Is Mass Needed for Strength?

[Zaskar]

Ive just been curious latley, I been mainly doing sets in the 5-8 rep range (I guess thats a little inbetween) and was wondering if I should change it up soon and aim for more mass in my upper/lower body. Is building more mass something recommended for adding more strength? Or is it prettymuch 100% just for looks?

I always see articles about how Strength is around 3-6 reps and mass is around 10-12 reps, but are they mutually exclusive or is going back and fourth the best bet, building more mass then strengthening it?

Really hopeing someone can clear this up for me,
Thanks guys

 

[StuWard]

It's 100% for looks. Strength training builds up the size of the fibres and that's what gives the strength. There is some size built from that as well but it's all functional size. Of course you have to eat to support this growth and this type of growth will aid in building strength. Mass building normally targets the fluids in the muscles (sarcoplasm) and that does nothing to contribute to strength. Your traditional bodybuilder routines work on this type of hypertrophy. It's hard to build one without doing some of the other but people who want strictly relative strength, which would be a lot of athletes, would want to minimize the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. They should focus on low reps in the 1-3 range.

 

[Zaskar]

Cool, I really wouldda thought that Building more muscle mass would act as a better base to then strengthen with lower rep routines (giving more muscle to work with), guess i was wrong

 

[StuWard]

Body building itself doesn't increase the number of fibres or the size of the fibres. Only strength training does that.

There are advantages, if you're a competitive powerlifter, you only have to bring the bar down until it touches your chest. If you have a big chest you don't have to bring it down as far. As well the angle the muscle pulls at changes too making the press more efficient.

 

[Zaskar]

Wait, so building muscle mass doesn't actually increase anything in the muscle sept fluid? That just doesnt sound right :/ But then again I really dont know about it.

 

[oso0960]

woah, a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. *on the same person if all other factors were kept the same*. that's not saying that this 250lb pure muscle guy is necessarily going to be stronger than the 185lb pure muscle guy because there's so many other factors like how many motor units each person could recruit for instance.

anyway to answer the question, mass is not necessarily needed for strength because you can simply tax your central nervous system with near maximal weights or speed work to recruit more motor units which in turn you can move more weight. mass is definitely something that will help you out though

EDIT: how many pro bodybuilders do you know that aren't strong at all? many of them are very strong and they are huge. they may not be as strong as powerlifters because obviously that's not what they train for, but they are so much stronger than the average person. to some of the above posts...if it's 100% just for looks you're saying a bodybuilder could possibly struggle with 95lbs on the bench even if they weigh 250+ of pure muscle.

 

[StuWard]

A big muscle is a big muscle but is doesn't have to be a strong muscle. It depends on the training method. I said "It's hard to build one without doing some of the other" so it's unlikely that a large person is not strong or that a strong person is not big. I would like to quote Mel Siff from his "Supertraining" book: "Increase in strength is not necessarily associated with increase in hypertrophy or vice versa."

Didn't Omega say that he was trying to build up his young man without getting him strong? He said that it builds imbalances or something.

I think having strength is helpful for building mass but mass isn't helpful for building strength. Look at Dr. Squat. 1014 # squat and he only trained for strength, not size.

 

[oso0960]

A big muscle is a big muscle but is doesn't have to be a strong muscle. It depends on the training method. I said "It's hard to build one without doing some of the other" so it's unlikely that a large person is not strong or that a strong person is not big. I would like to quote Mel Siff from his "Supertraining" book: "Increase in strength is not necessarily associated with increase in hypertrophy or vice versa."

Didn't Omega say that he was trying to build up his young man without getting him strong? He said that it builds imbalances or something.

what's your definition of strong? say on a certain person he has a set amount of muscle. now if it were possible to recruit the exact same amount of muscle fibers, exact same conditions of everything etc, except for the fact that the muscles grew considerably, the person would be infact stronger solely from the muscle growth, maybe not considerably, but they would be able to lift more weight. increase in strength is definitely not necessarily associated with increase in hypertrophy because of the CNS and being able to recruit more motor units. i don't agree with the vice versa part because of what i stated in the beginning of this message.

i've heard about Omega and his young man's progress and he's done a superb job at it also. I bet he's stronger though because he did gain muscle mass. does Omega have stats before and after of bench/squat/deadlift/etc poundages to see if they progressed any? if the guy IS exactly the same strength, i would safely assume that he's not recruiting the same amount of muscle fibers he could before.

Madcow or rippetoe said something in their articles about a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle..i'll try and find it.

 

[oso0960]

Is Bigger Necessarily Stronger?



How do you think people get bigger exactly? A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle - what do you think your body is adapting to when it adds muscle as a result of exercise? Why is resistance at a fairly high percentage of your maximal effort necessary for hypertrophy? I mean, you don't get too big walking around and bodyweight exercises seem to cap out after a while.

Things that make you go hmmm. I'm not saying a bigger person will out lift or be stronger than a smaller person (physics/leverage/neural components weigh in on this so lets not talk about the 130lbs freak of nature champion powerlifter), but I'm saying that when YOU get bigger than you are now, YOU will have gotten stronger than you are now. No one added significant muscle that didn't add weight to the bar or just do a ton more work. You are stressing the muscular system here and the adaptation of hypertrophy is a method the body uses to cope and improve to be able to better tolerate the stress.

I would hope it's hitting you like a bolt of lightning now and that you aren't lost. If you are lost reread the above.

that's from madcow's site

 

[2raptors]

There are plenty of "little guys" out there that have RECORD benches and squats...it's neuromuscular.... Kettlebells for instance....I used them a LONG TIME...make you insanely strong....but not really big. ALL of my presses went up from training with kettlebells..... Pavel has a great book (he's a russian kettlebell freak) called "Beyond Bodybuilding: The "Be as strong as you look" series, utilizing incredible exercises to help bodybuilders be even stronger....

I'm giving it a break to "look" as stong as I am now...got a great routine from C. Thibideaux, got my stack lined up...good to go!

Good stuff.

Raptors

 

[super_rice]

taner sagir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5yifpd3RBQ

 

[Sculelos]

taner sagir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5yifpd3RBQ

That guy is really strong for his weight, actually really strong period.

But generally the more muscle someone has the stronger they will be.