i just hope everyone understands that Powerlifters do a lot of high rep training also, a la bodybuilding style.
There’s a kid at my gym that has pencil arms and a chicken chest, he puts up 3 plates. might just be genetic, or maybe he doesn’t eat to gain.
An significant increase in strength will mean an increase in size, period. How much of an increase in size is the result of many factors.
But no one gets significantly stronger without getting bigger muscles.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This poor woman has NO BOOBIEZ AT ALL.[/quote]
fixed.
[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This poor woman has NO BOOBIEZ AT ALL.
fixed.[/quote]
DAT ASS!
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I agree that everyone with a 400lbs bench will have a muscular chest. So as you grow stronger you grow larger. We all know that. But what about this: Does Size = Strength? I see alot of lifters with very good size and muscularity but the strength does not match up. Why?
I have seen guys come into the gym and go to 405 bench cold, and do it for 10-12 reps. No chest size at all. Yes his chest was outlined and all but no size. Clearly if he followed the notion of strength = size, his chest should be very muscular. But his chest and arms are not.
The strange thing is that i noticed for all the guys who train they all train differently to get their results. For some it’s always heavy, for some it’s volume, for some it’s intensity regardless of light or heavy weights. One particular large muscular individual said the best is to do completely different exercises each session, or always change the order.
But like i said they did it differently. They didn’t follow any routine. I guess it could be said their routine is in not having one. [/quote]
its possible to get very strong without getting bigger, i know from experience. it requires more volume. i managed to lift 220kg in deadlift just by training one working set every workout (a HIT routine).
Schwarzenegger weighed in at 235 @ 6 ft 2. Now this guy who is shorter and weighs only 5 pounds less looks small?
More strength generally does equal more size, but not every super strong person is necessarily huge. I think raw strength has more to do with neural efficiency then muscle size.
[quote]BigSeen wrote:
Strength and hypertrophy training are very different connected by a loose gray area. Some of the time big and strong do go together, but alot of the time “smaller” athletes can lift a shit load:
Power = 1-3 reps
Strength = 4-5 reps
Hypertrophy = 8-10 Reps
Being strong has more to do with innervation of motor units rather than cross sectional fiber size. Which is why some skinny guys can bench 405. It is also why sometimes a rather muscular person lifts less weight then he/she looks like they can. The hypertrophy is there, but their nervous system lacks the ability to fire in a way lift heavy shit.
[/quote]
Look at the damn legs on that guy. He is not skinny. Also he would be a lot bigger but he is probably trying to eat to stay in a specific WEIGHT CLASS.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
JonEightPackGuy wrote:
MODOK wrote:
BigSeen wrote:
Strength and hypertrophy training are very different connected by a loose gray area. Some of the time big and strong do go together, but alot of the time “smaller” athletes can lift a shit load:
Power = 1-3 reps
Strength = 4-5 reps
Hypertrophy = 8-10 Reps
Being strong has more to do with innervation of motor units rather than cross sectional fiber size. Which is why some skinny guys can bench 405. It is also why sometimes a rather muscular person lifts less weight then he/she looks like they can. The hypertrophy is there, but their nervous system lacks the ability to fire in a way lift heavy shit.
Please post a video of a skinny guy benching 405.
And did you happen to notice the quads and ass on the guy on the video you posted? Looks pretty damn big to me.
he about 230lbs 
Right. At that strength level you’d expect a chest like Schwarzenegger. But he almost looks average. So if he benches 800 he can surely bang out reps with 405, even cold. Im not saying it’s good for the joints but he could.
[/quote]
What is wrong with you? The guy in that video is ‘Jackass’, if you go to this thread: you can see his chest/shoulders are not fucking small.
And he is about 260+ lbs in that video, NOT 230. He is 230lb after he cuts down (and loses a small amount of muscle)
http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/pictures_pics_photo_body_image_performance/jackass_1
Also, powerlifters lift the weight in any way they can, they dont just focus on contracting their chest to lift it.
He is also in A BENCH SHIRT which drastically increases the amount of poundage you can lift on bench press (+300lbs or so).
That guy is not ‘average’. Get a fucking clue.
[quote]criminaldude wrote:
Aye, size is a result of training for VOLUME. PERIOD.
Strength is due to ligament conditioning, neurotropic development and parliamentary hypertrophy (sp?).
Volume confusion and tension extension = size. PERIOD.[/quote]
That’s funny. Because my quads have gone from 20" to 27" in 6 months.
All I have done for them was Squats (never gone past 3 reps, always worked up to ONE ALL OUT WORK SET), and deadlifts (same routine as squats). With 1 accessory lift ramping to another top set of 4-6 reps.
Thats is 4 sets for legs a week.
Volume = size? No.
[quote]hardgnr wrote:
Schwarzenegger weighed in at 235 @ 6 ft 2. Now this guy who is shorter and weighs only 5 pounds less looks small?
More strength generally does equal more size, but not every super strong person is necessarily huge. I think raw strength has more to do with neural efficiency then muscle size.[/quote]
Actually, that guy is 260lbs, and when he cuts down he is still 2lbs heavier than Arnold.
I like how they call these people ‘average’ in poor quality youtube videos and from probably 100 yards away in RL.
GO STAND NEXT TO THESE GUYS before you call them average.
[quote]Hotlover wrote:
its possible to get very strong without getting bigger, i know from experience. it requires more volume. i managed to lift 220kg in deadlift just by training one working set every workout (a HIT routine).
[/quote]
Wise choice – HIT – for not getting bigger.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hotlover wrote:
its possible to get very strong without getting bigger, i know from experience. it requires more volume. i managed to lift 220kg in deadlift just by training one working set every workout (a HIT routine).
Wise choice – HIT – for not getting bigger.[/quote]
of all the things i have tried to gain size, nothing sucked more than HIT.
You know, as you get stronger and increase weight in your lifts, the volume will gradually increase… so… this is relatively self-defeating to the whole volume vs. intensity thing. I could go to the gym and bench 135 for a 6x10, and still only lift 8100 total volume, while a power lifter could come in and lift a 5x5 for 400 and have 10,000 total volume.
5 less reps per set, one less set, more volume. Wait… VOLUME AND HUGE WEIGHTS?!
[quote]Hotlover wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I agree that everyone with a 400lbs bench will have a muscular chest. So as you grow stronger you grow larger. We all know that. But what about this: Does Size = Strength? I see alot of lifters with very good size and muscularity but the strength does not match up. Why?
I have seen guys come into the gym and go to 405 bench cold, and do it for 10-12 reps. No chest size at all. Yes his chest was outlined and all but no size. Clearly if he followed the notion of strength = size, his chest should be very muscular. But his chest and arms are not.
The strange thing is that i noticed for all the guys who train they all train differently to get their results. For some it’s always heavy, for some it’s volume, for some it’s intensity regardless of light or heavy weights. One particular large muscular individual said the best is to do completely different exercises each session, or always change the order.
But like i said they did it differently. They didn’t follow any routine. I guess it could be said their routine is in not having one.
its possible to get very strong without getting bigger, i know from experience. it requires more volume. i managed to lift 220kg in deadlift just by training one working set every workout (a HIT routine).
[/quote]
how long did it take and what was your starting point?
come on, no one comes into the the gym and benches 405 without warming up to it,
once at my gym i saw dude warm up with 225 as his first set, and he was an all out beast
After scrolling through over 4 pages of this thread I still have no idea what the OP was expecting to get out of it when he started it. Some kind of formula that predicts strength from size?
More anecdotal evidence of size reflecting / not reflecting strength (that doesn’t prove anything by the way)? I should think that it is pretty evident to everyone that strength and size have a positive correlation, but the correlation is far too complicated to measure due to the presence of several other contributing factors.
We don’t seem to have concluded anything much more than that after several pages of heated debate over the issue, and I doubt we ever will.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I have seen guys come into the gym and go to 405 bench cold, and do it for 10-12 reps. No chest size at all.
Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.
I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.
Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?
[/quote]
Gregus, you have to use the KISS rule for some readers here, it’s Keep It Simple…seems like the alleged “professor” is relieving stress on you, don’t take it personal, he cannot treat people like that in the real world and get away with it. lol
It obviously varies.
My thighs are 26 inches now, on a normal bf. I can still see my 4 upper abs, and some delination between my posterior, anterior and lateral deltoids.
I can squat 220 for maybe 6 or 7 reps on a good day.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.[/quote]
on a side note his waist looks a little large.