The debate is over size does NOT=strength!!!!

[punch]

In reading posts in the last few weeks I have noticed many comments re/ size equating to strength. WRONG!!

Heres a perfect example: My workout partner is 215 while I am 195. His measurements across the board are bigger than mine. Yet, I am stronger on every lift we do. In fact, I have worked out w/ guys who were 250 plus that simply could not keep up w/ me. Its funny how we equate size w/ strength, I guess its because we are such a " Visual" society. In my opinion people need to reclassify the phrase " I want to get big" because clearly, it doesnt necessarily mean that much.

 

[gettinlarger]

I'm pretty sure we all know this broly.

 

[punch]

I totally agree bro, just seems like its constantly being brought up.
Guess its just a thought that popped in my head.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

You're comparing two different people. As an INDIVIDUAL gets stronger, he tends to get bigger than he was. Add 50 pounds to your raw bench (using the same lifting technique) and you most likely will notice bigger muscles. There are a few exceptions out there, but the vast majority of people get bigger as they get stronger.

 

[IronLion]

You would be amazed at the number of people on the boards that lift purely for cosemetics and could care less about strength/functionality. These are the same ones that spend hours debating whether chicks dig the Arnold look or the Zane look. Read some of the ridiculousness on th anabolic board sometime. Shit like: "I want that to look like a men's health model, do you think 2 grams of test, 800 mg of deca,150 mg of tren ed, 10iu's of growth and 20 iu's of slin ed is enough to get me there? BTW I am 5'6'' 135 lbs with 18% bf

 

[jackangel]

Hehehehe.

In any case, there's definitely a correlation between size and strength, but that's vague, and the relationship isn't simple or easily defined, as it varies from person to person and with other factors. And, of course, that doesn't mean that a smaller person is necessarily weaker.

 

[FatRat]

Ahhh, the vagaries of genetics….

 

[casualbb]

In any case, there's definitely a correlation between size and strength, but that's vague, and the relationship isn't simple or easily defined, as it varies from person to person and with other factors. And, of course, that doesn't mean that a smaller person is necessarily weaker.

Bingo.

-casual

 

[bignate73]

is this a bragging thread?

 

[spatts]

is this a bragging thread?

I'm big and strong, so I don't know what y'all are talkin about.






















j/k

 

[Debaser]

You're comparing two different people. As an INDIVIDUAL gets stronger, he tends to get bigger than he was. Add 50 pounds to your raw bench (using the same lifting technique) and you most likely will notice bigger muscles. There are a few exceptions out there, but the vast majority of people get bigger as they get stronger.

That's correct. While the correlation isn't exact, there is definitately something there. A better way to phrase it would be strength gains = size gains, as opposed to strength=size. Again this is not 100% accurate, but it's a good general rule. Since you are continuing to increase the load on your muscles, they will adapt and grow bigger (assuming diet/recovery etc. is in order)

 

[spatts]

 

[Advaik]

Is the horse dead yet? Great! Let's beat it some more!

 

[Mike_Rojas]

It ain't dead 'cause there's only one page

 

[blinddeafmute]

Nuff said.

Now that is some funny shit!

 

[coolcolj]

It all depends on how you train

 

[vinylgroover]

You would be amazed at the number of people on the boards that lift purely for cosemetics and could care less about strength/functionality. These are the same ones that spend hours debating whether chicks dig the Arnold look or the Zane look. Read some of the ridiculousness on th anabolic board sometime. Shit like: "I want that to look like a men's health model, do you think 2 grams of test, 800 mg of deca,150 mg of tren ed, 10iu's of growth and 20 iu's of slin ed is enough to get me there? BTW I am 5'6'' 135 lbs with 18% bf

What does that have to do with the thread topic.

There are alot of people that are introduced to weights because they are overweight/obese and they wish to transform their look.....lift their self confidence and self esteem. Does that make their goal of wanting to look good any less worthwhile than your's which is to lift a personal best?

 

[Bulldog_10]

The sole factor determining muscle strength = cross sectional area.

So basically...yes, size does = strength. But body size doesn't mean shit...just the muscle.

 

[casualbb]

The sole factor determining muscle strength = cross sectional area.

That is quite untrue. All area determines is the rough amount of muscle available to be recruited by the nervous system. By specifically training the nervous system strength can be increased without much accompanying size.

-casual

 

[Bulldog_10]

That is quite untrue. All area determines is the rough amount of muscle available to be recruited by the nervous system. By specifically training the nervous system strength can be increased without much accompanying size.

-casual

Yes, you're right...but I'm talking maximum strength of any given muscle. I'm assuming all motor groups are stimulated...I should have mentioned that.

 

[NEWcb38ac]

Stregth and size dont HAVE to go togethr... Right now I am stronger than I was 8 weeks ago but MUCH weaker than I was a year agou when I was 15 pounds lighter at a higher bodyfat...

I may be the ecception and not the rule but for me I can getbigger an be getting weaker... I've neevr been very strong in upper body lits and right now at my biggest I am not my strongest

 

[Bulldog_10]

Stregth and size dont HAVE to go togethr... Right now I am stronger than I was 8 weeks ago but MUCH weaker than I was a year agou when I was 15 pounds lighter at a higher bodyfat...

So last year you were at a higher bf% and lower weight? and you were stronger?

If I read that correctly, it's probably because you've been ignoring your neuromuscular system...not because your muscles are weaker.

 

[NEWcb38ac]

Def. not ignoring nuero system, 've been doing DC training, It's gotten me stronger tha I as before I started but still my lifts are down 20+ pounds from last year when I was smaller AND fatter...

exaple: DB shoulder press, last year 90 for 5-6 was normal Justthis week I got 70 for 5

Incline BB, was 255 for 8 not 225-235 for 8

Last year weighed 210 now 225 BF% approx same or lower

 

[spatts]

Maybe I'm stepping on toes here, but there are TWO size/strength arguments, and I have been confused (since the first post) as to which on you're talking about.

1) There's the idea that size and strength aren't related in the sense that you don't have to be very big to lift alot of weight (for example many powerlifters with very high lift : body weight ratios).

2) Then there's the size/strength argument about whether or not one leads to the other in both directions, or only one, or not at all.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Maybe I'm stepping on toes here, but there are TWO size/strength arguments, and I have been confused (since the first post) as to which on you're talking about.

1) There's the idea that size and strength aren't related in the sense that you don't have to be very big to lift alot of weight (for example many powerlifters with very high lift : body weight ratios).

2) Then there's the size/strength argument about whether or not one leads to the other in both directions, or only one, or not at all.

Maybe the problem is that I'm talking about individual muscles, whereas other people may be talking about compound movements in which more factors come into play.

 

[spatts]

See, what happens when this topic comes up (DAILY), is that someone says, "If you get stronger you will get bigger." Then someone counters with, "Well, if that's the case, then why are there so many skinny powerlifters that look like can't lift what they can?" Then someone counters with, "Well I mean strength gains will lead to size gains over time." Then someone else says, "Nuh-uh, cuz my brother's best friend's sister's uncle is really, really buff, but he can barely squat his weight."

Point being, we're comparing apples to oranges, and then someone throws in bananas and guava...and before you know it, some rice shows up with some cheese, and starts talking about the green beans...and so on.

 

[Bulldog_10]

LOL at the rice and beans trying to get in on the mix...we're talking fruit damnit!

But I agree...I think another thing is that some people are looking at the scientific angle of the matter...whereas other people are looking at what they've seen in the gym.

 

[spatts]

Yes, and that leads to the other weekly topic which is "It's really all about genetics, isn't it."

Very few poeple train instinctually anymore, it seems.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Yes, and that leads to the other weekly topic which is "It's really all about genetics, isn't it."

Very few poeple train instinctually anymore, it seems.

haha...i guess I'll have to stick around for a while to know what you're talking about...as you know I'm never on this board. I think I will be from now on though (like it or not )

 

[BodybuildingUniverse]

Bottomline though...I would ASSUME that most reading this board would much rather have the "look" of strength than the actual numbers. Am I right? You could give a shit what you curl if your arms are a ripped 20", correct? And probably vice versa, if benching 700 meant looking like some of the SHW powerlifters out there you could probably live with 405 I'd imagine.

 

[RusPA81]

Bottomline though...I would ASSUME that most reading this board would much rather have the "look" of strength than the actual numbers. Am I right? You could give a shit what you curl if your arms are a ripped 20", correct? And probably vice versa, if benching 700 meant looking like some of the SHW powerlifters out there you could probably live with 405 I'd imagine.

Image: http://prodtn.cafepress.com/8/4810398_F_tn.jpg

I don't know. 700 would be pretty cool.

 

[chanmanfoo]

You would be amazed at the number of people on the boards that lift purely for cosemetics and could care less about strength/functionality. These are the same ones that spend hours debating whether chicks dig the Arnold look or the Zane look. Read some of the ridiculousness on th anabolic board sometime. Shit like: "I want that to look like a men's health model, do you think 2 grams of test, 800 mg of deca,150 mg of tren ed, 10iu's of growth and 20 iu's of slin ed is enough to get me there? BTW I am 5'6'' 135 lbs with 18% bf

who cares why someone lifts? bodybuilder or powerlifter for most its vanity/ego. i have respect for anyone willing to stick it out no matter what their motivation.
foo

 

[spatts]

I can't speak for everyone, but I do what I love, and want it all.

Typical woman, eh?

 

[coolcolj]

well it basicly boils down to this -

if you can recruit more of your existing pool of fibers your stronger - without gaining any size

if you increase the size of your existing recruited fibers your bigger and stronger.

if you increase the size of non-contractile elements or unrecruited fibers then your bigger but no stronger

 

[revexrevex]

so for max size gains you want

increase size of recruited fibers + unrecruited fibers?

 

[BodybuildingUniverse]

I don't know. 700 would be pretty cool.

agreed. but MOST of the big benchers are built like this.

JM Blakley and Glen Chabot are a different story of course...

 

[coolcolj]

so for max size gains you want

increase size of recruited fibers + unrecruited fibers?

yes, plus extra goo size from bits and pieces in the msucle that aren't actually fibers

off course any muscle fibers you don't recruit and fatigue don't get bigger - usually... so becoming more nuerally effecient at recruiting more of your fibers makes you get bigger faster!
That is why if you train for strength to improve nueral effeciency you will be able to grow faster later on.

 

[RusPA81]

I don't know. 700 would be pretty cool.

agreed. but MOST of the big benchers are built like this.

Image: http://www.powermagonline.com/latest-news/images/clay-pose.jpg
JM Blakley and Glen Chabot are a different story of course...

Dude. That guys looks great.

 

[vinylgroover]

You're comparing two different people. As an INDIVIDUAL gets stronger, he tends to get bigger than he was. Add 50 pounds to your raw bench (using the same lifting technique) and you most likely will notice bigger muscles. There are a few exceptions out there, but the vast majority of people get bigger as they get stronger.

You can as technical as you want, but the above quote sums it up pretty well.

 

[IronLion]

worst thread ever

 

[spatts]

I think I will be from now on though (like it or not )

I think that sounds like a great idea.



LOL @ IronLion

 

[Mike_Rojas]

All this science is giving me a headache. Just lift the damn bar!

 

[spatts]

Lifting the damn bar is science; it's physics, biomechanics, chemistry, anatomy, physiology...

When it's time to lift the bar, I lift the bar. When the work is done, I love to learn all I can about HOW it was done so I know WHY it was done, and if it can be done better. No harm in that.

You commented recently on how all the tips and form changes have helped your lifts considerably just in the short time you've been here. That advice was based on science...science improved your lifts. If no one ever thought about that stuff, studied it, tried it, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. You have seen for yourself that just "lifting the bar" doesn't cut it. If it did, you'd be a few weeks regressed.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

Lifting the damn bar is science; it's physics, biomechanics, chemistry, anatomy, physiology...

When it's time to lift the bar, I lift the bar. When the work is done, I love to learn all I can about HOW it was done so I know WHY it was done, and if it can done better. No harm in that.

Certainly no harm in that. I thought you were getting tired of all the arguing. I like to learn as much as I can. No offence to anyone, but sometimes these threads go around and around in circles

 

[spatts]

That was my point.

Even more frustrating is when I DO post published science that answers some of these question, and the thread falls to the bottom with 500 reads and 0 posts. We all want to talk about what we THINK we know about the science, but when push comes to shove, 90% are just guessing and can't even comprehend the nitty-gritty enough to conduct a profound discussion about it.

When evaluating what works for you, be as fly-by-the-seat as you want, but don't try to apply that as universal theory. It doesn't work that way. <---------That's not directed at anyone.

 

[SeymourCuts]

It all depends on type of training and goals. You can increase limit strength while actually having the tape measurements go down at the same bodyfat%. That's what would frequently happen if a lot of bodybuilders decided to train like weight-class powerlifters. You can also increase in size while having limit strength go down. Put almost anyone with a prior free-weight focus on a machine-based hypertrophy program, and that's what will happen. There are different facets of both hypertrophy and strength.

 

[IronLion]

kick it harder