[Demon Knight]

Following on from a few recent posts about rep ranges/full body vs split/hypetrophy by other members, I would like to hear your opinion on this subject.

Two identical twins, Alex and Bob, decide to start weight training and monitoring their diet/bodyfat. They start at exactly the same age, height, bodyfat and LBM. Both lead a happy life and have no external restrictions towards their training.

Alex decides to adopt a powerlifting/olympic weight lifting routine, with relatively low repetitions (1-5 reps), compound exercises only (squat, deadlift, bench, pullups, snatch, clean & jerk etc.), with of course the addition of weight cycling/periodisation (Week 1 60% of XRM, Week 2 70% of XRM etc.) His aim is to achieve a new Personal Record on one (or more) of his lifts every few weeks or months, hence his volume is fairly low to preserve energy.

Bob decides to adopt a typical 4 day bodybuilding split (back, chest, legs, arms & shoulders), with medium repetitions (8-12) and high volume (10+ sets), compound and isolation exercises and no purposeful periodisation. His aim is to achieve maximum intensity in his sessions.

2 years later, Alex and Bob, both at the same bodyfat %, go through a series of tests of their 1RM, 5RM and 10RM on all major exercises (squat, deadlift, bench, pullup, dips etc.). They both achieve EXACTLY the same weight lifted.

So, onto the question....Which do you believe would be true?

Select A), B) or C)

A)Alex will be "smaller" and "less-defined" than Bob due to following a strength specific program (high neuromuscular adaptation) as opposed to Bob's hypertrophy training.

B)Alex will be "larger" and "more-defined" than Bob as his muscles will have developed greater density than Bob's

C)Alex and Bob will be the same size and definition as it is fairly irrelevant what style of training they used, they can both lift the same maximum weight and with identical genetics, they should both carry the same amount of muscle.

Your thoughts?

P.S. I'm with C)

[under construction]

good post but I cant decide lol

[Iron_Mercenary]

There is no way they will have equal strength of bf%. Alex will have greater 1RM & 5RM but may not fare well with the dips & pullups. I can see Alex at ~ 14%bf with Bob at ~ 10%bf.

A higher premium is placed on diet in bodybuilding than with powerlifting. Thats not to say that diet isn't important in powerlifting, it just doesn't play as crucial a role in comparison to BB. Bodybuilding.com - AnimalPak - Bodybuilding Vs. Powerlifting!

Bob will have the more aesthetically appealing physique, with greater detail and shape. I can't say who will be bigger since I know that there are plenty of tiny but strong powerlifters and Huge but weak bodybuilders. The difference is made in the training styles & diet plans.

Its like comparing the pysiques of a sprinter and long distance runner. They will have different appearances & strengths regardless of genetics.

To say that the two of them would be identical is absolutely preposterous!

I'll go with Z)

[thegrandfencer]

Bob will asthetically look more impressive, but Alex will definately have the jump on his twin brother should he decide after two years of powerlifting
to begin to adopt a bodybuilding training style. The pounds Alex lifts should be more impressive. Many top bodybuilders began as powerlifters.

[The Master]

Totally agree with Iron_Mercenary.There is no possible way that after 2 years of training when both of them train totally diffrent with diffrent purposes will have the same stats.It's not possible.

[Demon Knight]

Originally Posted by Iron_Mercenary

There is no way they will have equal strength of bf%. Alex will have greater 1RM & 5RM but may not fare well with the dips & pullups. I can see Alex at ~ 14%bf with Bob at ~ 10%bf.

A higher premium is placed on diet in bodybuilding than with powerlifting. Thats not to say that diet isn't important in powerlifting, it just doesn't play as crucial a role in comparison to BB. Bodybuilding.com - AnimalPak - Bodybuilding Vs. Powerlifting!

Bob will have the more aesthetically appealing physique, with greater detail and shape. I can't say who will be bigger since I know that there are plenty of tiny but strong powerlifters and Huge but weak bodybuilders. The difference is made in the training styles & diet plans.

Its like comparing the pysiques of a sprinter and long distance runner. They will have different appearances & strengths regardless of genetics.

To say that the two of them would be identical is absolutely preposterous!

I'll go with Z)

Good points Iron Mercenary but I think perhaps you missed a few of the assumptions and the facts from the question:

1)Strength-Of course we cannot compare the size of identical individuals if they do not have identical strength, hence why it's an assumption of the question that they perform the same. There are extraordinary small people that can lift big and extraordinary big people that can lift small but in this question, we have two genetically identical individuals.

2)Diet-Powerlifters/Olympic lifters can have just as strict diets as bodybuilders if they need to stay in a weight class whilst improving their strength. It's only the top levels,where there is no weight limit, that there is less attention paid to diet. However, it is true that bodybuilders attain lower bodyfat levels for competitions.

3)Bodyfat levels-Again, an assumption of the question that they both have the same bf%. Both Alex & Bob want to look aesthetically pleasing.

4)The identical debate-I don't see why it's such a preposterous assumption? Would they really look that different at the same bodyfat levels, lifting the same weight?

I appreciate the input though Iron Mercenary

P.S. Hm, perhaps on hindsight I should have made this a poll. Anyway I can add a poll once the thread is started?

[Demon Knight]

Originally Posted by The Master

Totally agree with Iron_Mercenary.There is no possible way that after 2 years of training when both of them train totally diffrent with diffrent purposes will have the same stats.It's not possible.

The Master, I understand your point of view.

The aim of the question is to gather opinions on whether two genetically identical people lifting the same weights would be the same size, regardless of what method they used to achieve this.

I know it's difficult to answer since like you say, they're training with relatively different goals as far as the weight training is concerned.

Perhaps I should state that their goals as far as their physique goes is the same. Muscular and aesthetically pleasing.

[Iron_Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Demon Knight

The aim of the question is to gather opinions on whether two genetically identical people lifting the same weights would be the same size, regardless of what method they used to achieve this.

Ok. The question makes a bit more sense when you put it this way. The answer would be indefinite simply based on the role that diet plays here. This is the reason why I brought up the issue of little stong guys and big weak guys.

In order for us to properly adress this scenario we must know both Alex & Bobs regular eating habbits.

Alot of guys bust their asses in the gym and gain god-like power and strength but have little muscle to show for their efforts due to the fact that they dont eat as aggressively as they train. Then there are the guys who have incredibly brolic physiques but struggle to put up 225 on bench press this being due to the fact that they train in a more hypertrophy-favorable manner and they have access to the large amounts of food that they consume on a consistent basis at regular intervals daily.

My point is, when lifting weights muscle mass is not garunteed to you. Hell I was hittin 275lbs on bench when I weighed only 135. To get massive you have to do as Tom Platz says: THINK MASS. EAT MASS. TRAIN MASS.

Hypothetically speaking, both Alex and Bob could end up disintergrating their physiques and end up puny bean-poles if they didn't have proper mass-gain diets in place.

Pressing foward, adressing the issue of aesthitic appeal. Bob will end up more aesthetically appealing even in spite of the fact that the two shared a common goal of looking great. This appeal is obtained simply because through his bodybuilding training he has prioritized more attention for musclar detail and shape. There is a greater amount of elasticity given to the way in which a BB training routine can be fromatted. On the other hand, powerlifting training is more centrally focused on the core lifts, and ancillary excercise and muscle groups are merely supplemental in nature. The end result will be a physique that has accured a great amount of mass (with an appropriate diet), but lacks the type of detail, shape, and proportion seen in a bodybuilder. I mean honestly if you see an amazing physique on a powerlifter then most likely that person has incorperated a fair amount of bodybuilding techniques in their training.

Here is a powerlifting split from my school's team:

[under construction]

the encyclopedia of modern BB there was an article about disected muscles from both groups of lifters and the differences in the hypertrophy of the fibers but these are different people with undoubtedly more differences than just lifting styles.

[Demon Knight]

Originally Posted by Iron_Mercenary

Ok. The question makes a bit more sense when you put it this way. The answer would be indefinite simply based on the role that diet plays here. This is the reason why I brought up the issue of little stong guys and big weak guys.

In order for us to properly adress this scenario we must know both Alex & Bobs regular eating habbits.

Alot of guys bust their asses in the gym and gain god-like power and strength but have little muscle to show for their efforts due to the fact that they dont eat as aggressively as they train. Then there are the guys who have incredibly brolic physiques but struggle to put up 225 on bench press this being due to the fact that they train in a more hypertrophy-favorable manner and they have access to the large amounts of food that they consume on a consistent basis at regular intervals daily.

My point is, when lifting weights muscle mass is not garunteed to you. Hell I was hittin 275lbs on bench when I weighed only 135. To get massive you have to do as Tom Platz says: THINK MASS. EAT MASS. TRAIN MASS.

Hypothetically speaking, both Alex and Bob could end up disintergrating their physiques and end up puny bean-poles if they didn't have proper mass-gain diets in place.

Pressing foward, adressing the issue of aesthitic appeal. Bob will end up more aesthetically appealing even in spite of the fact that the two shared a common goal of looking great. This appeal is obtained simply because through his bodybuilding training he has prioritized more attention for musclar detail and shape. There is a greater amount of elasticity given to the way in which a BB training routine can be fromatted. On the other hand, powerlifting training is more centrally focused on the core lifts, and ancillary excercise and muscle groups are merely supplemental in nature. The end result will be a physique that has accured a great amount of mass (with an appropriate diet), but lacks the type of detail, shape, and proportion seen in a bodybuilder. I mean honestly if you see an amazing physique on a powerlifter then most likely that person has incorperated a fair amount of bodybuilding techniques in their training.

Here is a powerlifting split from my school's team:

275lbs bench at 135lbs bodyweight? That's super impressive mate, congrats! Was that raw or with a belt & bench suit? How has your strength and size improved since?

Ok, onto the diet argument. So, correct me if I'm wrong, in your opinion, the difference to adding size and not adding size is the diet.

Therefore, are you saying that if someone reached 300lbs on the bench for 6-8 reps using a "bulk" (calorific excess) diet, then cut down to 10% bodyfat they would be bigger than if they reached 300lbs on the bench for 6-8 reps and had tried to maintain their bodyfat levels throughout?

[Iron_Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Demon Knight

275lbs bench at 135lbs bodyweight? That's super impressive mate, congrats! Was that raw or with a belt & bench suit? How has your strength and size improved since?

RAW, no belt, no suit, no supps, & a crappy diet. That was back when I was 16. I played football back in HS, thats where my lifting background comes from. I attribute most of that strength to raw intensity & that powerful pubescent surge of testosterone. Currently, I weigh 190lbs & bench 350lbs. Also bear in mind I'm only 5'6". My homeostasis bodyweight according to my genetic script states that I should be a lean 135lb.

The motivation for my first bulk, back in HS, was when this hot chick on the track team asked me how much I weighed (I was lookin pretty skinny at the time from running crosscountry). I told her I was about 128lb, and she was like "damn you're tiny! I weigh 140, and we're the same height" At that moment I knew it was time to get BIG.

Did a dirty-bulk got up to 175lbs that summer following graduation.

Originally Posted by Demon Knight

Ok, onto the diet argument. So, correct me if I'm wrong, in your opinion, the difference to adding size and not adding size is the diet.

Therefore, are you saying that if someone reached 300lbs on the bench for 6-8 reps using a "bulk" (calorific excess) diet, then cut down to 10% bodyfat they would be bigger than if they reached 300lbs on the bench for 6-8 reps and had tried to maintain their bodyfat levels throughout?

Yes, I am saying the person on the bulk diet would be BIGGER. This is all within the perameters that the two individuals are restricted to a predefined time constraint. As aforementioned in your scenario, the identical twins are examined after a two year time period. Of course, the guy on the bulk diet will be larger than the guy who is trying to maintain a set bodyfat percentage.