Does Strength = Muscle Mass?

[fairbjosh]

I constantly hear Strength + Food (Surplus) = Muscle Mass.

But my question is, is it that Black and White or is there more variables, for example; If you're training and getting stronger in the 3-5 rep ranges can you expect to achieve the same size if you were training and getting stronger in the 10-12 rep ranges. Now let me clarifying training, this is saying the person is training the big 4 lifts; Bench, Squat, Deadlift and OHP.

[401Delta]

There is going to be a period of neural adaptation where your CNS becomes more efficient, but only up to a point at which time your muscles are going to have to pick up the slack and grow to make further strength gains.

[Heisman2]

There is a big 3 (squats/bench/deadlift); I wouldn't program 4 lifts including overhead press without also including pullups or a variation and making a big 5.

To answer your question, there is a correlation but it's not the whole story. In your example with different rep ranges a big factor to include is number of sets (ie, is volume equated?)

Early in training with noob gains there are massive strength gains quickly due to increased neuromuscular efficiency. As we get more advanced there is a better correlation of strength and skeletal muscle hypertrophy but it's certainly not 1:1.

You may like this read: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/size-vs-strength/

[fairbjosh]

There is going to be a period of neural adaptation where your CNS becomes more efficient, but only up to a point at which time your muscles are going to have to pick up the slack and grow to make further strength gains.

English please? LOL

[401Delta]

English please? LOL

Neural adaptations = the brain’s ability to recruit muscles more effectively by way of signals sent from the brain that run along the motor neuron to the muscle fiber in order to contract and perform a particular movement.

[401Delta]

There is a big 3 (squats/bench/deadlift); I wouldn't program 4 lifts including overhead press without also including pullups or a variation and making a big 5.

To answer your question, there is a correlation but it's not the whole story. In your example with different rep ranges a big factor to include is number of sets (ie, is volume equated?)

Early in training with noob gains there are massive strength gains quickly due to increased neuromuscular efficiency. As we get more advanced there is a better correlation of strength and skeletal muscle hypertrophy but it's certainly not 1:1.

You may like this read: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/size-vs-strength/

^^ Good stuff.

[fairbjosh]

Thanks for the article. Basically in noob lifters strength gains are almost 4 fold than the muscle getting biger, but when you hit a certain point Getting Stronger = Muscle Getting Bigger, right?

[Heisman2]

Thanks for the article. Basically in noob lifters strength gains are almost 4 fold than the muscle getting biger, but when you hit a certain point Getting Stronger = Muscle Getting Bigger, right?

It is a long, dense, very informative article that is worth reading in full to address the thread topic. Did you read the whole thing?

[fairbjosh]

It is a long, dense, very informative article that is worth reading in full to address the thread topic. Did you read the whole thing?

Yes I did and what something that stood out in the article was this statement "Taken together, a clear trend emerges from these studies: In untrained populations, the relationship between gains in muscle and gains in strength is very weak and tenuous, but as training status increases, the relationship strengthens"

Unless I'm missing something from the article?

[Strawng]

You may like this read: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/size-vs-strength/

Wow, I’m astonished that strength and muscle don’t correlate more strongly for more advanced trainees. It seems that strength gains certainly don’t necessarily = muscle gain even well past the novice stage.

[EjnarKolinkar]

I constantly hear Strength + Food (Surplus) = Muscle Mass.

But my question is, is it that Black and White or is there more variables

It's that black and white, and there are more variables. How many new lifters ever make it to the point where it matters, where they are maxed out on gainz from a 5x5? How many intermediate lifters spin their wheels for years because they "Change it up" so much they never make long term progress?


Hypertrophy articles galore, and lots of stuff on rep ranges here: http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/fitnes...schoenfeld.php

Early in training with noob gains there are massive strength gains quickly due to increased neuromuscular efficiency. As we get more advanced there is a better correlation of strength and skeletal muscle hypertrophy but it's certainly not 1:1.

You may like this read: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/size-vs-strength/

Muscle gain isn't 1:1 with anything though. And lets face it, untrained people have little ability to do enough work to stimulate their muscles significantly. We could say "Massive strength gainz" but in reality going from a 1 pound dumbbell to a 4 pound dumbbell is 400% and "Massive." i just don't think untrained people will see much in the way of results until they become moderately trained. I think most folks know that who have trained. Unfortunately most new lifters think they will explode in muscles day 1.

[Mrpb]

These things often get confused:

1RM strength doesn't correlate that well with muscle size (although the correlation gets stronger for more advanced trainees).

If someone's making consistent strength gains on a hypertrophy routine (majority of the lifts in ~5-10RM) there's a very high probability that they're gaining muscle.

Both are true.

[Heisman2]

Muscle gain isn't 1:1 with anything though. And lets face it, untrained people have little ability to do enough work to stimulate their muscles significantly. We could say "Massive strength gainz" but in reality going from a 1 pound dumbbell to a 4 pound dumbbell is 400% and "Massive." i just don't think untrained people will see much in the way of results until they become moderately trained. I think most folks know that who have trained. Unfortunately most new lifters think they will explode in muscles day 1.

I think it's all relative in the sense there are many studies in beginners that do show pretty nice rates of lean body mass acquisition (at times while losing bodyfat) in the first 10-12 weeks of training. Sure beginners won't go from "skinny" to "jacked" in 6 months but nice improvements in physique can certainly be appreciated in that time.

[Strawng]

These things often get confused:

1RM strength doesn't correlate that well with muscle size (although the correlation gets stronger for more advanced trainees).

If someone's making consistent strength gains on a hypertrophy routine (majority of the lifts in ~5-10RM) there's a very high probability that they're gaining muscle.

Both are true.

I’ve actually been able to increase my 10 RM at times simply by improving my overall cardiovascular endurance. Not anything major, but I’ve been able to add 5 extra lbs & do some more reps with added cardio after platueauing at a given weight & eating maintenence.

[Mrpb]

I’ve actually been able to increase my 10 RM at times simply by improving my overall cardiovascular endurance. Not anything major, but I’ve been able to add 5 extra lbs & do some more reps with added cardio after platueauing at a given weight & eating maintenence.

That's an example of incidental strength gains. What I wrote refers to consistent strength gains. That's why I used the word consistent.

[Strawng]

That's an example of incidental strength gains. What I wrote refers to consistent strength gains. That's why I used the word consistent.

Ahhh...missed that. I’m always surprised I KEEP gains I make this way despite no discernible muscle gains, but progressing week after week is another issue entirely.

[Mrpb]

Ahhh...missed that. I’m always surprised I KEEP gains I make this way despite no discernible muscle gains, but progressing week after week is another issue entirely.

For the record: I think it's incredibly hard (impossible) to accurately track small gains in real muscle tissue. Impossible to distinguish from intra muscular water, fat etc.

James Krieger was once asked what the best gauge for muscle gains was, he answered 8-10 rm performance on the 3rd set of an isolation movement, iirc.

[Strawng]

James Krieger was once asked what the best gauge for muscle gains was, he answered 8-10 rm performance on the 3rd set of an isolation movement, iirc.

Interesting. The gains I got from increased endurance did in fact only benefit my ability to push through on my compound lifts while everything else more or less plateaued. Is this another reason not to shun accessory work?

[themonkay]

So much to take into consideration....

There's definitely a correlation, but training population among people varies on definition alone greatly.

If we're talking about "advanced" from a general trainee's perspective, then I would assume the correlation is much stronger. Getting stronger in your 1rm will help improve your strength in a 10rm, and vise versa.

On the other hand, if we're talking about "advanced" from a powerlifting-focused trainee, I would assume the correlation is less. There's a difference between seeing where your 1rm ends up as part of your normal hypertrophy-focused program (the general trainee) versus seeing where your 1rm ends up as part of a routine where the intention is to actually increase that 1rm (powerlifter). More importantly, you have to factor in the actual skill of performing a 1 rep max, which has much more of an emphasis on improving neurological strength, than just muscular strength alone.

[Mrpb]

Interesting. The gains I got from increased endurance did in fact only benefit my ability to push through on my compound lifts while everything else more or less plateaued. Is this another reason not to shun accessory work?

Not in my opinion. It's just that isolation movements are a better gauge to estimate whether a particular muscle has grown.

But there in no means necessary to build a great physique. Personally I do include them though.

[Gwybodaeth]

An interesting translation:

http://www.sportivnypress.com/2014/s...n-select-team/

Some excerpts:

'Scientific data shows that maximum strength is connected with the hypertrophy of both fast and slow twitch muscle fibers; but, the increase in explosive strength is connected with the selective hypertrophy of the fast twitch fibers'

'/ fast twitch muscle fiber is more predisposed to hypertrophy by means of an accumulation of myofibril mass {11}.'

'/ a proportional increase in strength in the higher speeds of muscle contraction accompany the increase in maximum strength through of selective hypertrophy of fast muscle fibers;'

'/ the rise in maximum strength as a result of selective hypertrophy of the fast twitch muscle fibers does not lead to a significant increase in the body’s muscle mass, because there is no expressed hypertrophy of the slow twitch muscle fibers;'

'/ the relatively speaking, lesser hypertrophy of the of the slow fibers will not create additional pressure in the muscle, which would negatively impact the strength of contraction of the fast muscle fibers {12};'