Correlation between muscle size and lifting ability?

[lfcmichael]

Just wondering about this, because I have relatively little muscle, particularly in my arms. My gym is popular with students and a lot of them seem to have significantly bigger arms than me, yet are struggling when lifting much lower loads. How much are the two things related?

I would've expected much more in the way of visible muscle gains, as I have been practising progressive overload; equally, I struggle to understand how guys can have impressive biceps and lift much less than I do.

Any ideas on this?

[JakeSim]

Just wondering about this, because I have relatively little muscle, particularly in my arms. My gym is popular with students and a lot of them seem to have significantly bigger arms than me, yet are struggling when lifting much lower loads. How much are the two things related?

I would've expected much more in the way of visible muscle gains, as I have been practising progressive overload; equally, I struggle to understand how guys can have impressive biceps and lift much less than I do.

Any ideas on this?

I mean I'm not the strongest kid but I'm decently sized I'd say. Take my height into the mixture though. So overall, I'm not quite too sure but thought I'd give some input.

[Serpentarius]

Just wondering about this, because I have relatively little muscle, particularly in my arms. My gym is popular with students and a lot of them seem to have significantly bigger arms than me, yet are struggling when lifting much lower loads. How much are the two things related?

I would've expected much more in the way of visible muscle gains, as I have been practising progressive overload; equally, I struggle to understand how guys can have impressive biceps and lift much less than I do.

While its true slightly higher rep ranges yield more localized glycogen storage, the amount is small and you will get as big as you possibly can if you still do low rep ranges.

Any ideas on this?

They arent related, muscle size, muscle belly shape, muscle insertion, tendon length, all of this in addition to bone geometry all play a factor. How big you get is all genetics, and most average naturals wont get any bigger after a couple of years of hard training. Lifting heavier weights will allow for more adaptations for bone, connective tissue, tendon, strength, if you keep adding weight you will get bigger, how big is again a function entirely based on genetics.
I have wrists smaller than a little girls yet am moving more weight than most guys at the gym, just a function of strength training and meeting your macros in a surplus, most people dont know you need to be in a surplus so they dont make gains.

I mean I'm not the strongest kid but I'm decently sized I'd say. Take my height into the mixture though. So overall, I'm not quite too sure but thought I'd give some input.

148 lbs is pretty average for being lean (for a lifter), 165 lean at your height is pretty respectable and possible given a couple more years of training and probably genetic potential for average sized bone structure.

[msm00b]

Broadly speaking muscle size and relative strength for an individual correlate to some extent, but not so much from person to person (if that makes sense). Also, don't confuse arm size with muscle size. A 48 inch 'husky' chest may very well be a lot weaker than a lean 42 inch chest, even with identical rib cage skeletal circumference.

My muscle size has always predictably increased with strength gains, but I find myself often lifting a lot more weight than almost all guys my size as well as many of those moderately larger than me. To me, that's always something I've been proud of on the inside, walking into a busy gym and demolishing the expectations of those around me

So to answer your question ... yes and no

[DavidUnderhand]

Yes and No is the right answer unfortunately. There are guys out there pulling 450 at 150 pounds, and while exceptionally lean they are fairly small. Size will be dictated by calories. Strength will be dictated by any number of factors, primarily progressive overload and CNS (central nervous system) stimulation.

[snorkelman]

I struggle to understand how guys can have impressive biceps and lift much less than I do.

I assume you mean CURL.

But anyway, the other guys hit it pretty good. Also, look at the length of your arm. Taller, lanker guys tend to have longer humerus bones, and it is harder for them to have their arms look big.

At your height and weight I suggest that you just keep lifting, and eating for your goal.

[lfcmichael]

Thanks for all the replies. That makes a bit more sense now. I'm probably eating too little to make the gains in muscle mass, so maybe that's the aspect I need to look at.

[snorkelman]

Thanks for all the replies. That makes a bit more sense now. I'm probably eating too little to make the gains in muscle mass, so maybe that's the aspect I need to look at.

It is the most important thing you can spend your time on.

Head to the nutrition forum and read the stickies. Here is the nuts and bolts:

Energy balance is the primary dietary driver of body weight and it also impacts body composition. A chronic surplus of calories will result in increased body weight and a chronic deficit of calories will result in a loss of body weight.
In other words, in order to gain about one pound of tissue weight (as opposed to transient flux in water weight), you need to consume a total of about 3,500 calories more than you expend. And to lose about one pound of tissue weight, you have to do the opposite -- consume about 3,500 calories less than you expend.
Thus, the first step in constructing any rational diet is to get a sense of how many calories per day, on average, you should consume in order to progress towards your goals.
The average number of calories you expend per day -- called total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) -- is a function of your basal metabolic rate (BMR) and your average weekly activity level.
To estimate your BMR, it's important to have a sense of how much lean body mass (LBM) you carry. If you're not sure, post a photo or two and we can estimate your percentage body fat and, from this number and your total body weight, it's easy to estimate LBM by using the following formula:

LBM = body weight * (1 - percentage body fat)

To estimate BMR, use the the Katch-McArdle formula:

BMR = 370 + (9.8 * LBM in pounds)
or
BMR = 370 + (21.6 * LBM in kg)

The next step is to estimate average weekly activity using the following guidelines to calculate an activity factor (AF):

• 1.1 - 1.2 = Sedentary (desk job, and little formal exercise, this will be most of you students)

• 1.3 - 1.4 = Lightly Active (light daily activity and light exercise 1-3 days a week)

• 1.5 - 1.6 = Moderately Active (moderately daily Activity & moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)

• 1.7 - 1.8 = Very Active (physically demanding lifestyle & hard exercise 6-7 days a week)

• 1.9 - 2.2 = Extremely Active (athletes in endurance training or very hard physical job)

To estimate TDEE (the calories at which you will neither gain nor lose tissue weight), use the following formula:

TDEE = BMR * AF

Now that you've estimated your TDEE, it's important to refine that estimate empirically. To do so, consume an average amount of calories equal to estimated TDEE for two weeks, monitoring weight change. The results will confirm your actual TDEE.

Once you know your actually TDEE, set your caloric intake to match your goals as follows:

To maintain weight, consume an amount of calories equal to TDEE.
To lose weight, consume 10% to 20% less than TDEE.

To gain weight, consume 10% to 20% more than TDEE.

Monitor weight change via the scale and also body composition via the mirror and how clothing fits, making adjustments as needed biweekly.


Macronutrient Intake

Protein: ~0.6 to ~0.8 grams per pound of bodyweight -- the highest amount justified by research.

Fat: ~0.45 grams per pound of bodyweight -- the lowest amount implied by clinical observation.

Remaining caloric budget: whatever mix of macronutrients you prefer -- as implied by research.