Whats up t-men. I was in the gym today and i was looking at the guys working out and i realized that the strongest ones were usually the biggest. So im guessing that the stronger u get also has a large effect on the muscle gained.If u guys could give me some feedback i would appreciate it
There is a definite connection between strength and mass! It took me a while to accept it. Thing is, it’s now how STRONG you are, but how STRONGER you are. See, we’re all different, with different strength capabilities. That’s why a 50lbs increase in deadlift may pack more mass on guy than another (because the one who got less mass probably has a greater strength potential). Although I’m sure it’s not this simple. Also, if you don’t get your nutrition right, I suspect that your mass might not come up as much as it should in proportion to strength increases. Prove it to yourself by training for strength (while getting in enough calories and protein), not ‘training for mass’ with lighter weights and very high volume.
Size does not equal strength. Repeat that six times, okay? A well-trained smaller muscle can beat a poorly-trained bigger muscle. Happens all the time. You can’t tell anyone’s strength just by eye-balling them. If you could, you could just pull out a tape measure at the Olympics and not waste time on lifting.
I'm a gymnast. Every once in awhile, we have some guy with a massive upper body, usually the father of a gymnast or an older brother, step up and ask if he can try out the rings. He assumes that his upper body strength will make an iron cross fairly easy or at least doable. We lift him up so he can his hands on the rings and watch him as he hangs there, struggling and sweating, unable to even get his chin up to ring level. If he asks, we'll help him get above the rings so he can try lowering into an iron cross. We explain what he has to do, we'll even demonstrate. Then he tries and shoots down through the rings so fast...well, you get the idea.
Muscle size is muscle size. Strength is being able to get the job done. It doesn't matter if the "job" is lifting or gymnastics, it's training that determines if you'll get it done.
That’s not always the case. Strength and muscle do go together, but working soley to improve your strength won’t necissarily result in optimum muscle growth.
Neural factors are, of course, important in strength development. However, far and away the biggest determinant of muscle strength is muscle fiber cross sectional area (i.e. muscle size). Get bigger and you will get stronger. No question about it. However, strength (due to neural factors) doesnt always lead to size increases. But there does seem to be an upper limit for nerual adaptation (or at least a dramatic slowing after a ceratin point). So over time however, (once this “plateau occurs” strength increases will lead to size increases.
Everytime i say im gonna start training for mass, i get smaller and weaker. So i say fuck it, im gonna get strong. Then i start getting bigger. Go figure.
I think john B. oversimplified it too much. Sure if you get bigger, you will get stronger, but far from optimally stronger. If you are “getting biggeR” via a traditional BB workout you will be doing 2 bad things (bad is really relative, but even if you are a lineman in football, these thing are dead weight), 1)Causing predominantly Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy 2) Stimulating a proportionally too high amount of slowtwitch fibers. Both of these factors inhibit maximal strength and power of athletes. If your focus is on getting Stronger, you will probably gain muscle slowly (after first 2 years of lifting), but most all will be the most efficient.