Answer: As usual this is going to be one of those longish ‘it depends’ kinds of answers and I’m probably going to go way off track in trying to answer it.  As I discussed in The Protein Book, some recent research certainly suggested that pre-workout nutrients (carbs and protein, and I’ll assume the combination from here on out) were superior to post-workout nutrients in terms of promoting protein synthesis.

Other research wasn’t so positive but it did look like having nutrients in the system during/immediately after workout might be better than waiting until afterwards.  Some of it depended on the form of nutrients (especially protein consumed); in one study immediate pre-workout essential amino acids (EAA’s) were better than post-workout EAA’s.  In another, a whole protein taken right before training wasn’t superior to post-workout; this may have been an issue of digestion time.

I would note that protein synthesis isn’t the only goal here; maintaining high levels of training intensity during a workout is also key and pre- and/or during-workout nutrition can benefit folks there as well.  A complication of that research was that most of it was done fasted, that is first thing in the morning, after folks hadn’t eaten for many hours.  While that is relevant to some people (e.g. those who train first thing in the morning), many if not most trainees will have eaten something prior to the immediate pre-workout period.  This complicates issues.

And the general picture that seems to be developing is that if someone is in the ‘fed’ state, that is they have eaten within a few hours of their workout, pre-workout nutrients don’t seem to provide any major benefit.  This mainly has to do with the slow digestion time of whole foods.  A relatively ‘normal’ whole-food meal is still releasing nutrients (carbs and protein) into the bloodstream as much as 4-5 hours after you eat it.

So if you’ve eaten within 2-3 hours of your workout, you already have nutrients in the system and probably don’t have much of a need to eat anything right beforehand.  On the other hand, if it’s been 4 or more hours since your last meal (e.g. you eat lunch at 1pm and don’t get to the gym until 5-6pm), consuming something immediately before your workout is probably a good idea.  Not only will you get some protein into the system that will be available during and right after training, a small amount of carbs will ensure that blood glucose is normalized so that you can have your best workout.

Depending on what type of training you’re doing, you may also find that during and post-workout nutrition is also beneficial.  The length of the workout, type of workout, etc. all go into this determination.

So again, the answer is that it depends.  Certainly there is some logic to having nutrients in the system during and right after training by consuming something right before workout.  But this is complicated by whether or not you’ve eaten a whole-food meal in the few hours before your training.  As above, if you’ve eaten within 2-3 hours, I wouldn’t bother with anything before your workout.

If it’s been 3-4 hours since your last meal, I’d suggest at least experimenting with eating something maybe 30 minutes before workout (this could be a protein bar, a small carb/protein drink) to normalize blood glucose and get some amino acids into the system is probably a good idea.

About 0.3-0.5 g/kg (0.14-0.23 g/lb) of both carbs and protein would be a good starting place.  For a 180 lb lifter that’s 25-40 grams of carbs and protein combined about 30 minutes before your workout (to give the nutrients time to get into your system).

I would mention that a small percentage of people seem to get rebound blood sugar issues from consuming rapidly digesting nutrients right before a workout; if you’re one of them you’ll want to wait until you start warming up to eat anything.  Exercise blunts insulin response and waiting until your warm-up to start eating anything limits the possibility of a negative blood glucose response.

I should also mention that one or two recent studies have intriguingly suggested that training in a completely fasted state might have benefits in terms of activation of some of the molecular markers involved in growth and adaptation to training.  So far nobody has looked to see if this truly impacts on growth down the road so I’m remaining on the fence until more research becomes available.  My gut hunch says that having nutrients in the system will be superior to not having them available but if research comes out against that, I’ll happily change my mind.

Hope that answers your question.

Is there an optimal macronutrient ratio for mass gains?

Answer: Certainly there are some general tendencies in terms of setting up macronutrient intake for mass gains and I discussed many of them in some detail in The Baseline Diet 2009 Part 1 and The Baseline Diet 2009 Part 2.

However, those articles were meant only as a starting point and there is actually a fairly wide variability in what might or might not be optimal for a given individual.  Part of the problem in answering this is that folks have made a lot of different approaches work to greater or lesser degrees and, just as with fat loss dieting, you can usually find someone who’s succeeded with just about anything.

While that doesn’t mean that ‘everything works’, what I do think it means is that there is sufficient variability between people to make absolute statements about optimality rather incorrect.  As I recently rambled about, a lot of it simply depends.  Never forget the Importance of Context.

With that said, let me look at some of the issues that go into determining what might be optimal for a given individual.

.Calories

Although you asked about macronutrient (carbs, protein, fat), I have to at least mention caloric intake. In the same way that generating fat loss requires the creation of a caloric deficit, gaining any sort of body mass (whether muscle or otherwise) requires a caloric surplus.  Many trainees seem to think that they can gain muscle on air and wishful thinking (and maybe creatine) and fail to gain any appreciable muscle mass for the simple fact that they aren’t eating enough calories to support growth.

How much of a surplus is too complex of a topic for me to address here, I will be doing a future article on the issue.  But sufficed to say you need some amount of caloric surplus to support growth.  A decent starting place for many is roughly 18 cal/lb (39 cal/kg), representing perhaps a 10-20% increase over maintenance caloric intake.  This can be too low for some and too high for others depending on a host of issues.  But you’ll have to wait for the future article for more detail.

.

Protein

It’s probably safe to say that most people wanting to gain muscle mass know the importance of protein.  Muscle is made out of protein, right?  Actually, no, muscle is mostly water and the protein content of a pound of muscle mass is only about 100-120 grams or so (the remaining weight being water, glycogen, minerals, etc.).

Protein recommendations have varied throughout the years and intakes ranging from a low of 0.8 g/lb to 1.5 g/lb lean body mass have been thrown out and successfully used by athletes to gaining muscle mass.  In The Protein Book, I actually argued for erring on the side of higher rather than lower (for various reasons discussed in that book) and recommending taking protein up to 1.5 g/lb (3.3 g/kg) when muscle gain is the goal.

But that doesn’t change the fact that many have grown well with less protein.  Whether this represents individual variability or some interaction with the rest of their diet I can’t say.  But protein somewhere in that range is generally sufficient (I consider the recommendation of 2 g/lb to be useful only for individuals using anabolic steroids).

.

Carbohydrates

Traditionally, bodybuilders have advocated fairly high-carbohydrate diets for gaining muscle mass, at least in relative terms.  A common recommendation for gaining might be on the order of 2-3 g/lb (4.4-6.6 g/kg), contrast that to a common dieting recommendation of perhaps 1 g/lb (2.2 g/kg).  As discussed in How Many Carbohydrates Do You Need, there is quite a bit of variability in this value.

Empirically, while many grow best (while staying relatively leaner) on higher carbohydrates (and lower fat intakes, discussed next), there is also a group that seems to do better with the opposite, relatively moderated carbohydrate intakes with higher fat intakes (or higher protein).

This likely represents at least two major variables (and a host of lesser variables): training volume and genetic insulin sensitivity.  A lot of the high-carbohydrate intake recommendations seemed to develop during the 80′s when bodybuilders did massive volumes (the 40-60 set marathons popularized by Arnold and his ilk).  In modern times, few do that amount of volume and, frankly, the amount of glycogen used on a workout per workout basis isn’t really that massive.

You can find the calculations in my first book The Ketogenic Diet but, very roughly, for every 2 moderate rep sets, you might need 5 grams of carbohydrates to replace the glycogen used.  For a fairly ‘long’ 24 set workout, that’s only 60 grams carbs (24 sets * 5 grams/2 sets) to replace the glycogen.  Of course, you need more calories than that to cover growth but I think the point is made: carb requirements from weight training simply aren’t that big unless volume is very high.

Additionally, genetic insulin sensitivity (which can vary 10-fold) at the same level of body fat is another factor.  Successful bodybuilders seem to have a propensity to more effectively store calories in muscle (as opposed to fat) better than less successful bodybuilders.  Part of that is their training volume but part of it is assuredly genetic (and please note that there is more to this story than just insulin sensitivity, you can think of it as nutrient sensitivity perhaps).

As discussed in Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, people with good insulin sensitivity do better with higher carbs but people with poorer insulin sensitivity often do better with lowered carbs and higher fat intakes.  They tend to not only feel better but grow as well without gaining as much fat.

And while training certainly improves insulin sensitivity (it’s arguably the most powerful tool we have to do so), for folks with truly shit-poor genetic insulin sensitivity, carbs may still have to be kept fairly moderate even while gaining.  They may do better with perhaps 1 g/lb (with a minimum of perhaps 150 g/day) with the remainder of their caloric intake coming from fats after protein intake has been taken care of.

.

Fat

And fat makes up the rest.  As you can guess, fat intake tends to vary inversely with carbohydrate intake.  That is, folks who do better with higher carbohydrates, usually do and feel better with lower fat intakes and vice versa (as carbs go down, fat goes up).  Some of this just reflects the need to keep calories sufficient, if you’re eating less calories from carbs, fat has to go up to compensate.

So what’s high and low?  In the bad-old days, diets containing as little fat as possible were recommended, with 10% or less being common.  I consider that too low for a number of reasons.  I generally use 20% as an absolute low cutoff point for dietary fat intake with 20-25% being more common, some coaches I know stick to 15% but I think that’s pushing it on the low-end of things.  On a fairly typical 18 cal/lb gaining diet, this comes out to about 0.5 g/lb (1.1 g/kg) of fat per day.  For a 180 lb individual, that’s 90 grams.

For individuals for whom excess carbs make them feel dopey and bloated, obviously a higher fat intake would be recommended.  How high would depend on total caloric intake and how low carbs are. But for a diet containing set at 18 cal/lb with 1.5 g/lb protein and 1 g/lb of carbs, dietary fat would have to be just under 1 g/lb (2.2 g/kg).  So 180 grams for our 180 pound guy.

.

Summing Up

So that’s a look at ‘optimal’ macronutrient intake and, as usual, it depends.  There are a host of variables that determine what might or might not be optimal but, at best, it can only be said to be optimal for a given individual.  Training volume, genetics, and other factors all go into this.  But to give a general picture of the range of intakes that might be optimal for a given individual under a given set of circumstances:

.

Some seem to grow just fine with fairly moderate protein intakes but high-carbs and low fats.  Others feel and perform better with higher protein intakes, lowered carbs and higher fats. And some do best with moderate amounts of everything (e.g. something approximating a Zone type setup or Duchaine’s old Isocaloric 33/33/33 diet for folks who remember it).

Of course, the obvious follow up question is how to know ahead of time what might be optimal for a given individual. I’ve given some of the factors that go into the decision above but, for now at least, it remains a bit of trial and error beyond that.  You’ll have to start with some of the generalities above and then tweak them to find out what might be optimal for you.

So Monday: upper, Tuesday: lower, Wed/Thurs: off, Fri: upper, Sat: lower, Sun/Mon: off.

It requires more freedom in scheduling, but just curious if you thought this type of consistency was somehow advantageous as opposed to the every 3rd/4th day inconsistent recovery…

Answer: The above question actually came up in the comments section of Training Frequency for Mass Gains but I thought it was worth addressing in full.

Before actually addressing the question in terms of the frequency issue, let me make one comment about the above schedule.  Depending on what movements are being done, especially on the lower day, doing upper body the day before lower can be very problematic.  If someone is going to squat or deadlift on lower body day, fatigue in the back and shoulder girdle from the upper body day can cause real problems on the lower body day (clearly if other movements are being done on the lower day, this is far less of an issue).

There are two solutions to this.  The first is to switch the days and put lower body first in the sequence and upper body second (this raises a second issue which is that fatigue from heavy lower body work often makes upper body go poorly but training is nothing if not a series of compromises).  The second is to use a slightly different split.  Doing chest/shoulders/triceps on Monday and legs/back/biceps on Tuesday and keeping that sequence avoids some of the problems although day 1 ends up being a lot easier (and usually shorter) than day 2 (which can be murderous).

Ignoring that, let me get back to the original question about training 2 on/2 off across an 8 day training cycle and the relaive optimality (or not) of that type of training.   And the short-answer to the above question is that…it depends.  Yeah, not very useful so let’s look at some of the things that it depends on and give the long answer.

Perhaps the biggest thing that the above depends on is life.  Most people’s real-life schedules are constrained by a rather standard 7 day work week.  We have Monday through Friday which are the typical work days followed by the weekend.  And this tends to have massive implications for how training weeks can be set up. Note that ‘can’ and ‘should’ are not synonymous here.

In fact, it’s a big part of why I tend to default to cycles that run across a standard work week, it simply reflects the reality of the majority of trainees in my experience.  Anyone who has read or done the Ultimate Diet 2.0 knows that I went to lengths to fit the cycle into a standard 7 day work week.  An 8 day cycle actually would have been better in a lot of ways but the reality is that most people can’t make the schedule work because their life situation is set by the standard 7 day week.

But the reality for a majority of trainees is that the above schedule tends to be a huge determinant of not only when they can train but what kinds of schedules that they can follow.   Typically, and this is even more the case if they have family obligations they won’t have a lot of time during the week to train while they will generally have more time available on the weekends.

That is to say, if they get off work at 5:30pm, get to the gym at 6:30 and have some expectation of spending time with their family in the evening, a long training session during the week may simply not be realistic, even weekends may be limited due to this either because they need to spend time with the family or have chores around the house.

I addressed this in a slightly different context in the Q&A on Lifting Six Days Per Week for Mass Gains by offering the option of more frequent (but shorter) sessions during the work week with longer sessions on weekends.  This lets folks get in and out of the gym quickly during the week (to ensure that they continue to have a family to go home to) while training longer on the weekends.

Even with high-level athletes, who often train full time without a ‘real’ job, training schedules still typically revolve around the 7-day work week with Sunday a day off.  Why?  Is it just tradition, some left-over from early religious practices (where Sunday is typically a day of rest) or work scheduling.  Or is it simply because competitions typically are done on Saturday and Sunday in most sports and training needs to sequence with that to some degree.  Probably a combination of those.

An additional factor that often plays a role is facility availability.  Some gyms aren’t even open on Sundays (my weight room isn’t for example).  That constrains training to certain days of the week which makes rotating schedules unrealistic.  It’s no good to have a workout fall on a Sunday if you can’t train on that day in the first place.

The upshot of this is that training usually ends up being modified to fit the week rather than physiological needs dictating when training occurs.  That is, since the work week is constraining things, coaches simply modify loading (volume and intensity) to make recovery fit into the 7 day cycle.

So, if I know you have to train upper body on Monday and Thursday, I’ll modify the loading of both days so that training progresses the way I want.  With only two days rest between Monday and Thursday, I might cut things back a bit; with three days between Thursday and the following Monday, I might push it harder so that recovery takes a touch longer.   Or whatever.

But all of the above has more to do with practical issues, and less physiological ones which I suspect was the genesis of the original question. The body and the adaptations that occur with training don’t care that it’s Sunday and your gym is closed, or that religion dictates that it’s a day of rest.  What ‘must’ be done due to the realities of the real-world have little to do with what ‘should’ be done from a physiological standpoint.  It’s simply that you can’t consider the one without dealing with the other.  Setting up training schedules is always an exercise in compromises and this is one of the big ones.

But let’s assume that someone has the life flexibility (and it’s worth noting that bodybuilders have rarely been constrained by the ‘standard’ approaches of other training systems) to train any day they want for as long as needed, the gyms are open, and nothing is limiting them from doing what the person asking the question proposed.

That is to train 2 days in a row and then take 2 days completely off before hitting the cycle again so that there are exactly 4 days training between every workout (with the workout days rotating through the week since we’re on an 8 week cycle) rather than having 2 days of rest and then 3 days of rest or what have you.  Is that better, worse, or no different?

And the answer is still…it depends.

But now it depends more on the individual trainee since we’ve eliminated the real-world type obstacles that so often get in the way.  Some trainees have no problem going hard and heavy on back to back training days.  For whatever reason, fatigue from a hard Monday workout doesn’t limit them in any fashion on Tuesday.  They will have no problems with the proposed sequencing.  They can train hard Monday, train hard Tuesday, take Wednesday and Thursday off, train hard Friday/Saturday, take Sunday/Monday off, repeat until huge or whatever.

But that’s simply not true for everyone.  For some trainees, a hard Monday workout leaves them flat and fatigued on Tuesday and they can’t get jack squat done in the gym.  They need a full day off between each workout and working out every other day (even across an 8 day cycle) is a better choice.  Of course, that type of trainee has real problems with training 4 days per week on a 7 day schedule because at least one set of workouts has to come back to back (e.g. Monday/Wednesday/Friday/Saturday or whatever).

The type of training being performed also impacts on this.  Very heavy low rep training is often more fatiguing (generally neurally more than muscularly) and the second type of athlete will often be ‘blown’ from a heavy workout (legs moreso than upper body) and need a full day off before they can go really heavy again.   Trying to squat heavy on Monday and bench heavy on Tuesday just goes nowhere.

Of course, there are ways around that too.  Alternating heavy and lighter workout can still allow two training days in a row before complete days off are taken.  The lighter second day might be speed work of some sort or even higher repetition ‘bodybuilding’ type training (this often helps the second type of athlete recover from the heavier day).   Even for pure ‘strength’ athletes, lower intensities (e.g. 70-75% of max rather than 80-85% of max) is often doable on the second day even with fatigue.

I’d note that more moderate intensity bodybuilding training doesn’t tend to be quite the problem in this regards even for the second type of trainee.  Unless they really grind themselves to failure and beyond with the Monday workout, they can usually come back and hit more bodybuilding type training on a Tuesday.  But the intensities have to be moderate, volumes kept in check and failure pretty much steadfastly avoided.

So the answer to the original question is simply it depends.  Certainly it can work for certain athletes under certain situations.  In my experience, most don’t have the life flexibility to make it work and individual physiology will also impact on whether or not it’s workable.

I’m guessing it may come down to maximum load that can be moved. But can people squat more than they can leg press? Also, I’d be surprised if it were practical to use loads >1RM (negatives) for a squat, whereas on a leg press machine with a partner or two it is quite easily done.

I’m thinking the squat just ‘feels’ harder because of all the stabilizers that are used and there is more need for proper technique to make it safe. I know a lot of power lifting purists will scream that the squat is the king of exercises, yada yada yada, but for leg/glute hypertrophy, what is the advantage? Some people also seem to think squatting causes more testosterone and or GH release but is there any solid evidence of this? I would doubt it.

Answer: First and foremost, while I’m sure my answer will offend the hardcore/hardheaded lifters, there is no requirement to perform squats (back or front) to build big legs (or even build leg strength).  I know that this contradicts everything that has ever been written on the Internet but the idea that someone must squat to get big is mainly a lot of macho nonsense.

Historically, the reason that squats probably became popular was that, early in the days of weight training, that’s all there was to do.  Leg presses didn’t exist (at least not in any form that wouldn’t cripple you) and if you wanted to train your legs that pretty much meant squatting.

Which isn’t to say that squatting isn’t an excellent exercise.  It has arguably been responsible for more gains in strength and size than almost anything else.  But it’s not the right exercise for all people; and it’s certainly not required to get big or strong legs (it’s worth mentioning in this vein that the Australian track cycling team, which absolutely dominated the world scene for a few years there, used the one leg leg press as their primary leg training exercise).

Quite simply, the only people who must squat are powerlifters, for whom it’s a competition lift (except in the push/pull meets where it’s not), and Olympic lifters where it’s a key assistance exercise (and there is even some theorizing that modern Olympic lifting will get rid of the back squat with only the front squat being used to support recovery from the clean).

Nobody else has to squat.

And, again, for people with certain types of mechanics (usually very long femurs), back squatting can be a very non-productive exercise for strength or size.  They’ll end up so bent over that their low back will give out long before their legs get a training stimulus or they’ll wreck their knees because the only way to remain upright is to push the knees so far forwards that the shear is massive.

Beyond that, let’s take a quick look at reality: Anyone reading this can go into any gym in the world and see the following

• A guy squatting who never adds weight to the bar: His legs will not be growing.
• A guy doing leg presses who is adding weight to the machine: His legs will be growing.

The exercise clearly isn’t the determinant of growth here.  Because exercise selection per se isn’t the primary determinant of growth; rather as I’ve discussed in recent articles such as Reps Per Set for Optimal Growth, progressive tension overload is the primary stimulus for growth.

Exercise selection is purely secondary outside of a given exercise allowing someone to apply progressive overload safely and effectively.  You can build strength or mass with almost any exercise if the loading parameters and progression are there (which isn’t to say that exercises don’t vary in how well or how poorly they lend themselves to progression).

Put differently, if someone has really horrible mechanics for squatting, they won’t be able to add weight effectively and or will get injured.  That makes squatting a poor exercise choice for them.  If in contrast, someone has good mechanics for squatting, meaning that they can add weight progressively in good form, that will make squatting a good exercise choice for them.

Tangentially, it’s worth noting that usually when people say things like “Exercise XXX is the best for growth” what that usually means is “I’m built to do exercise XXX effectively.”  People assume that since an exercise is good for them (since they are built well to do it), it must be the best for everyone.

For some people, or in some specific situations, the leg press might actually be superior to the squat (yes, I know heresy) for training the legs.  Some of those situations include what I mentioned above, people who have terrible levers for squatting for whom things like low back will be limiting long before legs are trained.  By taking the low back out of the movement, the legs may get a better training effect in that situation.

Related to this, leg presses can often be used as a secondary leg exercise after back squats (assuming the person is built to back squat in the first place); to get a greater leg stimulus after the low/upper back is fatigued from squats.  Again, hardhead lifters/coaches tend to shit on this approach but enough athletes (including some very strong powerlifters) do this to make me think that the hardheads are full of it.

It’s worth noting that your comment about the leg press being safer on the low back isn’t automatically true.  Done incorrectly, the leg press can be a low back death trap.  People with poor flexibility and/or who try to bring the sled too far back will round their low back terribly; under heavy compression load this is an excellent way to herniate a disk.

It’s worth mentioning that doing leg presses one leg at a time (with the other leg on the floor) makes it nearly impossible to round the low back and this may be the safest way of all to do them.  It also saves you a lot of time loading the machine since you won’t have to put as many plates on.

As far as comparing loads between the two movements, this isn’t really accurate. The leverages on the leg press will allow almost anyone to move more weight (in absolute terms) than squatting. But what we are concerned with in terms of the growth and strength response is not just the absolute load on the bar, we are interested in the tension in the muscle.  The mechanics of the leg press will let folks move more weight (in terms of plates on the machine) but that doesn’t automatically mean more tension on the target muscles.

It’s also worth noting that people who get on the leg press and move a ton of weight through a tiny range of motion aren’t doing themselves any favors either.  Not only is it much more stressful on the joints, by working only in the strong range, they are actually decreasing the amount of tension that their muscles are being exposed to.

Assuming the flexibility is there, I want people taking their leg presses to at least parallel (e.g. the angle between upper leg and shin should be a minimum of 90 degrees).  For most macho leg pressers, this will mean stripping about half the weight off the machine to get depth.

As to the hormonal response, who cares.  Nobody has ever shown that the small hormonal spikes to training mean a thing and recent research is starting to show that it is simply meaningless.  Whether squats or GH raises hormones a little bit more simply isn’t relevant as far as I’m concerned.

Summing up, the fact is that the leg press is a compound movement that works a large number of muscles through a decent range of motion.  Trainees can apply progressive tension overload on a leg press as safely and effectively as in squatting.

And for some people, usually those with mechanics that make squatting a problem, the leg press may actually be a superior choice because it takes limiting muscle groups (low-back is the common issue) out of the equation.   In a related vein, it is often the upper body that fails during squatting (especially higher repetition sets); if the goal is to train the legs, it makes little sense to me to let an ancillary muscle group limit that goal.

Finally, since I can only imagine the comments that this article will generate, I’m in no way anti-squatting. I happen to love squatting, I’m also built well for it (short with short femurs).  For people who can squat progressively and effectively, it’s an excellent exercise; and for those with poor mechanics it’s often not worth the time and effort because the results simply won’t be there.

The leg press, properly performed (meaning keeping your ego in check, taking the sled to parallel or slightly below) in a progressive fashion is an excellent way to train the lower body while avoiding some issues that can make squatting problematic for some trainees.

Oh yeah, keeping with my comment way above about the historical development of squatting, I wanted to show you how guys used to ‘leg press’ back in the day (this picture originally appeared on the cover of Hardgainer, just for the record).   You either had to have two guys lift the bar to put it on your feet or do it yourself (use your imagination).

Given the choice, you’d have squatted too.

Check out those boots

However, I don’t think it would be a good idea (would it?) for a bodybuilder to start doing a powerlifter’s routine which focuses on just moving a weight from point A to point B.

So, my question is, how do you recommend a bodybuilder get stronger?

Answer: Yes and no.  How’s that for a useless answer?  Ok, let me make it less useless.

First off, I want to make the point that the primary stimulus for muscle growth is progressive tension overload; that is, you must subject a muscle to progressive overload (primarily in the form) of lifting more weight over time.   This is discussed in more detail in Reps Per Set for Optimal Growth.

Other factors such as volume/fatigue/work (and frequency) are clearly important but, simply, if you’re not getting stronger (and here I’m assuming that you’re not changing your form to handle more weight) over time, along with providing sufficient calories and building blocks, you’re not growing.

Quick note: this doesn’t mean you have to add weight at every workout which is the HIT fallacy.  Depending on your level of development, you might add weight every workout, you might stay at a given weight for 2-3 workouts or it might be 2-3 weeks before you can add weight in good form.  But, if over some reasonable time frame, your training weights aren’t increasing, you won’t be growing.  We’ve all seen guys handling the same weight for 6-12 months in the gym; that doesn’t get it done.

In this vein, it’s sort of interesting that you mention powerlifters.  I have often found it somewhat ironic (and amusing to boot) that the bodybuilders are the ones who are focusing all of their efforts on muscle growth; yet it’s the powerlifters who are the ones who are getting muscularly bigger (and yes, a little fatter).

A lot of this has to do with where a lot of bodybuilders put their focus which is too frequently on the wrong stuff.  Bodybuilders often get fixated on irrelevant stuff, the pump, how exhausted they are after their 20 sets for biceps, feel, etc.  They focus on everything but what matters: getting stronger and subjecting a muscle to progressive tension overload.

In contrast, the basis of powerlifting is adding more weight to the bar over time, it’s built in to the sport and is the explicit goal of the training.  So whereas you might see a bodybuilder handling the same weights (but focusing on that feel, getting that pump and walking out of the gym destroyed) for a year, any powerlifter doing that will change his training program so that he’s getting stronger and adding weight to the bar.

Quick tangential note: a lot of the reason that natural bodybuilders are so misled is that massive drug use among pro bodybuilders makes the training less important.  All of the feel, pump, squeeze bs came out of drug fueled bodybuilding.  I’ve seen enormous male bodybuilders handling weights that were lower than my female trainees were using, the drugs make up for it.  A specific case that jumps to mind was a 150 lb. female trainee of mine who was handling 120X8-10 for strict reps on the rear lateral machine.  The 280 lb. behemoth bodybuilder in the gym only used 70 lbs on it.  As you might imagine, his shoulders were a bit bigger.

Now, another aspect of the bodybuilding vs. powerlifting issue is food intake; bodybuilders are often so obsessed with staying super lean year round that they simply won’t eat enough.  And they don’t grow.  As I described in General Philosophies of Muscle Gain, I think natural bodybuilders will generally grow best by allowing a slight fat gain and interspersing that with short dieting cycles to strip the fat off while keeping the muscle.

So that’s the basis for my comments: to grow, bodybuilders have to get stronger (and 99% of big natural bodybuilders will be damn strong).  Does that mean that they should train like a power lifter?  Not necessarily although there are some stories of powerlifters who dieted down to contest levels of leanness and could have blown bodybuilders out of the water.

Of course, some of this depends on how you define ‘training like a powerlifter’.   There are a couple of concerns here that I want to examine which are rep range and style of lifting.

Depending on philosophy, powerlifters often work in pretty low rep ranges and I’m not saying bodybuilders should shift their training to nothing but singles, doubles and triples.  But there is enormous variety here.

I’d probably argue that many (if not most) powerlifters don’t just use lots of low reps; the competition lifts (squats, bench, deadlift) may be worked in this fashion but usually higher rep (8-15 reps per set) supplemental work (for lagging muscle groups) is done afterwards.  While we might quibble over whether a bunch of singles and doubles in the bench builds much pec mass (they can if you do a ton of them), the supplemental work done afterwards certainly does.

Bodybuilders, in general will be better suited by working a more medium rep range.  5-12 reps is a common repetition range and there can be reasons to go even higher from time to time.  I discuss this in more detail in Periodization for Bodybuilders Part 1, Periodization for Bodybuilders Part 2 and Periodization for Bodybuilders Part 3.

I’d note in this context that there is an old school idea of ‘Power Bodybuilding’ that combines some of the best of both worlds.  Typically the primary lift (squat, bench deadlift, etc.) is worked for heavy sets of 5 and that is followed by pump work for sets of 10-15 reps or what have you.  I think this is an excellent way to train.

Even there, I firmly believe that the average intermediate or advanced bodybuilder could benefit from the occasional foray into more power style training.  Again, this doesn’t have to be singles and doubles (although I have done that with people) but even working heavy triples nearer the 85-90% of max range can help to improve some of the oft-ignored neural aspects of strength.

By bumping up maximal strength through neural means, the bodybuilder will generally be able to handle heavier weights when they return to a more medium repetition range.  More weight equals more tension on the muscle.  Add that to a higher repetition range and a little more volume, add food and you get growth.

How often? That’s always the debate.  A bodybuilder might do a short (3 weeks) maximal strength phase to round out a longer hypertrophy cycle.  So every 3-4 full hypertrophy cycles (which might be 6-8 weeks apiece), hit a 3 week strength phase. Then take an easy week and start over. I can’t see making it much longer than that or doing it more often.

I’d also have the bodybuilder follow the heavy work with at least some higher rep work.  Some early research on this suggested some muscle loss if volume dropped too much.  So after you hit your 3X3 back squat go get some high rep leg (1-2 X6-10 reps) press or leg extension/leg curl to make sure you maintain your size.

But used every once in a while, I think it’s a great way to enhance bodybuilding results.

As far as exercise performance,one of your concerns above seems to be related to the idea that powerlifters simply focus on ‘moving the weight’ whereas bodybuilders are often obsessed with squeezing, feeling and working the muscle.  And, as long as they do that within the context of getting stronger, that’s fine.

Powerlifters often use techniques in the competition lifts that are focused at taking the stress off of the muscles so that more weight can be moved which is I think where part of your question is going.   For bodybuilders, I wouldn’t generally recommend this, if you’re a high bar squatter, stick with that instead of a powerlifting style.  Keep your deadlifts clean style, and your benches more towards the generic power style described in Bench Pressing Variations.

Basically, bodybuilders still need to ensure that the target muscles (e.g. pecs in bench) are being hit when they lift.  That doesn’t prevent them from doing short maximal strength cycles or using some powerlifting type ideas to improve their training.

And I hope that answers the question.

Answer: Ok, there are really two issues at stake here. The first is that your trainer seems to be slightly clueless to the fact that gaining lots of muscle and strength is generally antithetical to the goal of getting lean. Can it be done? Sometimes. But for most people, picking one goal and then optimizing training and diet towards that goal generally works better than trying to do all things at once. Most people will simply end up spinning their wheels trying to do that.

Put differently, if you want to get lean, you’re going to have to accept that you may not make any strength gains, or that they will be small. Aim to maintain your current strength while leaning out. If you want to get big and strong, then dieting is not the way to do it. You should optimize your diet and training towards that goal.

Which brings me to problem two. I do not think you are a hardgainer; I think your trainer doesn’t know what he’s doing. Sets of 15 aren’t good for getting much stronger in the first place. Working in the 5-8 repetition range on heavy compound stuff with some supplemental work in high rep ranges works better. High rep sets have their place to be sure, getting really strong usually isn’t one of them. So my advice is this:

• Pick a single goal and work towards it.
• Find a trainer who knows what he’s doing when it comes to training.