Strength = Size?

LankyMofo · July 24, 2009, 6:23pm

[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
Goodfellow wrote:
Oh my god this thread is getting even worse.

It’s becoming a pointless discussion… too many T-Nation meatheads too busy to discuss because it gets in the way of hitting the gym, ordering more supplements, and taking photos of themselves to post on the internet.

Yeah, my brother was wondering why I post so many photos of myself when I am just a small little fatass, but “to each his own” I say.[/quote]

Lol, why do you point out how small, fat, and weak you are in every one of your posts?

dankid · July 24, 2009, 6:24pm

[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
dankid wrote:

What type of mass are you talking about? I can gain back all of my fat that I lost and MORE and become 250+lbs, but the fact that I can only lift pink dumbbells will make me look like a fat/obese couch potato AGAIN.

[/quote]

The type of mass you add is going to depend on a number of things, the main one being lifting heavy weights (ala strength). Im not saying you can gain 50 lbs by just eating and not lifting, but you definately wont gain by lifting and not eating.

hawaiilifterMike · July 24, 2009, 6:26pm

[quote]Crusher Jr. wrote:

Let me guess, you’re going take a picture of your bicep flexed in the mirror to prove your point.[/quote]

You would be surprised but very few people with big arms post their pics in the 17", 18" and 19" arm treads. It leads me to believe that their arms are either smaller than the stated measurement or that said arm is fat (like mine) and should not be counted as legitimate (although a certain amount of bulking is necessary to end up with a bigger arm when leaning up).

hawaiilifterMike · July 24, 2009, 6:35pm

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Lol, why do you point out how small, fat, and weak you are in every one of your posts?[/quote]

That is the only way to motivate myself to change for the better. I felt small at 247lbs, but now I feel microscopic - soon to be nanoscopic:)

brian_m · July 24, 2009, 6:37pm

[quote]dankid wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
dankid wrote:

What type of mass are you talking about? I can gain back all of my fat that I lost and MORE and become 250+lbs, but the fact that I can only lift pink dumbbells will make me look like a fat/obese couch potato AGAIN.

The type of mass you add is going to depend on a number of things, the main one being lifting heavy weights (ala strength). Im not saying you can gain 50 lbs by just eating and not lifting, but you definately wont gain by lifting and not eating.
[/quote]

why do you (and many others) seem to find the need to clear this up (oh where would we be?)…when was this Reasonably disputed ever as the fastest way for most people? -yes there are exceptions to most rules(oh breakthrough!)

fuck, its Almost as if highschool is out for the summer and people are bored at home

dankid · July 24, 2009, 6:38pm

[quote]Crusher Jr. wrote:
I’m not sure how this thread has derailed from page 1 - 11 but the OP brings up an interesting topic of discussion. From my experience and education size and strength are related but they are not tied as tightly as most people would think.

As a matter of fact, determining strength is somewhat of a puzzle in itself. In which way do you define it? Ultimately it comes down to Power vs. Strength or to a lesser extent (and in my opinion more accurate) slow speed strength vs fast speed strength. But that could become an entirely different topic of discussion if you get to much into it.

What I’m trying to get at is contractile strength under various stimuli. And I think ‘periodization’(in whatever form you may or may not practice) is a good method to examine the difference. Tearing muscle from my experience is more likely to come from slow eccentric phases under a high % of load. The pump and the tearing provide the muscle with more visual “size”. Mainly that’s what is happening while some strength increases do occur.

However, if you look at training with extremely low reps with a very high % of load then you can start to see a stronger contractile strength. More stress/demand is going to be placed on the muscle groups developing the protein strands on the muscle filaments. Hypertrophy can occur but not nearly as much.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors working at the same time in each lift, but the way in which you train will focus on one aspect more then another. This is why I believe that strength (if you see it as moving the most weight) can be achieved through training that’s not solely designed around hypertrophy, even though it may still occur.

What the OP describes is sparse and doesn’t provide much detail but just think of Bruce Lee. How much did he weigh? How big were his thighs, waist, biceps, back, etc. in comparison to modern bodybuilders? And how strong was he?

I think we all know the answer to the last question.[/quote]

Crusher, you are on the right track here, but I think you over-complicated things. If you have access to it, check out “Science and practice of strength training” it pretty much covers everything and makes it really clear. In very simplified explanation, nobody is even close to tapping into all of their strength potential, thus for most people strength gains can be made to a very high level without much change in muscle mass. This is why people that weigh 170 can build a 600+ lb deadlift, whereas you’ll find 250lb people that have more “muscle” and cant do half of that. Genetics and drugs play a HUGE role in this as well, but I think were the “successful” members are right, is that you have to keep things simple. A basic understanding of myofibril and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and nutrition is all that is needed to understand training for size (for most of us)

***Check out Ironradio on Itunes. Its a free podcast, and they recently had a similar discussion and talked about training for size vs. training for strength, and trying to get big without getting strong, etc.

Crusher_Jr · July 24, 2009, 6:54pm

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
Goodfellow wrote:
Oh my god this thread is getting even worse.

It’s becoming a pointless discussion… too many T-Nation meatheads too busy to discuss because it gets in the way of hitting the gym, ordering more supplements, and taking photos of themselves to post on the internet.

I hope you realize how much sense this post didn’t make. As in, it didn’t make any.

I think it makes sense. Plus, my intention was to piss some people off, which I think will work.

No…we’re just laughing at you again for thinking you actually make sense.

Sure it does.

It’s a false generalization, just like you (amoung others) calling people sissies/pussies and really not bothering to talk about size vs. stregnth. Actually I believe you posted a picture of yourself versus some other guy to prove your point which makes absolutely no real argument. Talk about not making any sense.

If you want to laugh at me go back to what I orgionally posted about it and tell me why it’s funny. You had almost nothing of value to say.

Your statement was a walking contradiction. First you say it’s a pointless discussion, then say we’re all too busy to discuss anything.

Booyah, score 1 for the non-gheys![/quote]

It’s a pointless discussion because there isn’t much of value being said from the other side. How is that a contradiction?

bwhitwell · July 25, 2009, 10:00am

As I have said in other posts, HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU TELL A 270 LB MAN WITH 20+ IN ARMS WHO CAN BP 405X10 THAT HE DOSEN’T KNOW HOW TO GET SIZE AND STRENGTH!!!

Invictica · July 25, 2009, 10:13am

You guys over complicate everything.

actionjeff · July 25, 2009, 10:55am

[quote]Therizza wrote:
even if the example is bullshit, which it more than like is, big=strong, but based on training methodology bodybuilders will probably have better muscular development than, say, a powerlifter with similar lifts.[/quote]

yeah, seems fair. I wonder if this would be less true if you removed drugs from the picture?

Anyway, no doubt there’s a very strong positive correlation between strength and size.

I think there are some other considerations though. When we are talking about a 1RM in a specific movement, neurological efficiency (among other factors) plays a huge role. Bench happens to be an awesome exercise for the chest, but as some have pointed out different techniques, ROM, anatomical factors, etc are going to make a difference in ability to move a certain load as well as muscle recruitment.

Usually not a big difference, until you look at the extremes in both directions. As in, take an advanced powerlifter moving some sick weight for 1 rep, and compare to a bodybuilder with a similar 1RM who usually works across sets of 10 where their muscles are under tension from a maximal load for a good 30 seconds- well, I don’t have to tell you who will have a bigger chest.

That_One_Guy · July 26, 2009, 5:23pm

Keep winning those e-battles, they’re what’s really important.

red04 · July 26, 2009, 8:26pm

[quote]dankid wrote:

Crusher, you are on the right track here, but I think you over-complicated things. If you have access to it, check out “Science and practice of strength training” it pretty much covers everything and makes it really clear.

In very simplified explanation, nobody is even close to tapping into all of their strength potential, thus for most people strength gains can be made to a very high level without much change in muscle mass. This is why people that weigh 170 can build a 600+ lb deadlift, whereas you’ll find 250lb people that have more “muscle” and cant do half of that.

Genetics and drugs play a HUGE role in this as well, but I think were the “successful” members are right, is that you have to keep things simple. A basic understanding of myofibril and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and nutrition is all that is needed to understand training for size (for most of us)

***Check out Ironradio on Itunes. Its a free podcast, and they recently had a similar discussion and talked about training for size vs. training for strength, and trying to get big without getting strong, etc.

[/quote]

I would love to see a muscular 250lb person that can’t DL 300 lbs, because I’m fairly sure every 16 year old high school football player with a coach that actually has them do the lift, can successfully accomplish this.

Not a single person here has disputed neurological efficiency and motor recruitment and their effect on strength gains, but you seem to be disputing that MUSCLE GAIN doesn’t make a person stronger, which is scientifically impossible.

This does not mean the biggest person will be the strongest, but they will be damn strong, and quite amazingly the strongest people on this planet, are big as hell on the side.

Also, this supposed bodybuilder that you see all the time for years now(yet just remembered all of a suddenly) lifts light weight FOR VERY HIGH REPS by your own admission. I’m not sure what you consider “very high reps” but I wonder, what kind of weight do you expect people to be doing for this type of training, supramaximal?

Professor_X · July 26, 2009, 9:42pm

[quote]red04 wrote:

I would love to see a muscular 250lb person that can’t DL 300 lbs,[/quote]

I don’t think people like that exist. These huge bodybuilders who are somehow weaker than the average high school football player seem to only exist in the imaginations of these guys who try just a little too hard to act as if big muscles don’t mean strength.

bwhitwell · July 26, 2009, 9:45pm

From experience, not science, to get big and strong, I need both, heavy and moderate weight. The key ingrediant is EFFORT when training, use as much weight as possible with good form in the chosen rep range. It is up to the individual to find thru trial and error the combination that works for them.

Crusher_Jr · July 27, 2009, 4:18am

See I pretty much agree with this, but it really depends on what strength is defined as.

What about a bodybuilder vs. a pro athlete? or vs. a gymnast? The size of each are considerably different but their strengths and abilities are quite different. I hardly think any typical BB would attempt to add plyometrics into his/her workout or throw up a pair of rings, nor would it serve them any purpose for their specific goals.

actionjeff · July 27, 2009, 10:58am

[quote]MODOK wrote:
actionjeff wrote:
Therizza wrote:

yeah, seems fair. I wonder if this would be less true if you removed drugs from the picture?

I forgot that powerlifters don’t use drugs.[/quote]

I was a little unclear. Different drug setups for different training methods and goals. Compare Sheiko and a bodybuilding plan. Russian Restoratives for the win.

I was suggesting that, for a natural lifter, the correlation between size and strength might be even stronger. and is already very, very strong of course.

I’d make the same argument for rep ranges. I’d have a lot more faith in a guy benching 405 for 10 being comparably muscular to another guy lifting the same 10RM, than between two guys who both have the same raw 1RM of 455. Anatomy, technique, movement efficiency, etc.

I’ll always have faith in the guys training as bodybuilders with the same “strength” to be bigger on average, is my point

actionjeff · July 27, 2009, 10:54am

[quote]Crusher Jr. wrote:

I would love to see a muscular 250lb person that can’t DL 300 lbs, because I’m fairly sure every 16 year old high school football player with a coach that actually has them do the lift, can successfully accomplish this.

Not a single person here has disputed neurological efficiency and motor recruitment and their effect on strength gains, but you seem to be disputing that MUSCLE GAIN doesn’t make a person stronger, which is scientifically impossible.

This does not mean the biggest person will be the strongest, but they will be damn strong, and quite amazingly the strongest people on this planet, are big as hell on the side.

See I pretty much agree with this, but it really depends on what strength is defined as.

What about a bodybuilder vs. a pro athlete? or vs. a gymnast? The size of each are considerably different but their strengths and abilities are quite different. I hardly think any typical BB would attempt to add plyometrics into his/her workout or throw up a pair of rings, nor would it serve them any purpose for their specific goals.
[/quote]

what’s your point though?

If its that you want to start a fund for Professor X to do some gymnastics, then I’m in. Otherwise not sure where this is going.

Crusher_Jr · July 27, 2009, 10:05pm

[quote]actionjeff wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:

I would love to see a muscular 250lb person that can’t DL 300 lbs, because I’m fairly sure every 16 year old high school football player with a coach that actually has them do the lift, can successfully accomplish this.

Not a single person here has disputed neurological efficiency and motor recruitment and their effect on strength gains, but you seem to be disputing that MUSCLE GAIN doesn’t make a person stronger, which is scientifically impossible.

This does not mean the biggest person will be the strongest, but they will be damn strong, and quite amazingly the strongest people on this planet, are big as hell on the side.

See I pretty much agree with this, but it really depends on what strength is defined as.

What about a bodybuilder vs. a pro athlete? or vs. a gymnast? The size of each are considerably different but their strengths and abilities are quite different. I hardly think any typical BB would attempt to add plyometrics into his/her workout or throw up a pair of rings, nor would it serve them any purpose for their specific goals.

what’s your point though?

If its that you want to start a fund for Professor X to do some gymnastics, then I’m in. Otherwise not sure where this is going.

[/quote]

Yeah, sorry if I was unclear. I’m trying to keep the argument simple.

Like the quote above stated, I believe with strength comes size, no question. I don’t think hypertrophy can be avoided with any strength gains. To suggest the opposite seems to go against anything I’ve ever read or seen. Got it? Good. I don’t think anyone is really disputing that.

Moving on… I WAS suggesting earlier that there are certain ways to train that will produce more muscle hypertrophy, or strength, or stamina, or athletic ability. Some here dispute that and that’s fine. I really don’t want to waste my time arguing that point. So again to keep the argument simple I’ll move on from that.

To my point, I was simply comparing the physiques of bodybuilders with athletes/gymnasts because the way they train are very different and on the same side of the coin so are their physiques, yet they both demonstrate large volumes of strength.

My argument will go no where, however, if anyone here believes that the strongest person is defined by whomever can deadlift or bench the most weight, or perhaps pull the biggest RV while strapped to it. If so, then T-Nation has done quite a number on you… and you should probably just stop reading this post. If not then consider other forms of strength/exercise (ex. calisthenics, plyometrics, etc.)

My belief is that the strongest people in the world are in the world of gymnasts. What they can do is actually quite unbelievable. Yes, they are ripped and quite big but nowhere near the size of say a Ronnie Coleman. And why? Because they aim to do different things. Bodybuilders are going to the look, size, and symmetry while gymnasts and going for performance. Again, take a look at some of the things they can do.

Look @ 4:15 on the video and I dare anyone to tell me that he isn’t demonstrating a massive amount of strength. Now let’s take Ronnie Coleman and see if he can pull it off. Not in a million years, yet he has more muscle mass. He should be stronger right? I think you get the point.

And in no way shape or form does this have anything to do with professor x. If he wants to try gymnastics, cool go for it, but the fact that his head is bigger then the moon is the only reason why people talk about him. He looks to be a big dude but WTF cares? Really.

Sentoguy · July 28, 2009, 4:05am

[quote]Crusher Jr. wrote:
actionjeff wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:

I would love to see a muscular 250lb person that can’t DL 300 lbs, because I’m fairly sure every 16 year old high school football player with a coach that actually has them do the lift, can successfully accomplish this.

Not a single person here has disputed neurological efficiency and motor recruitment and their effect on strength gains, but you seem to be disputing that MUSCLE GAIN doesn’t make a person stronger, which is scientifically impossible.

This does not mean the biggest person will be the strongest, but they will be damn strong, and quite amazingly the strongest people on this planet, are big as hell on the side.

See I pretty much agree with this, but it really depends on what strength is defined as.

What about a bodybuilder vs. a pro athlete? or vs. a gymnast? The size of each are considerably different but their strengths and abilities are quite different. I hardly think any typical BB would attempt to add plyometrics into his/her workout or throw up a pair of rings, nor would it serve them any purpose for their specific goals.

what’s your point though?

If its that you want to start a fund for Professor X to do some gymnastics, then I’m in. Otherwise not sure where this is going.

Yeah, sorry if I was unclear. I’m trying to keep the argument simple.

Like the quote above stated, I believe with strength comes size, no question. I don’t think hypertrophy can be avoided with any strength gains. To suggest the opposite seems to go against anything I’ve ever read or seen. Got it? Good. I don’t think anyone is really disputing that.

Moving on… I WAS suggesting earlier that there are certain ways to train that will produce more muscle hypertrophy, or strength, or stamina, or athletic ability. Some here dispute that and that’s fine. I really don’t want to waste my time arguing that point. So again to keep the argument simple I’ll move on from that.

To my point, I was simply comparing the physiques of bodybuilders with athletes/gymnasts because the way they train are very different and on the same side of the coin so are their physiques, yet they both demonstrate large volumes of strength.

My argument will go no where, however, if anyone here believes that the strongest person is defined by whomever can deadlift or bench the most weight, or perhaps pull the biggest RV while strapped to it. If so, then T-Nation has done quite a number on you… and you should probably just stop reading this post. If not then consider other forms of strength/exercise (ex. calisthenics, plyometrics, etc.)

My belief is that the strongest people in the world are in the world of gymnasts. What they can do is actually quite unbelievable. Yes, they are ripped and quite big but nowhere near the size of say a Ronnie Coleman. And why? Because they aim to do different things. Bodybuilders are going to the look, size, and symmetry while gymnasts and going for performance. Again, take a look at some of the things they can do.

Look @ 4:15 on the video and I dare anyone to tell me that he isn’t demonstrating a massive amount of strength. Now let’s take Ronnie Coleman and see if he can pull it off. Not in a million years, yet he has more muscle mass. He should be stronger right? I think you get the point.
[/quote]

Muscular strength is defined as a muscle’s ability to generate force. Gymnasts are very good at supporting and manipulating their own bodyweight. But they are usually very light (5’7" 170 lbs would be huge for a high level gymnast), which makes it a lot easier. Yes, they’re good at doing what they do, but that doesn’t make them “stronger” than someone like Coleman.

Look at 1:18 on the video and I dare you to tell me that the (heck any) gymnast in that video could ever, in a million years do that. He couldn’t, couldn’t even come close, probably around 1/2 and that being an elite gymnast and former circus strongman (Yuri Van Gelder).

There’s no two ways about it, Coleman is the stronger man, by FAR. Van Gelder is by far the better gymnast though, and might actually be stronger in relation to his weight; which isn’t the same thing as being stronger in an absolute sense, which is what people have been saying all along.

red04 · July 28, 2009, 4:32am