and that would be good. The more often I would dispute. As far as I know training for neural aspects will net you overall more efficient recruitment of muscle fibers and more strength but the rate of neural recovery doesn't change much.
Keep in mind, I am not trying to argue my way is the only way, I am merely saying it is the best way for most people. I am sure there are a select few who can bench and squat only and get great physiques, but these are the minority.
In my experience they are the majority. Unfortunately most people go about working out incorrectly, so it's hard to judge in the end.
I wouldnt say there are different variables as some are the same. If anything, size is a function of strength and nutrition and strength is a function of the CNS. So in the end size is still related to the recoverability of the CNS. The CNS may be a function of the nutrition and rest etc. I would emphasize how complicated this process is and I think your attempt to separate them is misleading.
I wouldn't totally seperate them, however there are aspects to training for size that won't fit into a strength program, and there aspects of a strength specific program that won't fit into a size oriented program Size and strength are not direct functions of each other. Many people keep their voluntary strength after a layoff of some time but lose size to a significant degree. Gaining muscle is a cellular level function in the end, and the main components of a good routine for size will include progressive overload, two times a week frequency at least, periodic deconditioning, and a relatively consistent work volume. Programs for strength can and should have significantly different treatments of all those variables. Building strength doesn't require you workout that frequently, volume can vary significantly as well. An example would be training to failure. For strength it has its benefits but severely limits the frequency with which someone can train, which would compromise size gains. For size, training to technical failure or leaving one or two reps in the tank so you can maintain a higher frequency with good volume would be more beneficial.