Strength = Size?

Training Bodybuilding
103

[quote]wwwe wrote:
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?

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[/quote]

I have little respect for people who put “professor” in quotes as if they don’t understand where the name came from or as if my profession isn’t in my profile.

I write pretty much how I speak. I don’t have people coming up to me with most of the crap I see on this forum. This topic deserved the responses it got…but please, show us how it is done and answer the original post instead of focusing strangely on me.

104

Okay. I haven’t been in on this entire thread, because it’s mostly the same guys saying the exact same things, over and over, but I’ll add a tiny nugger, for whatever it’s worth.

I’ve had guys, who are legitimately “big” come up to me and ask me what’s wrong with my chest. These people, who have been around the weight room for years, generally expect me to be putting up some big weight with my chest, because I was blessed with good man-boob genetics.

In other words, not everyone develops the same way - which has been said a billion times in the five pages of this thread’s existence.

105

A guy who went into the gym and benched 405 for 10-12 reps cold, with little chest, delts and tri-size?

What a load of bullshit.

Also… A 6-footer at 230 benching 405 for 10-12 ? I call bullshit on that too.
A guy at 5’9/5’10 maybe. But at 6? Nah. And anyone who puts up numbers like that is definitely not going to do so without a warm-up.

And of course the OP said that he’s seen multiple such guys do that kind of thing. Right.

What a load of utter nonsense.

Anyone who can legitimately raw bench 405 for 10-12, no matter whether it’s bottom half reps, full reps or going form an inch above the chest to just shy of lockout (not top partials though and if you have a gut the size of a killer-whale + an insane arch + you’re bouncing the weight off that gut, then you’re likely not going to be nearly as muscular as one normally becomes from benching that much…) is going to be one big person.

106

Different people are different?! Where the fuck have I been?

107

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
A guy who went into the gym and benched 405 for 10-12 reps cold, with little chest, delts and tri-size?

What a load of bullshit.

Also… A 6-footer at 230 benching 405 for 10-12 ? I call bullshit on that too.
A guy at 5’9/5’10 maybe. But at 6? Nah. And anyone who puts up numbers like that is definitely not going to do so without a warm-up.

And of course the OP said that he’s seen multiple such guys do that kind of thing. Right.

What a load of utter nonsense.

Anyone who can legitimately raw bench 405 for 10-12, no matter whether it’s bottom half reps, full reps or going form an inch above the chest to just shy of lockout (not top partials though and if you have a gut the size of a killer-whale + an insane arch + you’re bouncing the weight off that gut, then you’re likely not going to be nearly as muscular as one normally becomes from benching that much…) is going to be one big person.
[/quote]

Also, I don’t know ANYONE dumb enough to throw up that kind of weight with no warm up. I use more weight than that, but there is no way in hell I would do that COLD unless I wanted a fucking pec tear.

Yet we see posts like this all of the time as if gyms across the country are just filled with tiny people WITH NO SIZE AT ALL who can bench over 400lbs for reps.

This is worse than those people who come up to me and say, “I used to look like you when I was your age”. Uh, yeah…what the fuck happened?

108

[quote]Therizza wrote:

There’s also neural efficiency and technique to consider, along with myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

[/quote]

Size = strength
Yes

BUT the degree of size:strength ratio differs immensely and is attributed to what Therizza wrote above.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or non-functional hypertrophy results in big muscles that lack the equivalent strength that you would expect to see with very big muscles.

Sarcomere Hypertrophy or functional hypertrophy results in increases in strength with less muscular size, which is desirable in athletic pursuits where size (weight) will hinder performance. I think this might answer the OP question about size & strength.

Now, the 400lb bench portion of the story mmm? The only way out of that one is to provide proof!

109

[quote]worzel wrote:
Therizza wrote:

There’s also neural efficiency and technique to consider, along with myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Size = strength
Yes

BUT the degree of size:strength ratio differs immensely and is attributed to what Therizza wrote above.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or non-functional hypertrophy results in big muscles that lack the equivalent strength that you would expect to see with very big muscles.

Sarcomere Hypertrophy or functional hypertrophy results in increases in strength with less muscular size, which is desirable in athletic pursuits where size (weight) will hinder performance. I think this might answer the OP question about size & strength.

Now, the 400lb bench portion of the story mmm? The only way out of that one is to provide proof![/quote]

There is no such thing as “Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” and we disproved that right here.

Find me ONE study showing this to occur in humans.

I’ll wait.

This “unfunctional hypertrophy” bullshit is the brain fart of personal trainers with a program to sell and nothing more. It helps them for you to believe that bodybuilders are weak…even though most here don’t seem to be that strong given their supposed superior “functional strength”.

110

Non-functional… Oh my.

How is added fuel not functional?

Also, do people really believe that the reason Ronnie’s bench went from 40512 (or even 22512)at some point to 495*12 in the off-season is because his muscles simply filled up with some more water and sugar and maybe a hand-full of contractile proteins at most?

111

Regardless of what scientific article or training expert you use as proof to your beliefs, I do not think you can take away the opinions of the people who have actually busted there ass in the gym and have enough muscle on there frame that you you can tell that they are doing something right.

I am so disappointed in reading posts with authors who do not want to put a pic on their profile to show their hard work but I do see a lot of measurements, BWs, and claimed lifting poundages.

No ONE can argue with the training style of a man who is 5’ 10" 270 lbs and who has 20 plus inch arms, when he posts I learn ( I have seen his picture). So it is true that you can’t believe everything you read on the internet, unless there is a PICTURE.

112

[quote]MODOK wrote:
So you are saying with this “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” is that a homo sapien would add TONS of new muscle tissue, which takes tremendous amounts of energy just to exist, and that muscle tissue not be able to be used for anything except for cosmetic purposes, or just to be “bigger”? Really?

That is not how biology works, and thats the reason why there isn’t a lot of huge guys walking around. Huge body = adaptation to move weights a normal body can’t lift. [/quote]

The only person who could come up with something like the idea of big muscles being useless is someone who could never build them.

113

[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]

You are an idiot.

I can’t believe this retarded thread is still going. Lets all hijack it and turn it into a Big Ron appreciation thread.

Here’s one of my favorite inspirational Ronnie vids : - YouTube

He would never have gotten that big without moving the massive fucking weights he does. Enjoy :slight_smile:

114

[quote]josh86 wrote:
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.

You are an idiot.

I can’t believe this retarded thread is still going. Lets all hijack it and turn it into a Big Ron appreciation thread.

Here’s one of my favorite inspirational Ronnie vids : - YouTube

He would never have gotten that big without moving the massive fucking weights he does. Enjoy :)[/quote]

You are so off-base it’s not even funny. Ronnie only got how big he is using drugs and heaps and heaps of steroids - I heard he eats like, nothing but steaks and stuff; I bet his heart is about to pop out of his chest.

Plus, he gets too intense in the weight room, which means he’s only asking for hypertrophy which directly correlates to his blood pressure. Best to stay with light weights and high reps so you don’t risk hypertrophy with your endothelial cells.

And yeah, I use to be that big, so I’m pretty much qualified enough to say this. I just stopped lifting because I was so sick of getting attention everywhere I went.

115

[quote]SSC wrote:
josh86 wrote:
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.

You are an idiot.

I can’t believe this retarded thread is still going. Lets all hijack it and turn it into a Big Ron appreciation thread.

Here’s one of my favorite inspirational Ronnie vids : - YouTube

He would never have gotten that big without moving the massive fucking weights he does. Enjoy :slight_smile:

You are so off-base it’s not even funny. Ronnie only got how big he is using drugs and heaps and heaps of steroids - I heard he eats like, nothing but steaks and stuff; I bet his heart is about to pop out of his chest.

Plus, he gets too intense in the weight room, which means he’s only asking for hypertrophy which directly correlates to his blood pressure. Best to stay with light weights and high reps so you don’t risk hypertrophy with your endothelial cells.

And yeah, I use to be that big, so I’m pretty much qualified enough to say this. I just stopped lifting because I was so sick of getting attention everywhere I went.[/quote]

Dude don’t…some tool will take you seriously lol

116

All these back avatars are confusing the fuck out of me…

117

did someone really just say Jackass was small?

oh my god.

i need to stop coming on this site

118

[quote]Gregus wrote:
usctrojansfan wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BigSeen wrote:

Strength = 4-5 reps
Hypertrophy = 8-10 Reps

Ridiculous. Who knew you could define how the human body gains muscle so accurately. It’s a good thing we have 09’ers to set us straight.

Don’t power lifters use a 1-3 or slightly more reps? Why do they do that and not 20 reps? Obviously because there is a certain formula that will work for most but not all people. Are you implying it’s all completely random?

Powerlifters don’t use 20 rep sets? You’re random. I honestly think you should politely ask this guy if you could document his performance for a “side project” and that you’re in big trouble if you don’t. Take the pics or video, link it up here and I get to see someone bench 405x12 for the first time in my life. Especially COLD with no BOOBS.

Yes they can can do 20 reps but 80% of their training is not in that rep range.

[/quote]

The video doesn’t really fit into this thread, but it’s of Ryan Kennelly the best bench presser in the world, doing 405 for 20 reps. Not only is that impressive, but I have this DVD at home and he does a full bench press workout before doing this and also hit 315 for 20 the set before. He can probably do that for 30-40 reps if it was the first thing he did in his workout.

Plus he has a huge chest.

He also does many assistance exercises and uses 8-12+ reps on these exercies. He also squats, deadlifts, and even curls, although he only competes as a bencher.

Could probably be a decent bodybuilder as he isn’t carying much fat on his 350+ pound frame at 6’2". Awesomely strong dude.

119

[quote]MODOK wrote:
josh86 wrote:
SSC wrote:
josh86 wrote:
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.

You are an idiot.

I can’t believe this retarded thread is still going. Lets all hijack it and turn it into a Big Ron appreciation thread.

Here’s one of my favorite inspirational Ronnie vids : - YouTube

He would never have gotten that big without moving the massive fucking weights he does. Enjoy :slight_smile:

You are so off-base it’s not even funny. Ronnie only got how big he is using drugs and heaps and heaps of steroids - I heard he eats like, nothing but steaks and stuff; I bet his heart is about to pop out of his chest.

Plus, he gets too intense in the weight room, which means he’s only asking for hypertrophy which directly correlates to his blood pressure. Best to stay with light weights and high reps so you don’t risk hypertrophy with your endothelial cells.

And yeah, I use to be that big, so I’m pretty much qualified enough to say this. I just stopped lifting because I was so sick of getting attention everywhere I went.

Dude don’t…some tool will take you seriously lol

One of you too need to change your avatar…it looks like you are conversing with yourself. lol[/quote]

SSC copied me…that was my avi first. People always tryin to be like the big dawg. (Obviously I’m kidding on that last part lol)

120

Quoting Dante Trudel:

I believe he who makes the greatest strength gains [in a controlled fashion] makes the greatest muscle gains. Note that I said strength gains. Everybody knows someone naturally strong who can bench 405 yet isn’t that big.

Going from a 375 bench to 405 isn’t an incredible strength gain and won’t result in much of a muscle mass gain. If someone goes from 150 to 405 for reps, that incredible strength gain will equate to an incredible muscle mass gain.

Continue discussion…

121

[quote]Professor X wrote:
worzel wrote:
Therizza wrote:

There’s also neural efficiency and technique to consider, along with myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Size = strength
Yes

BUT the degree of size:strength ratio differs immensely and is attributed to what Therizza wrote above.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or non-functional hypertrophy results in big muscles that lack the equivalent strength that you would expect to see with very big muscles.

Sarcomere Hypertrophy or functional hypertrophy results in increases in strength with less muscular size, which is desirable in athletic pursuits where size (weight) will hinder performance. I think this might answer the OP question about size & strength.

Now, the 400lb bench portion of the story mmm? The only way out of that one is to provide proof!

There is no such thing as “Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” and we disproved that right here.

Find me ONE study showing this to occur in humans.

I’ll wait.

This “unfunctional hypertrophy” bullshit is the brain fart of personal trainers with a program to sell and nothing more. It helps them for you to believe that bodybuilders are weak…even though most here don’t seem to be that strong given their supposed superior “functional strength”.[/quote]

In work’ but just read the thread! Some great points made in that discussion! So there is no conclusive evidence to prove what I just stated, shite! I was quoting Mel Siff and Tudor Bompa on this one so forgive my ignorance as these are some of the guys I put a lot of faith in.

Aside from that I never implied that non-functional hypertrophy was negative in any way, it was mentioned in relation to ‘athletic activities’ as discussed in Periodization Training for Sports. From this standpoint training for muscles sake is non-functional in that you are not training for agility, speed etc…but for size & or shape, nothing else!

I also never suggested bodybuilders were weak but traditionally’ training for pure hypertrophy relies, for the most part, on medium rep ranges whereas training for strength relies, for the most part, on low rep ranges. Of course there is a cross over as suggested by ‘for the most part’.

Using one modality over the other will result in different training outcomes as seen in strength sports like powerlifting & oly lifting as opposed to bodybuilding. One is not better than the other I was simply stating you get what you train for, no negative connotations intended!

122

Strength = Size
Size = Strength

The ratios aren’t perfect, but it’s the goddamn truth, no need to get all edumacational on me.

Go watch a strongman contest. They’re usually fat, but have big fucking muscles.
Go watch a documentary on pro bodybuilders. They squat a fuckload of weight.

The End.