Bodybuilding.com Information Motivation Supplementation
in:

    The World’s #1 Bodybuilding And Fitness Forum - Save Up To 50% Off Retail Prices In Our Bodybuilding.com Store!

Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35
  1. #1
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline

    Muscle size verse muscle strength.

    I am having an argument on YouTube about muscle size verse muscle strength with somebody. We have had an extensive discussion on Youtube about it and it is not going anywhere. He believes that if you know how large somebody's muscle is and how strong they're, you can accurately predict how strong they will be if they put on a certain amount of muscle because he believes that there is a 'direct' correlation between muscle size and strength. I believe that while there is a strong relationship between the two, that it isn't a direct relationship because I believe it would be impossible to accurately know how strong somebody will be based on their muscle gained (if any) due to their exercise regime. I have tried to lay out the discussion in a fair and accurate way and I hope with your knowledgeable experience you can help us decide who is correct. I'll put some of my points down in the next post so I don't unfairly influence the argument.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    There are many factors that determine muscle size for an individual e.g. hydration, intramuscular fat, energy stores, capillary density (most bodybuilders have experienced the effect a carb up has on muscle size and fullnes). Muscle strength is strongly influenced by the central nervous system and it's efficiency and ability to recruit muscle fibers which doesn't depend on muscle size (which is why powerlifter's train to condition their CNS and bodybuilders train to condition their muscles - 5 sets of 5 reps verse 10 reps of 3 sets - obviously they do overlap). Two well documented types of muscle hypertrophy, Sarcoplasmic or Myofibrillar provide different effects on a muscle, during sarcoplasmic hypertrophy the muscle fills with sarcoplasmic fluid making the muscle larger but not stronger, during Myofibillar hypertrophy the muscle gets stronger but only slightly larger and indeed may not get larger at all. These two types of hypertrophy do usually occur together but in differing ratio's dependent on the reason for the hypertrophy.

    Two identical twins, a powerlifter doing squats training for strength, might do 5 sets of 3 reps and a bodybuilder doing squats training for size, might do 4 sets of 10 reps. After following their respective regimes and all else being equal for 6 months, it is reasonable to assume that they will both have gotten bigger and both will have gotten stronger but if we tested their 1RM the powerlifter will have gotten stronger than the bodybuilder and if we measured their muscle size the bodybuilder would have gotten larger than the powerlifter. That is a safe assumption to make? If it is, than there is a strong relationship but not a direct relationship between muscle size/strength.
    Last edited by nicky_hansard; 02-06-2013 at 06:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Self proclaimed parrot Determinednoob's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: United States
    Stats: 6'0", 175 lbs
    Posts: 3,437
    Rep Power: 771
    Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Visit Determinednoob's BodySpace
    Determinednoob is offline
    You are correct. Pure strength also has much to do with CNS activation of muscle fibers. Size also has much to do with fluid and nutrient retention. I can start taking creatine and retain 5-10 more lbs of fluid in my muscle tissue. Did I get stronger? No. There is the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy thing. As you said, there is correlation between the 2, but not at a direct 1:1 ratio.
    Blah cutting.

    I'm not talkin' to myself; I'm just the only one who's listenin'

    Best Singles
    Deadlift - 405
    Squat - 345
    Bench - 225
    OHP - 170

    New Ultimate? collection of info for noobs - 2013 Edition - http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=151032123
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Johnny Rotten ThickAsABrick's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2006
    Stats: 5'8", 210 lbs
    Posts: 40,636
    BodyPoints: 38230
    Rep Power: 100583
    ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ThickAsABrick has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit ThickAsABrick's BodySpace
    ThickAsABrick is offline
    Stop arguing with idiots.
    The king is gone; He's not forgotten.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Self proclaimed parrot Determinednoob's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: United States
    Stats: 6'0", 175 lbs
    Posts: 3,437
    Rep Power: 771
    Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Visit Determinednoob's BodySpace
    Determinednoob is offline
    Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post
    Stop arguing with idiots.
    Never a bad strategy
    Blah cutting.

    I'm not talkin' to myself; I'm just the only one who's listenin'

    Best Singles
    Deadlift - 405
    Squat - 345
    Bench - 225
    OHP - 170

    New Ultimate? collection of info for noobs - 2013 Edition - http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=151032123
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by Determinednoob View Post
    You are correct. Pure strength also has much to do with CNS activation of muscle fibers. Size also has much to do with fluid and nutrient retention. I can start taking creatine and retain 5-10 more lbs of fluid in my muscle tissue. Did I get stronger? No. There is the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy thing. As you said, there is correlation between the 2, but not at a direct 1:1 ratio.
    He thinks I am wrong because he believes the CNS only provides added strength for that one specific exercise. I don't agree with that thinking but I have tried to point out that it is irrelevant (it still means you will have a stronger squat than the person who trained squats but for size anyway) because it has nothing to do with whether there is a direct correlation - or 'direct causation' as he changed the word to after I pointed him to a description of what direct causation meant - between muscle size and strength.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post
    Stop arguing with idiots.
    I can't help it

    One of my worse character traits, I guess I think I'm helping people but I know deep down I have probably not actually helped anybody. My girlfriend gets very frustrated with me lol.
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Hey man KenyonDonaldson's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Perth, WA, Australia
    Age: 20
    Stats: 6'2", 176 lbs
    Posts: 426
    Rep Power: 71
    KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KenyonDonaldson has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Visit KenyonDonaldson's BodySpace
    KenyonDonaldson is offline
    You're right man, but there is no point arguing with someone online, least of all on youtube where all manner of foul little basment dwelling humans congregate to post their mindless babble.
    200kg Deadlift: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi2IShg_itI
    130kg Squat
    110kg Bench
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    I'll Rest When I'm Dead ironwill2008's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Stats: 5'8", 193 lbs
    Posts: 65,032
    Rep Power: 144790
    ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ironwill2008 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit ironwill2008's BodySpace
    ironwill2008 is offline
    Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post
    Stop arguing with idiots.
    ^^^^ This.

    Unless you feel it's your job to smarten-up every chump on the webz, let it go. If you stick around even this site for very long, you'll quickly realize that for every moron you 'straighten out,' 10 will jump in here to take his place.
    No brain, no gain.

    You can't out-train bad nutrition.

    "The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon

    Ironwill Gym:
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388


    Ironwill2008 Workout Journal:
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Registered User TakeEverything's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Stats: 5'11", 185 lbs
    Posts: 304
    Rep Power: 0
    TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) TakeEverything is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank)
    Visit TakeEverything's BodySpace
    TakeEverything is offline
    Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post
    Stop arguing with idiots.

    Simply-done.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    He won't comment on this site because 'but they "cookied" me, & blasted my email w/the same BS bodybuilding crap 20x, each time from a different fake address'. It really does seem like you guys gave some good advice. I can't believe the balls on this dude, saying **** like that.
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Registered User yourguy's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Location: United States
    Age: 65
    Stats: 240 lbs
    Posts: 6
    Rep Power: 0
    yourguy is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Visit yourguy's BodySpace
    yourguy is offline
    An example of direct correlation: -Every- time 'A' punches 'B' in the nose, 'B's nose bleeds. We don't need to measure the force of the punch, we don't need to measure the amount of blood lost, we don't need to compare one punch to another, or one bleeding to another, and we don't need to consider other conditions that influence 'B's chances for his nose to bleed. What we -do- is notice a -direct correlation- between the punches & the bloody noses, 1-to-1. Same for muscle: Every time an individual adds muscle, (you -never- -exclusively- add sarcoplasm only), the muscle in question will be stronger: Thus, a direct correlation. After all the side-tracks Nicky & I went on in our debate, that's all I was trying to say. Nicky believes direct correlation requires that added muscle be measured, added strength be measured, & the two increases be consistently in the same proportion. I don't. In other words, an argument over the meaning of the word 'direct', nothing more. (As far as the multiple-emails: It happened, and now that I'm back here, I expect it'll happen again.)
    Last edited by yourguy; 02-11-2013 at 03:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by yourguy View Post
    An example of direct correlation: -Every- time 'A' punches 'B' in the nose, 'B's nose bleeds. We don't need to measure the force of the punch, we don't need to measure the amount of blood lost, we don't need to compare one punch to another, or one bleeding to another, and we don't need to consider other conditions that influence 'B's chances for his nose to bleed. What we -do- is notice a -direct correlation- between the punches & the bloody noses, 1-to-1. Same for muscle: Every time an individual adds muscle, (you -never- -exclusively- add sarcoplasm only), the muscle in question will be stronger: Thus, a direct correlation. After all the side-tracks Nicky & I went on in our debate, that's all I was trying to say. Nicky believes direct correlation requires that added muscle be measured, added strength be measured, & the two increases be consistently in the same proportion. I don't. In other words, an argument over the meaning of the word 'direct', nothing more. (As far as the multiple-emails: It happened, and now that I'm back here, I expect it'll happen again.)
    That was not our original argument and you sidetracked it talking about things that weren't related to the discussion, you specifically stated that an increase in x amount of muscle = an increase in x amount of strength (that is not true). I'll provide the name of the video 'Isometric Exercise for Building Muscle and Strength' and the author is 'byebyecarbs', I strongly recommend reading some of the comments before posting here, if anybody wants to. I'm glad you've changed your argument but the thing is, it's not direct if you can't accurately create a graph that predicts these changes, you can use words like 'very strong'.

    I'll post one of your comments from youtube 'Squats without -much- jump training -won't- increase jumps. We -can- determine that -you'll- be stronger according to muscle -you- add. We can't compare 2 different people because there are so many genetic variables in muscle tissue, CNS max% of activation, limb proportions, tendon's points of insertion, pain tolerance, motivation, etc etc etc etc, BUT, if one of two identical twin trains to add muscle, he WILL be stronger than the other in DIRECT correlation between size and strength.'.

    And another '1/You started the jump thread. 2/ I NEVER said getting ''x bigger" was the -only- way to get "x stronger"! Getting "x stronger" can be due to many reasons. Just waking up one morning & realizing you haven't been trying your hardest can lead to a major strength improvement. BUT, if/when you DO get "x bigger" you WILL BE "x stronger". This is what a direct correlation is.'

    And another 'Direct correlation is the term, & the truth. Proportionate? Did I use that term? No. You add muscle, you get stronger = direct correlation. We each have our own unique proportion of muscle to strength, (due to the many other factors I've repeatedly mentioned), but: Add a unit of muscle, get your unique unit stronger; add another, get stronger again: DIRECT. And you're dead wrong about identical twins: The more muscular twin will always have the stronger muscles.'

    And Another 'CNS efficiency is genetically locked in. Training the CNS applies only to each specific movement you train: ie: Skill. Thus a skinny guy who has high efficiency CNS & applies it to a bench press will be stronger than a muscular guy who never benches and has a low efficiency CNS, THIS NOT THE POINT. Either one of them will have a DIRECT CORRELATION between how much muscle they add, and how much stronger they get. THAT'S WHAT DIRECT CORRELATION MEANS!'

    Does anybody want to point out the contradictions and flaws in 'yourguy's' arguments?

    But I am willing to ignore your bad usage of the word 'direct correlation', if you will admit that the person with the larger muscle mass won't always be stronger (even in identical twins).
    Last edited by nicky_hansard; 02-11-2013 at 06:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    Registered User yourguy's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Location: United States
    Age: 65
    Stats: 240 lbs
    Posts: 6
    Rep Power: 0
    yourguy is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Visit yourguy's BodySpace
    yourguy is offline
    While I stand by each statement I made, my original post was that you'll have a stronger muscle every time that muscle grows bigger. The only argument I see is that you don't think I use the word "direct" correctly. To that, I say, fine! Lets disagree forever on what "direct" means, & focus on the reality of I'm trying to convey. (All other issues were, well, other issues, which we can discuss afterwards if you wish.) Check youtube: I never said the person with larger muscles is the stronger of two, I said that each person who adds muscle will be stronger than previously, WITH ONE EXCEPTION: Identical twins at birth, have, (& if they have identical training, diet, & health throughout life: -continue- to have), identical strength & identical muscle size. That's what identical is. If one twin has larger muscles than the other, whether due to strength training / bodybuilding / weightlifting / dietary differences / or sickness, YES, the more muscular identical twin WILL be stronger than the less muscular.
    Last edited by yourguy; 02-11-2013 at 11:31 PM.
    c'ya!
    Reply With Quote

  15. #15
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by yourguy View Post
    While I stand by each statement I made, my original post was that you'll have a stronger muscle every time that muscle grows bigger. The only argument I see is that you don't think I use the word "direct" correctly. To that, I say, fine! Lets disagree forever on what "direct" means, & focus on the reality of I'm trying to convey. (All other issues were, well, other issues, which we can discuss afterwards if you wish.) Check youtube: I never said the person with larger muscles is the stronger of two, I said that each person who adds muscle will be stronger than previously, WITH ONE EXCEPTION: Identical twins at birth, have, (& if they have identical training, diet, & health throughout life: -continue- to have), identical strength & identical muscle size. That's what identical is. If one twin has larger muscles than the other, whether due to strength training / bodybuilding / weightlifting / dietary differences / or sickness, YES, the more muscular identical twin WILL be stronger than the less muscular.
    A muscle can get larger without actually getting stronger e.g. muscle hydration, ATP stores, capillary density, intramuscular fat and dilation of blood vessels (I'm sure there are more). Having more muscles, even if you're more muscular than your twin does not definitely mean you will be stronger, it is possible to train for strength rather than size. Which is exactly why bodybuilders and powerlifters train differently. One trains for strength, while the other trains for size.

    I suggest you research 'Myofibril hypertrophy' and 'Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy'. One results in a much larger but not necessarily stronger muscle, the other results in a much stronger but not necessarily larger muscle. I admit they overlap but depending on how you train the ratio between the two will differ. Which is why a twin without as much muscle, might be stronger. You cannot deny this. I'm willing to ignore that you don't understand the meaning of direct correlation but you are wrong about this.
    Last edited by nicky_hansard; 02-12-2013 at 04:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  16. #16
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Do you actually read what you write, you contradict yourself a lot. Is English your first language, maybe you don't fully comprehend some of the sentences you write? I'm not trying to be snarky, it's a legitimate question.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #17
    Self proclaimed parrot Determinednoob's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: United States
    Stats: 6'0", 175 lbs
    Posts: 3,437
    Rep Power: 771
    Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Determinednoob has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Visit Determinednoob's BodySpace
    Determinednoob is offline
    Originally Posted by nicky_hansard View Post
    I can't help it

    One of my worse character traits, I guess I think I'm helping people but I know deep down I have probably not actually helped anybody. My girlfriend gets very frustrated with me lol.
    You're doing it again
    Blah cutting.

    I'm not talkin' to myself; I'm just the only one who's listenin'

    Best Singles
    Deadlift - 405
    Squat - 345
    Bench - 225
    OHP - 170

    New Ultimate? collection of info for noobs - 2013 Edition - http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=151032123
    Reply With Quote

  18. #18
    Registered User yourguy's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Location: United States
    Age: 65
    Stats: 240 lbs
    Posts: 6
    Rep Power: 0
    yourguy is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Visit yourguy's BodySpace
    yourguy is offline
    1/A hydrated muscle -is- stronger than a dehydrated muscle. 2/ATP stores don't -cause- added size, but they're available in larger amounts -to- the larger, stronger muscle. 3/Capillary density goes -down- as a muscle enlarges & strengthens. 4/Fat isn't muscle. I'm referring to size of the actual muscle, not the -appearance- of the limbs due to inflammation, bloating, fat, implants, synthol, or any non-muscular material. 5/It's genetic: Many successful powerlifters discovered their strength via bodybuilding, soon realizing their genetics make them strong but not aesthetic. Many successful bodybuilders began as powerlifters whose profound physique improvements out-stripped their strength gains. Only afterwards did they specialize. If one twin powerlifts, & the other bodybuilds, they'll end up with the same size & strength muscles if they train the same muscles. The power-twin be better at powerlifting, but the bodybuilder will be better at the lifts he practices. Each could excel at the others' specialty after a very short adaptation. 6/You can't train for -only- sarcoplasm. You train by lifting more weight over time; getting stronger. Any bit of sarcoplasm -always- comes with myofibrills too, thus any time your muscle gets bigger, it's become stronger. The ratio is genetic, not trained; thus twin's muscles will be equally strong if they're equally large. Each twin will be stronger at the exercises he trains with. (Keep in mind that our "twin debate" is somewhat of a sidetrack, the primary issue a single individual adding muscle, thus getting stronger.)
    Last edited by yourguy; 02-12-2013 at 08:08 AM.
    c'ya!
    Reply With Quote

  19. #19
    Registered User yourguy's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Location: United States
    Age: 65
    Stats: 240 lbs
    Posts: 6
    Rep Power: 0
    yourguy is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Visit yourguy's BodySpace
    yourguy is offline
    I see no contradiction, but if I wasn't clear on every detail, tell me what you need clarified. How about an example of strong correlation that isn't direct correlation?: People die from gunshots, (but not all people die after being shot).
    Last edited by yourguy; 02-12-2013 at 07:48 AM.
    c'ya!
    Reply With Quote

  20. #20
    Gainz MikeKK's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Location: London, Greater London, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Stats: 5'10", 185 lbs
    Posts: 1,940
    Rep Power: 1428
    MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) MikeKK has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit MikeKK's BodySpace
    MikeKK is offline
    Arguments with YT specialists are a big no no. Doesn't lead anywhere. I've been through it. Even if you give them evidence they're so attached to their belief that they take it personally if you attack it. Just as if you were talking **** about their mother lol.

    While there is a certain degree between strength and size (especially in beginner stages) it isn't exact. You could be tiny and pulling some heavy weights or big and pretty weak. Too many variables both in terms of physiology and training type.
    Getting me some gains

    Lifting log http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=152114103&p=1030762993#post1030762993
    My lifting gear part 1 (bodysolid power rack, bench, lat attachment) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=150769633
    My lifting gear part 2 (bodypower weights, texas power bar) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=151184793&p=1011390903#post1011390903
    Reply With Quote

  21. #21
    Registered User yourguy's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Location: United States
    Age: 65
    Stats: 240 lbs
    Posts: 6
    Rep Power: 0
    yourguy is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Visit yourguy's BodySpace
    yourguy is offline
    (The only thing I might have taken personally was when I was called an idiot, but I didn't.) I assume that you guys agree with what I -actually- posted, because you keep arguing against things I -never- said. In response to MikeKK's examples above: Of course! A tiny guy might be stronger than a big guy, but they will each get stronger if they each gain muscle, or to be more clear; the muscles that get larger will be stronger. I understand the "direct" part of correlation to mean "every time", Nicky believes it means "exactly the same every time". We agree to disagree. (As far as twins, CNS, specificity, skill etc etc etc; they're all relevant, but all just a little bit off topic in this case.) Let me re-phrase my primary point with more clarity: Every time a single individual's muscles become larger, those muscles will also have become stronger. Does anyone really disagree with that? I believe that's a direct correlation, but if you disagree with the term, it's only semantics.
    Last edited by yourguy; 02-12-2013 at 07:40 AM.
    c'ya!
    Reply With Quote

  22. #22
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by yourguy View Post
    1/A hydrated muscle -is- stronger than a dehydrated muscle. 2/ATP stores don't -cause- added size, they're merely more available -to- the larger muscle. 3/Capillary density goes -down- as a muscle enlarges. 4/Fat isn't muscle. I'm referring to size of the actual muscle, not the -appearance- of the limbs due to inflammation, bloating, fat, implants, synthol, or any non-muscular material. 5/It's genetic: Many successful powerlifters discovered their strength via bodybuilding, soon realizing their genetics make them strong but not aesthetic. Many successful bodybuilders began as powerlifters whose profound physique improvements out-stripped their strength gains. Only afterwards did they specialize. If one twin powerlifts, & the other bodybuilds, they'll end up with the same muscle. 6/You can't train for -only- sarcoplasm. You train by lifting more weight over time; getting stronger. Any bit of sarcoplasm -always- comes with myofibrills too, thus any time your muscle gets bigger, it's become stronger. The ratio is genetic, not trained; twin's muscles will be equally strong if they're equally large. Each twin will be stronger at the exercises he trains with. (Keep in mind that our "twin debate" is somewhat of a sidetrack, the primary issue a single individual adding muscle, thus getting stronger.)
    Muscle hydration has very little to do with muscle strength but it does have a lot to do with muscle endurance and recovery, ATP stores do influence muscle size, capillary density increases when performing endurance exercises (thus making the muscle slightly larger, without added strength), intramuscular fat is inside the muscle (I'm not talking about any of those things you mentioned), are you saying muscle size is genetic (so is your skin color but your body adapts)? I'm not talking about the size of the limbs, I'm talking about the size of the muscle, because ATP is stored in the muscle, it's hydration OF the muscle, capillaries surround the muscle fibers (therefore are in the muscle), intramuscular fat is inside the muscle, you can't just ignore these things because they are the muscle (without them the muscle would not function and they're adaptations dependent on lifestyle). If twins follow two different exercise regimes - bodybuilder and powerlifter - they won't have the same muscle strength and this has been well documented. So after the bodybuilder discovers he is better at powerlifting, why does he change the way he trains and vice versa? Why did you feel the need to point out both types of hypertrophy happen simultaneously, I specifically said both types of hypertrophy overlap and I'll quote myself 'I admit they overlap but depending on how you train the ratio between the two will differ' which means you may only get slightly large and have a very large increase in strength and you might get very large increase in strength and only slightly get larger. Therefore the exercise regime DOES change the ratio of hypertrophy, there are studies demonstrating this but I can't find them - I will eventually. The twins will not be equally strong if they followed a powerlifter workout and a bodybuilder workout, even if they have the same muscular size. Why would olympic coaches train their athlete's so differently to how a bodybuilder trains if this was so (are you better qualified than they are). It make no sense and all the evidence says you're wrong.

    I don't need anything clarified and everything was clear, that doesn't mean you didn't contradict yourself and make irrelevant and frankly irritating points. I will provide examples below - you didn't answer about if English is your original language?

    'Identical twins at birth, have, (& if they have identical training, diet, & health throughout life: -continue- to have), identical strength & identical muscle size. That's what identical is. If one twin has larger muscles than the other, whether due to strength training / bodybuilding / weightlifting / dietary differences / or sickness, YES, the more muscular identical twin WILL be stronger than the less muscular.'

    Why did you feel the need to point out 'that's what identical is', it was a pointless and irritating comment because that had nothing to do with the debate... Besides identical twins aren't always born the exact same size and weight.

    This comment on youtube 'I NEVER said getting ''x bigger" was the -only- way to get "x stronger"! Getting "x stronger" can be due to many reasons. Just waking up one morning & realizing you haven't been trying your hardest can lead to a major strength improvement. BUT, if/when you DO get "x bigger" you WILL BE "x stronger". This is what a direct correlation is.'

    One second you disagree with me saying being x bigger means you will be x stronger and you back that up by saying getting stronger can be due to many reasons (which I agree with) but than you say the exact opposite, being x bigger WILL make you x stronger.

    'We -can- determine that -you'll- be stronger according to muscle -you- add'

    Than you say this 'We don't need to measure the force of the punch, we don't need to measure the amount of blood lost, we don't need to compare one punch to another, or one bleeding to another, and we don't need to consider other conditions that influence 'B's chances for his nose to bleed.'

    You argue it is a direct correlation because you can determine how strong somebody will be based on how much muscle they add (which I disagree with but anyhow) but than you say it's a direct correlation simply because one effects the other. Your arguments don't make any logical sense because you're arguing that direct correlation is two different things.

    'We each have our own unique proportion of muscle to strength, (due to the many other factors I've repeatedly mentioned), but: Add a unit of muscle, get your unique unit stronger; add another, get stronger again'

    Which means it doesn't matter if it is twins or not because than all we would have to do is work out a persons unique muscle size/strength unit and we can work out who is actually stronger.

    'CNS efficiency is genetically locked in. Training the CNS applies only to each specific movement you train: ie: Skill. Thus a skinny guy who has high efficiency CNS & applies it to a bench press will be stronger than a muscular guy who never benches and has a low efficiency CNS'

    If CNS efficiency is locked in how can the CNS be trained?

    'but they will each get stronger if they each gain muscle, or to be more clear; the muscles that get larger will be stronger'

    You aren't making that more clear you're making two different points.

    '(As far as twins, CNS, specificity, skill etc etc etc; they're relevant, but all a bit off topic in this case.)'

    How is that off topic when you specifically stated that a larger muscle equals a stronger person but you just stated CNS and specificity are relevant even in twins, like you just said. That's exactly what we're arguing about.

    'I assume that you guys agree with what I -actually- posted, because you keep arguing against things I -never- said'

    In your last post you completely ignored the key points of MikeKK's comment and try to twist his words to agree with yours. You took the part you could use and ignored the rest of his comment. You didn't try to refute that training type plays a role in strength and you didn't provide any information, you just restated what you believe and he clearly says that training type plays a role in the strength of a muscle which is obviously in reference to your belief that if the muscle size is the same than strength must be the same in identical people. So how can you assume he agrees with you?
    Reply With Quote

  23. #23
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by determinednoob View Post
    you're doing it again
    i...can't...stop

    But honestly now I feel an obligation because he came here.
    Reply With Quote

  24. #24
    Lack of iron &or sleeping SuffolkPunch's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2007
    Location: Ipswich, Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Age: 42
    Stats: 5'11", 187 lbs
    Posts: 25,982
    BodyPoints: 1676
    Rep Power: 21928
    SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit SuffolkPunch's BodySpace
    SuffolkPunch is online now
    Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post
    Stop arguing with idiots.
    ...because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
    Daily Undulating Periodisation log:
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=163624691
    Reply With Quote

  25. #25
    Registered User yourguy's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Location: United States
    Age: 65
    Stats: 240 lbs
    Posts: 6
    Rep Power: 0
    yourguy is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Visit yourguy's BodySpace
    yourguy is offline
    1/Whatever you think is "very little" nonetheless makes muscle stronger.2/You have it backwards, a bigger muscle can store more ATP. Aside from that, ATP makes a muscle stronger.3/ The means by which endurance exercise increases capillary density is largely due to the muscle actually getting -smaller-. 4/Intramuscular fat is not muscle. Are we having another semantic argument? Do i really need to say 'mass' of the muscle instead of 'size' to make you happy? 5/Maximum potential muscle size is genetic. 6/Just because a muscle "can't function' without something doesn't make the other thing muscle. Muscle can't function without the skeleton either. 6/You're mistaken, there's no such documentation. 7/They change to: A/Focus on their skill of lifting heavy singles in three specific exercises, & B/To further balance the physique's proportions. 8/Because you implied that muscle size can increase without strength due to sarcoplasm, which is untrue, because myofibrillar will always come along. i continued to say that sarco/myo proportions are not due to training differences, discounting those few minutes after a pump.entually. 9/Olympic coaches focus on specific skills, and the muscles needed to carry out those skills. Getting your biceps to be in perfect proportion to your triceps isn't their concern. Prime Ron Coleman is stronger at any exercise he practices than any Olympic lifter who doesn't practice the same exercise. 10/MikeKK's example compared a strong small man to a weak big man, which has nothing to do with my point.

    11/if I can let being called an idiot roll off my back, you should be able get over your irritation.

    i'm taking a break
    c'ya!
    Reply With Quote

  26. #26
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Originally Posted by yourguy View Post
    1/Whatever you think is "very little" nonetheless makes muscle stronger.2/You have it backwards, a bigger muscle can store more ATP. Aside from that, ATP makes a muscle stronger.3/ The means by which endurance exercise increases capillary density is largely due to the muscle actually getting -smaller-. 4/Intramuscular fat is not muscle. Are we having another semantic argument? Do i really need to say 'mass' of the muscle instead of 'size' to make you happy? 5/Maximum potential muscle size is genetic. 6/Just because a muscle "can't function' without something doesn't make the other thing muscle. Muscle can't function without the skeleton either. 6/You're mistaken, there's no such documentation. 7/They change to: A/Focus on their skill of lifting heavy singles in three specific exercises, & B/To further balance the physique's proportions. 8/Because you implied that muscle size can increase without strength due to sarcoplasm, which is untrue, because myofibrillar will always come along. i continued to say that sarco/myo proportions are not due to training differences, discounting those few minutes after a pump.entually. 9/Olympic coaches focus on specific skills, and the muscles needed to carry out those skills. Getting your biceps to be in perfect proportion to your triceps isn't their concern. Prime Ron Coleman is stronger at any exercise he practices than any Olympic lifter who doesn't practice the same exercise. 10/MikeKK's example compared a strong small man to a weak big man, which has nothing to do with my point.

    11/if I can let being called an idiot roll off my back, you should be able get over your irritation.

    i'm taking a break
    Of course a bigger muscle can store more ATP but that doesn't change that the amount of ATP stored can change the size of the muscle. ATP storage has little to do with muscle strength. Endurance exercises do not make a muscle smaller and they do increase the capillary density. Intramuscular fat is part of what makes a muscle, muscle and even if you don't agree with that you ignored my other points. Mass and size ARE different but what you're really arguing about is what constitutes muscle (another off topic point). Maximum potential muscle size has nothing to do with our argument. A muscle can function without the skeleton, it can still contract. If they change their workout regime like you admit they do, than it makes logical sense that size and strength are trained differently. I did not imply either hypertrophy happens without the other and I'll quote myself... again 'I admit they overlap but depending on how you train the ratio between the two will differ', please stop trying to make a point about this and the ratio of the two hypertrophy has been documented as influenced by exercise plan and there is documentation, I WILL PROVIDE IT ONCE I FIND IT (you haven't given a single piece of scientific evidence yet). When a bodybuilder squats he also practises that skill and he will have a larger muscle than a powerlifter but a weaker one (ask anybody here who has actual experience, do you?). That is why they train different because strength isn't solely reliant on muscle mass. By mentioning biceps and triceps you obviously completely missed the point, we are talking about two people practicing the same exercise, just at different reps and sets. 'Ron Coleman is stronger at any exercise he practices than any Olympic lifter who doesn't practice the same exercise' maybe that's because he practiced the exercise, what was that comment supposed to prove? Like I said both types of hypertrophy overlap. That doesn't mean he couldn't be smaller but stronger if he trained differently and when you do an exercise you also train the CNS and other things I already mentioned. Also CNS adaptations gained from one specific exercise actually apply to other unrelated exercises. Go to google look up 'The role of the CNS' and go to the website 3dmusclejourney, it includes references and sources. Hopefully it will clear up some of your mistakes for you.
    Reply With Quote

  27. #27
    Registered User nicky_hansard's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Location: QLD, Australia
    Stats: 5'6", 158 lbs
    Posts: 48
    Rep Power: 0
    nicky_hansard will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Visit nicky_hansard's BodySpace
    nicky_hansard is offline
    Every single website/study I have come across says that strength isn't determined solely by muscle size and that a bigger muscle doesn't necessarily mean a stronger one. Do you have any evidence to refute this, or are you simply going to argue with the same points without evidence until I give up? Provide at least one study and/or website that backs up your claims. Until than it goes against logic, scientific findings and years of experience that people have developed.

    Sorting through your comments is really starting to make my head hurt.
    Reply With Quote

  28. #28
    Registered Offender gabrielsyler's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Location: Australia
    Stats: 6'0", 233 lbs
    Posts: 1,437
    Rep Power: 0
    gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) gabrielsyler is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank)
    Visit gabrielsyler's BodySpace
    gabrielsyler is offline
    sorry, stopped reading at "argument on YouTube"
    Reply With Quote

  29. #29
    Mirin Jobra? EuropeanHammer's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2012
    Location: United States
    Age: 23
    Stats: 6'0", 185 lbs
    Posts: 3,812
    Rep Power: 11894
    EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) EuropeanHammer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit EuropeanHammer's BodySpace
    EuropeanHammer is offline
    Bruce Lee weighed 130, had little muscle mass and he is much stronger than the average bodybuilder.
    Dead/Bench/ATG Squat/OHP
    405x8/220x1/275x4/135x3
    Total:1015
    http://tinyurl.com/ba82zax (link to my home invasion story)
    Houston Rockets/Serbian National Team (BBall, Soccer)
    Reply With Quote

  30. #30
    Lack of iron &or sleeping SuffolkPunch's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2007
    Location: Ipswich, Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Age: 42
    Stats: 5'11", 187 lbs
    Posts: 25,982
    BodyPoints: 1676
    Rep Power: 21928
    SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) SuffolkPunch has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit SuffolkPunch's BodySpace
    SuffolkPunch is online now
    Originally Posted by EuropeanHammer View Post
    Bruce Lee weighed 130, had little muscle mass and he is much stronger than the average bodybuilder.
    That's not true. He actually weighed closer to 165 where you see him in films where he has an impressive physique (from weight training) - which is a big number for a short guy.

    Super fast twitch fibers exist. Olympic standard sprinters and similar athletes often have them in much higher than usual concentrations than regular people. It's possible his strength (or at least relative strength) was pretty high due to this.
    Daily Undulating Periodisation log:
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=163624691
    Reply With Quote

Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Creatine Mono verse Cell-Tech Hardcore?
    By BR22 in forum Teen Bodybuilding
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:34 PM
  2. Strength is size?
    By olympic in forum Exercises
    Replies: 312
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 12:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Home Store Products Careers Help Contact Us Terms of Use Checkout