1.) Dante has mentioned "getting weird with it" quite a lot in recent years, and how he strongly believes exercise selection choosing the most mechanically stimulating positions for each muscle growth is critical, far more than doing more volume. I agree that all the high volume in the world isn't going to do much if you've been lifting intensely for 10+ years. Can we get some examples of "getting weird with it" for different muscle groups? If someone has lagging calves, biceps, etc they're such basic movements it's hard to imagine too many variations that will change much if they're lagging. That is where I think things like higher frequency and volume may play a role.
Even for something like back though (probably the muscle group most amenable to variations) once you've got a pull up variation, 2 row variations (say a BB row and a cable row), and deadlift variation and you've pushed those to the max year after year and gotten damn strong on them, how much more are you going to get from new unknown variations?
2.) Dante has given the examples of guys like Jay Cutler forgetting that what got them huge was lifting heavy slag iron and getting dramatically stronger. That when one first starts lifting the dumbbells go up from 50s to 60s to 70s to 80s to 90s, then when they start steroids they go from 315 squats to 405 squats to 495 squats etc and they seem to forget that these periods of crazy strength gain are what got them bigger.
But what if it is the opposite order? You are responsive to the new training (or new steroids) and so you grow a ton, and because you gained a lot of muscle from the noob training / steroids you are now able to lift much heavier weights. There's quite a bit of evidence now to suggest you get stronger as a result of getting bigger, not the other way around.
I'm in no way denying the strength and size correlation. I think it's massively important. When I've gotten bigger I've gotten stronger, and if I went a year gaining no net strength I got no bigger. But it's not like you can just force the adaptation of gaining strength. You should absolutely be trying to add strength, but I think some would argue their other methods (higher volume for example, periodization, increased frequency, etc.) will work to increase muscle mass and that will in turn result in more strength.
It's like, "if you just got faster at sprints you could be a decent sprinter"....well yes, but how do you get that increased speed? It's not actually from sprinting all of the time. It's 90% genetics and consistency, and then proper training which actually doesn't involve a ton of sprinting relatively speaking.
Ken Skip Hill has said this about Kai Greene and deadlifts years ago. Does he have a massive back because he deadlifts a ton of weight....or did he have amazing back genetics and that allows him to deadlift a lot? Almost certainly the latter.
Anyway, just looking for some good discussion here
Even for something like back though (probably the muscle group most amenable to variations) once you've got a pull up variation, 2 row variations (say a BB row and a cable row), and deadlift variation and you've pushed those to the max year after year and gotten damn strong on them, how much more are you going to get from new unknown variations?
2.) Dante has given the examples of guys like Jay Cutler forgetting that what got them huge was lifting heavy slag iron and getting dramatically stronger. That when one first starts lifting the dumbbells go up from 50s to 60s to 70s to 80s to 90s, then when they start steroids they go from 315 squats to 405 squats to 495 squats etc and they seem to forget that these periods of crazy strength gain are what got them bigger.
But what if it is the opposite order? You are responsive to the new training (or new steroids) and so you grow a ton, and because you gained a lot of muscle from the noob training / steroids you are now able to lift much heavier weights. There's quite a bit of evidence now to suggest you get stronger as a result of getting bigger, not the other way around.
I'm in no way denying the strength and size correlation. I think it's massively important. When I've gotten bigger I've gotten stronger, and if I went a year gaining no net strength I got no bigger. But it's not like you can just force the adaptation of gaining strength. You should absolutely be trying to add strength, but I think some would argue their other methods (higher volume for example, periodization, increased frequency, etc.) will work to increase muscle mass and that will in turn result in more strength.
It's like, "if you just got faster at sprints you could be a decent sprinter"....well yes, but how do you get that increased speed? It's not actually from sprinting all of the time. It's 90% genetics and consistency, and then proper training which actually doesn't involve a ton of sprinting relatively speaking.
Ken Skip Hill has said this about Kai Greene and deadlifts years ago. Does he have a massive back because he deadlifts a ton of weight....or did he have amazing back genetics and that allows him to deadlift a lot? Almost certainly the latter.
Anyway, just looking for some good discussion here