Strength Without Size???

Here is something i have always questioned. I see all of these programs that are geared toward strength and I see programs that are geared toward hypertrophy. I always thought these went hand in hand. Is it possible to see gains in strength but not see gains in muscle mass??? If it is possible, where are the strength gains coming from.

Can someone clear this up for me??? I have been told that I dont eat enough at 2800 cals a day to see any gains, but yet my numbers keep going up. Thanks in advance for clearing this up.

you can get more neurologically efficient (read better at performing said movements) to gain strength, while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?

[quote]ah_dut wrote:
while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?[/quote]

^he’s right

and if you are new to lifting you will see gains…period.I have done the same though,also if you maintain a weight for a few months do you think (assuming your training)your weights will stay the same?

[quote]ah_dut wrote:
you can get more neurologically efficient (read better at performing said movements) to gain strength, while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?[/quote]

This is true. “Learning” how to do an exercise will result in the weight you use for it increasing. This will manifest as a strength gain and is especially apparent in a beginner. Yes, size of muscle fibers do go along with strength. That means that while you may see SOME strength gain without an increase in size, eventually that will cease unless you gain more size to support more strength.

Gotcha, thanks for the replies guys. Ok, here is my deal. I am a 6’2" guy that weighs around 205. What would you guys say is my best plan of attack for getting a good amount of muscle and losing the rest of the extra fat I have in the next 11 months. I am getting married next June. I know you cant cut and bulk at the same time, so which should I be doing right now. I have always assumed that if numbers were going up, the so was muscle mass, but that doesnt appear to be the case because as I have gotten stronger, I havent really gotten bigger.

I have a more physically fit look, but not muscular. I have come a long way though. I used to weight 280 and was fat as hell. Help me finish this fat off before my wedding. Thanks guys!!! Dont worry, I am not some newb that doesnt take advice seriously. You tell me what to do and I will do it. I have seen alot of good info here on this site. Prof X, you seem to have a pretty good rep around here.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ah_dut wrote:
you can get more neurologically efficient (read better at performing said movements) to gain strength, while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?

This is true. “Learning” how to do an exercise will result in the weight you use for it increasing. This will manifest as a strength gain and is especially apparent in a beginner. Yes, size of muscle fibers do go along with strength. That means that while you may see SOME strength gain without an increase in size, eventually that will cease unless you gain more size to support more strength. [/quote]

This is actually beginning to touch on a question I’ve long wondered about, but never heard a truly clear answer for. Let’s say you have two people of roughly the same height, weight, build and BF%, but one of them has better numbers in the “Big 3”. This is not an uncommon set of circumstances at all.

So for the person in the above example who does not have the same level of strength, what is usually at the root cause of that? Would that guy need to get bigger in order to increase his lifting totals? Is he just not as neurologically efficient?

I just find it interesting when I see situations even more different than the above, say, of a person with a smaller build and yet superior strength numbers of someone much larger.

You have so much time to peak, why are you so worried about it? train smart, eat clean, accept slow steady gains, get to wedding in whatever shape you want to be in. Which is the more important goal for you? I would steer you to the leaning up first. Anyone with the time and the dinner plate and the committment to frequent training can slap muscle on your body, but it will come with fat as well.

[quote]boss99er wrote:
I have gotten stronger, I havent really gotten bigger.

[/quote]

Like someone allready said muscle gains are directly related to how much you eat. If you want to build muscle you need to keep putting food in your mouth until the scale starts moving in the right direction.

Getting stronger is a sign your training at least well enough to build some muscle now you need to give your body the raw material to do it!

If I were in your shoes what I would do is start by adding 500 calories to your daily intake. Stay there for a couple weeks and see what the scale does. If in the first 2 weeks you gain 1lb or less add another 500 cals. Remember these steps because as you build muscle your daily calorie needs will increase so if you pack on 10lbs and then see no gains for 2 weeks add more food.

continue “bulking” for whatever time period you think will give you sufficient time to cut excess fat before the wedding. If you focus on clean foods and a moderate rate of weight gain you shouldnt have a large amount of fat gain.

I can see that if I do the bulk clean, I will gain less fat, but I still have some fat that doesnt seem to want to disappear. Mainly chest and love handles. I understand that the more muscle I have, the faster I will burn fat, but should I try to get rid of the last bit of fat I have left before I bulk, and then cut before the wedding. I could do a hard cut for 2 months, bulk for 6, and then cut again for 3. How does that sound. Would that give me enough time for the bulk and cut??? Thanks again guys!!!

Hey JNeves, where in NE are you. I live in Kearney. Just noticed that fellow nebraskan was in here.

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ah_dut wrote:
you can get more neurologically efficient (read better at performing said movements) to gain strength, while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?

This is true. “Learning” how to do an exercise will result in the weight you use for it increasing. This will manifest as a strength gain and is especially apparent in a beginner. Yes, size of muscle fibers do go along with strength. That means that while you may see SOME strength gain without an increase in size, eventually that will cease unless you gain more size to support more strength.

This is actually beginning to touch on a question I’ve long wondered about, but never heard a truly clear answer for. Let’s say you have two people of roughly the same height, weight, build and BF%, but one of them has better numbers in the “Big 3”. This is not an uncommon set of circumstances at all.

So for the person in the above example who does not have the same level of strength, what is usually at the root cause of that? Would that guy need to get bigger in order to increase his lifting totals? Is he just not as neurologically efficient?

I just find it interesting when I see situations even more different than the above, say, of a person with a smaller build and yet superior strength numbers of someone much larger.[/quote]

I would say one guy can catch up to the other guy, to a certain degree. However, there is definitely the rate-limiting factor of genetics. Too many people place an emphasis on genetics, but in this situation, it could very well be the limiting factor.

Another limiting factor could be the pussy-effect. The guy that can’t lift as much is just a pussy and doesn’t want to lift heavy.

Personal experiences or lifestyles also help a lot in this regard. If you have one guy that has grown up on manual labor and the other just stays fit by going to the gym, chances are the former will be stronger than the latter.

So do you guys think I should just keep my steady pace for the next year or do you think i should bulk and then cut. Like I said on an earlier post, I could cut for 2 months, clean bulk for 6, and then cut for 3 months. Would that give enough time to each phase. I have never really done a bulk and cut before. My whole experience has been cutting down from 280.

2 months?
Try Chad Waterbury’s Summer Project.
It has 4 2-week phases. It was designed for fat loss, while increasing strength.

and i dont know how good your diet is, but follow Berardi’s article series on Tailoring your diet.

CONGRATS ON THE WEDDING!

Well my diet is “pretty good.” I would say I eat clean 90% of the time. Put it this way, its enough to annoy my fiance that I am so picky about what I eat. She gets annoyed, but she understands my goals and tries to help me out…thats why she is wife material. Ha ha. I will look into the Waterbury summer project. That might be what I am looking for.

[quote]itsthetimman wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ah_dut wrote:
you can get more neurologically efficient (read better at performing said movements) to gain strength, while size gains are predominantly based on how much you eat. Simple no?

This is true. “Learning” how to do an exercise will result in the weight you use for it increasing. This will manifest as a strength gain and is especially apparent in a beginner. Yes, size of muscle fibers do go along with strength. That means that while you may see SOME strength gain without an increase in size, eventually that will cease unless you gain more size to support more strength.

This is actually beginning to touch on a question I’ve long wondered about, but never heard a truly clear answer for. Let’s say you have two people of roughly the same height, weight, build and BF%, but one of them has better numbers in the “Big 3”. This is not an uncommon set of circumstances at all.

So for the person in the above example who does not have the same level of strength, what is usually at the root cause of that? Would that guy need to get bigger in order to increase his lifting totals? Is he just not as neurologically efficient?

I just find it interesting when I see situations even more different than the above, say, of a person with a smaller build and yet superior strength numbers of someone much larger.

I would say one guy can catch up to the other guy, to a certain degree. However, there is definitely the rate-limiting factor of genetics. Too many people place an emphasis on genetics, but in this situation, it could very well be the limiting factor.

Another limiting factor could be the pussy-effect. The guy that can’t lift as much is just a pussy and doesn’t want to lift heavy.

Personal experiences or lifestyles also help a lot in this regard. If you have one guy that has grown up on manual labor and the other just stays fit by going to the gym, chances are the former will be stronger than the latter.[/quote]

I agree with this. As much as genetics are blamed all to often, when it’s not enough effort in the work, they do play a role. If this wasn’t true more people would be able to become world class athletes.

While everyone can lift to their genetic best not everyone has the best genetics. Also, like timman said many people don’t know how to bring it in training to stimulate the best gains. Many factors, but if all else was equal, I say it boils down to genetics.

D

sorry dude but you fantasizing about how you’re gonna look on your wedding day is prolly the girliest thing i’ve seen on this site.

so…in this case the strategy i suggest is just start packing on as much bulk and the biggest belly you can and figure out a way to make your wife like it. this shouldn’t be too hard. imagine how much easier the next 10 months will go once you stop practicing your sub-tux-flexing in the mirror everyday and you come to realize the real reason she’s “annoyed” is because you’re acting like a chick.

thank me later :slight_smile:

Yeah well I can see how being dedicated comes across as being pretty girly…you should probably tell people like Dave Tate who is changing his body around…or tell Waterbury that who dedicates his life to fitness and coming up with these programs, or maybe tell Barardi that being dedicated to eating the right things as much as possible is just a chick thing. Pretty sure they will point at you and laugh. So if i’m thanking you for anything, it will be pissing me off enough to give me some push tonight in my workout.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy versus myofibrillar hypertrophy.

[quote]boss99er wrote:
Yeah well I can see how being dedicated comes across as being pretty girly…you should probably tell people like Dave Tate who is changing his body around…or tell Waterbury that who dedicates his life to fitness and coming up with these programs, or maybe tell Barardi that being dedicated to eating the right things as much as possible is just a chick thing. Pretty sure they will point at you and laugh. So if i’m thanking you for anything, it will be pissing me off enough to give me some push tonight in my workout.[/quote]

the lord works in mysterious ways.

SON OF A BITCH!!! Do you know how hard it is to be pissed at someone when they make ya laugh??? There goes my motivation, now I dont have to thank you for sh!t.