This was posted by my friends Brett and Brad n T-mag. 

I still don’t think the big difference is due to the training. There is a big genetic component here. Most of the elite level bodybuilders will look elite even if they don’t take steroids. Jay Cutler became took first in his first show just a year after he started lifting!.  There is a study which showed natural powerlifters and bodybuilders didn’t differ much in FFM. When it comes to elite level, it is hard since the extreme amount of drugs can color reality. And most powerlifters do high reps when they do their secondary and assistance exercises. What do you guys think?

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/why_bodybuilders_are_more_jacked_than_powerlifters

I think it’s genetics.
Elite BB genetically gifted on adding mass and genetically sensitive to drugs
In a contrary elite lifters oriented on strength

I thought drugs or genetics too but at the elite level in both natural and drug-assisted divisions won’t contestants in both powerlifting and bodybuilding be from the top echelons of the gene pool and have access to the same drugs? 

The article attempts to address both arguments.

...to compare the physiques of natural bodybuilders with those of natural powerlifters. In this case, it’s no comparison at all. WNBF bodybuilders such as Layne Norton dwarf WNPF powerlifters such as John Lyras from a hypertrophy standpoint.

when powerlifters start training like bodybuilders, they nearly always gain more muscle

I am not sure who is John Lyras and what they mean by dwarf. Have you ever seen Layne in the off season? He looks like any other chubby powerlifter. And Layne has competed in powerlifting and has some state records. In fact, his lifting routine consist of low reps on one day and high on the other (strength and hypertrophy template). And almost all powerlifters get a lot of high rep work with assistance work and such. So it is just really hard to say that it their training.

The major difference with bodybuilders and powerlifters is the exercises they do for certain body parts which most powerlifters tend to ignore. And the volume to a certain extent.

And even if they are injecting the same amount, some grow like crazy and some don’t. As Anatloy pointed out, your genetics makes drugs more sensitive. And I am sure that Mr. Olympia level bodybuilders are taking a lot more and lot of other stuff than the elite level powerlifters.

Since I am in pretty deep with mid level bbers and PLers alike, I think this article is spot on. Yes, bbers do take more Rx in general, but there volume of training is nearly twice that of a PLer. With the supersets, drop sets and endless pump sets it’s nothing for me to see a bber do 20-30 sets for just chest. So, I am also still inclined to lean towards the metabolic changes that short rest periods and high volume bring about.

I know we generally believe that fast twitch fibers bring the most size, but in real life bbers are hitting endless sets of high reps with short rest periods, which I realize brings those fast twitch fibers into play, but I think in a secondary role.

I think this a really interesting topic. All the articles I have seen are just correlation evidence at best.

I am not sure about the volume part because there are lot of low volume programs like DC, HST. And most natural bodybuilders don’t go more than 8-14 sets for a body part. I am not sure even if the current drugged bodybuilders do that high of a volume of 20-30 sets per body part. I can see most powerlifters getting 8-15 sets for their bench press muscles with their assistance work.

And I am yet to see a study which showed greater muscle growth or protein synthesis with high reps compared to low reps.

And appearances can be deceiving. What we need is study looking at the FFM of bodybuilders and powerlifers. From what I remember that was only one or two pound difference in one of the studies which compared the two. If you take a picture of a muscular bodybuilder and a powerlifter, that do not means it is the training that made the difference. If I show a powerlifter who cut down and looked muscular, will it prove the fact that powerlifters are as muscular as bodybuilders? Probably not.

And there might be an increase in FFM in bodybuilders than powerlifters. But this I think is largely because bodybuilders focus on muscles like calves, forearm , traps and such which powerlifters don’t bother to workout or don’t get enough tension because of the technique. I just think the metabolic accumulation, hormone effect, mind-body connection, short intra-rest time, manner of execution doesn’t really add much to increase in muscle.

I just can’t see that most powerlifters have 5-15 lbs of untapped muscle because of their training. And if it were true, every powerlifters could add atleast 50 lbs to their bench press if they focussed on a bodybuilding type chest training for a few weeks. I don’t think that’s going to happen because most have maxed out their genetic limits for muscle in that particular muscle group. Hence they take steroid or eat and get 300 lbs and move to the heavy weight category. 

What you guys think?

If you saw the pictures of BB elite after they finish carrier you see drastic changes.
Take Kevin Levrone for example.
It’s like two different persons.
Where all muscle disappears?

Here s what Digby Sale- one of the pioneers in neural adaptations research in strength- had to say:

If there is a difference in FFM between powerlifters and bodybuilders,
is it partly the result of different training methods? We attempted to
answer this question some years ago by having a group of subjects train
(biceps curls) one arm like a weightlifter (1-3 RM) and the other like
a bodybuilder (10-12 RM). In each of three consecutive years, subjects
trained for six months. There was no difference in the strength and
hypertrophy increases over the three years. Muscle endurance increased
more training with 10-12 RM. These results suggest that genetic
endowment may mainly distinguish between powerlifters and bodybuilders
at the elite level.

I don’t mean to say his words end the debate. I just think there are more questions and it is not as clear cut as many people think.

reminds me an very old but good thread somewhere

anoopbal - 07 June 2011 02:05 AM

Here s what Digby Sale- one of the pioneers in neural adaptations research in strength- had to say:

If there is a difference in FFM between powerlifters and bodybuilders,
is it partly the result of different training methods? We attempted to
answer this question some years ago by having a group of subjects train
(biceps curls) one arm like a weightlifter (1-3 RM) and the other like
a bodybuilder (10-12 RM). In each of three consecutive years, subjects
trained for six months. There was no difference in the strength and
hypertrophy increases over the three years. Muscle endurance increased
more training with 10-12 RM. These results suggest that genetic
endowment may mainly distinguish between powerlifters and bodybuilders
at the elite level.

Which paper is this from?

Hi TPT,

It is from personal communication. He said they didn’t publish the study, but will include it in the book which they will be publishing soon. And all the studies I have seen show almost the same muscle growth with low and high reps.

I have read Dante talk about how he have had plenty of people who take double the dose of drugs but didn’t gain muscle. Whereas people who are really blessed can talk half the amount and get twice the gains.

What is your take on it?

Just heard than Phillips got done with a study which showed 30 reps to cause more muscle growth than 10 reps! It hasn’t been published yet, but it is from a trusted source.

anoopbal - 11 June 2011 12:58 PM

Just heard than Phillips got done with a study which showed 30 reps to cause more muscle growth than 10 reps! It hasn’t been published yet, but it is from a trusted source.

Probably occlusion.
And how long this stimulus might be effective?
I heard that not so long.

Not occlusion. This is just a long term study to confirm the study they did with low load showing increased protein synthesis.

Yep. That’s a good question. I am guessing it is in beginners. But even then it is very interesting.

And I think there are lot of people using high reps for legs and seeing some results.

I hope he did it right, cause rapid growth by high reps/volume work might be as result of glycogen and water loading, not contractile elements

If I remember correctly in the first study the tempo was 1-0-1 with no lockouts, so we can define this as occlusion

edit:

Blade

In short, non-lockout training will provide some of the benefits of mechanical occlusion, but it’s still a matter of working close to failure to achieve maximum motor unit recruitment.

At this point, the muscle cell increases its sensitivity to mechanical tension, so even lighter loads have an effect.

Wernbom has done a lot of research, some of it still unpublished work, and I’ve based my high rep protocols of Myo-reps on this effect.

IME - it can be very painful, but effective for visual gains in muscle size - even strength increases - but the effects seem to wear off after about 3-4 weeks which, incidentally, is the time course for the study on rugby players.

I would limit my higher rep phase to 2 weeks, then go into heavy lifting again. You should see an improvement in many of your lifts once you get the technical/coordination component up to speed again.