Strength is size?

[olympic]

Of course you need to add food but this is correct right?

My understanding of how a muscle grows is that it needs to get stronger and when it surpasses a certain X point it has to grow bigger for more strength gains to come and so the cycle continues?

Of course that X is different for everyone and some people really push the boundaries of X strength at a particular size because they deliberately restrict their growth. Hence why you see freaky small people lifting huge numbers?

Of course none of this takes into account bone density and strength either- I'm just referring to the muscle itself.

Cliff notes
Does strength = size as long as you add food?

[-Lucifer]

Of course you need to add food but this is correct right?

yup thats right.

[Josiah]

Nope.


Strength and size are different things. One can have very dense muscle fiber, be incredibly strong.. and not very big.


For instance, take any Rings gymnast.


Yet, few can pull off those rings moves. Big as they are, big as the numbers are.


However keep in mind, there is a LARGE difference between corrilated body strength, and specific strength in specific movements.


Hence why you have huge guys, who can lift huge iron. But could not do an iron cross to save their life.

[-Lucifer]

Nope.


Strength and size are different things. One can have very dense muscle fiber, be incredibly strong.. and not very big.


For instance, take any Rings gymnast.


Yet, few can pull off those rings moves. Big as they are, big as the numbers are.


However keep in mind, there is a LARGE difference between corrilated body strength, and specific strength in specific movements.


Hence why you have huge guys, who can lift huge iron. But could not do an iron cross to save their life.

how can you compare a gymnast with a bodybuilder?

[olympic]

Nope.


Strength and size are different things. One can have very dense muscle fiber, be incredibly strong.. and not very big.


For instance, take any Rings gymnast.


Yet, few can pull off those rings moves. Big as they are, big as the numbers are.


However keep in mind, there is a LARGE difference between corrilated body strength, and specific strength in specific movements.


Hence why you have huge guys, who can lift huge iron. But could not do an iron cross to save their life.

Thanks for your reply. I have a few questions for you?

In the case of the person with the dense muscle fiber who isn't that big isn't that just someone who has pushed the absolute boundaries of his potential strength level for his current size?

And I see your point on strength exercise specificity. Basically someone who has practiced a particular movement will appear to be far more 'stronger' then someone who hasn't. Lets take an example of 2 athletes who are almost equally proficient in a given lift as each other. Now is my argument correct?

[Josiah]

To the first question -

No. One can train for strength and not size. It's done all the time, there are many books on it, much research, etc You won't find it much on this site, because BodyBuilding is about just that, not strength building.
You can train in specific ways to make muscles stronger and not bigger.


Second question -

Yes, of course. Practiced movement, muscle memory and so forth provide that someone who practices the same movements will be inherently better at them them someone who doesn't.

Poor Example for the moment, but might work:

Tai Chi, those who practice tai chi, practice particular movements, very slow, with no resitence. Now when it goes down to it, that person will be able to exicute that movement with incredible speed, dexterity and strength.
Far more then the same person, who did not practice that movement, even though person A never used restience, and the only thing they did was put their body through the motions.

[olympic]

To the first question -

No. One can train for strength and not size. It's done all the time, there are many books on it, much research, etc You won't find it much on this site, because BodyBuilding is about just that, not strength building.
You can train in specific ways to make muscles stronger and not bigger.


Second question -

Yes, of course. Practiced movement, muscle memory and so forth provide that someone who practices the same movements will be inherently better at them them someone who doesn't.

Poor Example for the moment, but might work:

Tai Chi, those who practice tai chi, practice particular movements, very slow, with no resitence. Now when it goes down to it, that person will be able to exicute that movement with incredible speed, dexterity and strength.
Far more then the same person, who did not practice that movement, even though person A never used restience, and the only thing they did was put their body through the motions.

Ok thanks.

Do you have any links to information about your reply to my first question? I would like to investigate this further thanks. I would hope to think that is more than just different rep ranges.

[-Lucifer]

You can train in specific ways to make muscles stronger and not bigger.

Got a link bro? TIA.

[Josiah]

http://www.amazon.com/How-Climb-5-12.../dp/1575400839

A decent text on training muscle fiber for strength of various kinds unrelated to size.



If you want "proof" here it is -


Any Rings gymnast can pull body weight moves that few can handle.. hence if you watch the olympics. They do what they do.


Proof - How many people you think on this forum can pull off an Iron Cross?

That's a body weight movement, that requires absurdly high strength.

[olympic]

http://www.amazon.com/How-Climb-5-12.../dp/1575400839

A decent text on training muscle fiber for strength of various kinds unrelated to size.



If you want "proof" here it is -


Any Rings gymnast can pull body weight moves that few can handle.. hence if you watch the olympics. They do what they do.


Proof - How many people you think on this forum can pull off an Iron Cross?

That's a body weight movement, that requires absurdly high strength.

That was a link to a climbing book? Got a link to something I can read about this on the Internet?

Also those 2 examples you gave- those are just examples of more exercise specifity aren't they?

[college125]

[QUOTE=olympic;47633401]Of course you need to add food but this is correct right?

size need to lift heavy all is not size also want some powerfull muscle

ronnie have big muscles right?


but johnie jackson is more powerfull then ronnie he is small then ronnie but Strenght in muscle is recommanded


But size is not All

[Josiah]

That was a link to a climbing book? Got a link to something I can read about this on the Internet?

Also those 2 examples you gave- those are just examples of more exercise specifity aren't they?

Ya sorry, published training books are just that. You serious about research, then research the subject. If your lazyness goes only so far as to read what you can for free, from you nice office chair... then it's pointless anyway isn't it?


No. Because a compound body movement is just that, it requires absolute, compound strength of the body. A rings movement is not a very specific, very small range of motion, using and targeting 1 muscle group.

There is no exercise of free movement/rep that compares to massive compound movements like an Iron Cross.

Ok, I will give you that an Iron Cross involves no leg work.


Fucking A people blow me away, you know sir, I'm going to say just like what you said to one of my professors.

"Excuse me Prof, is there any way you can just spoon feed me that info? Cause I like to learn with the littlest effort...."

[olympic]

Ya sorry, published training books are just that. You serious about research, then research the subject. If your lazyness goes only so far as to read what you can for free, from you nice office chair... then it's pointless anyway isn't it?


No. Because a compound body movement is just that, it requires absolute, compound strength of the body. A rings movement is not a very specific, very small range of motion, using and targeting 1 muscle group.

There is no exercise of free movement/rep that compares to massive compound movements like an Iron Cross.

Ok, I will give you that an Iron Cross involves no leg work.


Fucking A people blow me away, you know sir, I'm going to say just like what you said to one of my professors.

"Excuse me Prof, is there any way you can just spoon feed me that info? Cause I like to learn with the littlest effort...."

Settle down mate... there was no need to get angry about this. It's not that I'm lazy I just don't want to spend money to find out about this.... this is a forum you know so I expected to just have a mature discussion about this.

Anyway.. thanks for your help- I'll have a look around I guess, but I would have thought you would like to backup your claims a little more.

[-Lucifer]

Ya sorry, published training books are just that. You serious about research, then research the subject. If your lazyness goes only so far as to read what you can for free, from you nice office chair... then it's pointless anyway isn't it?


No. Because a compound body movement is just that, it requires absolute, compound strength of the body. A rings movement is not a very specific, very small range of motion, using and targeting 1 muscle group.

There is no exercise of free movement/rep that compares to massive compound movements like an Iron Cross.

Ok, I will give you that an Iron Cross involves no leg work.


Fucking A people blow me away, you know sir, I'm going to say just like what you said to one of my professors.

"Excuse me Prof, is there any way you can just spoon feed me that info? Cause I like to learn with the littlest effort...."

Are you a rock climber?

[TheDeepBlue]

talking about the same guy(so the same levers,same fiber density etc.)
more muscle=more strength
that doesnt mean thats the only way to increase strength though, there are also other factors such as fiber types and CNS

from person to person though it differs, because there are many other facts in strength then just the amount of muscle mass.

[Tins2007]

A lot of it, like anything physical is indivudual. Paul Dillet, may not be as strong as Ronnie Coleman, but has the potential to be bigger, because of his height. Of course, mr.dillet didnt get that huge curling pink dumbbells, but he needn't deadlift 800lbs either...However, he would have to get stronger, there is no question.

It's easy, strength does equal size, but the biggest bodybuilder isn't the strongest person on the planet, however you go about defining that. Alls it means is if the individual is stronger, they will be bigger, relative to someone else. It doesn't automatically mean they'll be the biggest or strongest guy on the planet, though, because there are other factors here. Thats the way of the world.

He is taller, and while he may not have the idea measurements for a strongman, or something else, he can be bigger. If you have two people, the taller one is doing twice the work when he lifts the same weight, again it's relative.

Another example is franco columbu..stronger than Arnold, maybe by 50lbs or more on max lifts, when it comes to the crunch. Yet quite a bit smaller i think, weren't columbu's arms like 16.7 or 17" at his best? I think Arnold's were around 19" contest and 20.5-21 biggest offseason at his biggest, but thats my opinion...however, Arnold himself still had to get stronger. Many people would use this to prove ''strength doesnt equal size!" when infact it proves the opposite. It's just an individual difference, and thats it.

Whichever way you look at it, ruhl, ronnie, franco, zane, whoever, all had to get stronger than they were previously, regardless if the smaller one is the strongest. The saying it's not about how much you lift, but how much you look like you can is 100% true, but if you can lift 800lb and look like you can then thats all the better.

[Uriel_da_man]

Strength (absolute intensity) is only one of the ingredients for building muscle.

Don't make the way too frequent mistake of missing the whole picture.

[Uriel_da_man]

but johnie jackson is more powerfull then ronnie

Squat and deadlift, MAYBE.

Everything else JoJ gets pwnd.

Just had to point it out, sorry

[Defiant1]

Of course you need to add food but this is correct right?

My understanding of how a muscle grows is that it needs to get stronger and when it surpasses a certain X point it has to grow bigger for more strength gains to come and so the cycle continues?

Of course that X is different for everyone and some people really push the boundaries of X strength at a particular size because they deliberately restrict their growth. Hence why you see freaky small people lifting huge numbers?

Of course none of this takes into account bone density and strength either- I'm just referring to the muscle itself.

Cliff notes
Does strength = size as long as you add food?

Strength consists of (trainable factors):

Skill
Neuromuscular efficiency
myofibrillar hypertrophy of certain myofibrils-high threshold

Of the three, only the last one directly affects size.

Size consists of (trainable factors):

Myofibrillar hypertrophy of all myofibrils
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (non contractile elements of muscle...not non-FUNCTIONAL...people confuse this)
nutrient supercompensation (glycogen etc-related to the second one)

So, there is some overlap.

Strength development will contribute to size, but training for strength is not the optimum way to train for size.

[ThickAsABrick]

Don't make the way too frequent mistake of missing the whole picture.

Strength development will contribute to size, but training for strength is not the optimum way to train for size.

/thread

[PhreEkGarden]

But wouldnt it be more efficient to focus on strength before trying to 'train for size'?

[Uriel_da_man]

But wouldnt it be more efficient to focus on strength before trying to 'train for size'?

That's the usual argument.

I say if that applies then so does focusing first on size for powerlifters and then training for strength.

[ThickAsABrick]

But wouldnt it be more efficient to focus on strength before trying to 'train for size'?

It isn't necessary to focus on only one IMO (unless you're paying someone who tells you it is)

You can focus on both from the start. If BBing is someone's ultimate goal anyway, not sure why they would ever completely put size on teh back burner.

But whatever.

[ThickAsABrick]

I say if that applies then so does focusing first on size for powerlifters and then training for strength.

lol

*repped*

[PhreEkGarden]

It isn't necessary to focus on only one IMO (unless you're paying someone who tells you it is)

Lol, dick. But no, IA never said that...

Now im doing a westside routine which is giving me plenty of size gain from all the assistance rep work. Which seems to be driving my maxes up.

Btw, I wasnt trying to say thats the way it is. Just a simple thought I had... Uriel's comment about powerlifters focusing on size etc is a good analogy heh. Makes sense...

[Uriel_da_man]

Btw, I wasnt trying to say thats the way it is. Just a simple thought I had... Uriel's comment about powerlifters focusing on size etc is a good analogy heh. Makes sense...

My point is that all weightlifting will stimulate both strength and size, it's just an issue of a "slider". On one side you have strength, on the other you have size, and where you keep the slider is down to your goals.

If your goal is all on the size side I don't see why you'd waste time with the slider on the strength side.

[feltmann]

Nope.


Strength and size are different things. One can have very dense muscle fiber, be incredibly strong.. and not very big.
For instance, take any Rings gymnast.
Yet, few can pull off those rings moves. Big as they are, big as the numbers are.
However keep in mind, there is a LARGE difference between corrilated body strength, and specific strength in specific movements.
Hence why you have huge guys, who can lift huge iron. But could not do an iron cross to save their life.

I remember one interesting thing I noticed when watching 96 Olympics in the gymnasts is out of the top contenders one had very large well developed arms & shoulders while the other was just average looking. Their performance was virtually the same & they probably train exactly the same way. Some people just gain muscle more easily. It can be argued that maybe their muscle is less efficient coz they need more of it to do the same job.

[Duckenheimer]

It isn't necessary to focus on only one IMO (unless you're paying someone who tells you it is)

You can focus on both from the start. If BBing is someone's ultimate goal anyway, not sure why they would ever completely put size on teh back burner.

But whatever.

x2

[ThickAsABrick]

x2

Whoa, we agree on something

*hoists a pint of Guinness*

[Duckenheimer]

Whoa, we agree on something

*hoists a pint of Guinness*

Eugh. How can anyone drink Guinness...