Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

All other things equal, bigger muscle moves more weight

Swole_2112

New member
This is something that I once read in the 1997 World Anabolic Review. All other things being equal, bigger muscle moves more weight. Anybody have any thoughts on this concept? I've got my own experiences, but I'd like to hear everybody else's first.
 
Well I would say true to a point but some oly lifters don't meet that rule. Mechanics also play important part. So I guess that is where all things equal comes in at. If all other possible mechanics are equal I would venture to say the guy with more muscle mass would lift more.

Perp
 
no. disagree. bigger muscles do not equate to more strength. case in point, joe mazza. benches 615 at 165lbs.
http://www.criticalbench.com/Joe-Mazza.htm

don't really feel like debating this, so i'm just gonna say that just because someone has bigger muscles, does not mean that they are stronger. strength is not a byproduct of mass.
 
Illuminati said:
no. disagree. bigger muscles do not equate to more strength. case in point, joe mazza. benches 615 at 165lbs.
http://www.criticalbench.com/Joe-Mazza.htm

don't really feel like debating this, so i'm just gonna say that just because someone has bigger muscles, does not mean that they are stronger. strength is not a byproduct of mass.

I wonder how much assistance a bench shirt offers? Still that is very impressive even if he can only do maby 500 something shirtless.
 
Illuminati said:
no. disagree. bigger muscles do not equate to more strength. case in point, joe mazza. benches 615 at 165lbs.
http://www.criticalbench.com/Joe-Mazza.htm

don't really feel like debating this, so i'm just gonna say that just because someone has bigger muscles, does not mean that they are stronger. strength is not a byproduct of mass.

I agree. oly and powerlifters can be 'small' and strong as hell. a buddy that i work out with is lifting at the ipf mens nationals this weekend at 5'10, 165 pounds and looking to total 1650.
 
yea budyyy!! mor mass=more strength
the bigger the muscle the stronger it will be thats why u can squat more then you can curl, quads are bigger then biceps so they are stronger, so bigger quad bigger weight
 
jimmy04 said:
yea budyyy!! mor mass=more strength
the bigger the muscle the stronger it will be thats why u can squat more then you can curl, quads are bigger then biceps so they are stronger, so bigger quad bigger weight


yea budyyy!!!! i am sure almost 100% sure that the original poster of the comment was trying to compare muscle mass of one person to the next, and not one muscle group to another.

your quads are not the only muscles moving weight when you squat. squatting is a compound movement, hence it every muscle group in your lower body, including your lower back, glutes, hamstrings, quads calves...not to mention some upperbody muslces. curling only involves your biceps and to some degree your shoulders.
 
You guys are missing the point, this has nothing to do with comparing two different individuals. Of course there are smaller guys that are stronger than guys with more muscle mass. This can be attributed to a multitude of different fatctors. The point is the larger YOUR muscle fibers, the great the strength of YOUR muscle contractions, and therefore, the more weight YOU can move. This is scientifically accepted and not really debatable...
 
RobStrongo said:
You guys are missing the point, this has nothing to do with comparing two different individuals. Of course there are smaller guys that are stronger than guys with more muscle mass. This can be attributed to a multitude of different fatctors. The point is the larger YOUR muscle fibers, the great the strength of YOUR muscle contractions, and therefore, the more weight YOU can move. This is scientifically accepted and not really debatable...
i wanna agree with this 1
 
my buddy is 155 and benches 315. so size aint everything

Yes, but if he had more muscle mass with everything else being the same, he would move more weight. Again, this is pretty much a scientific fact.
 
waiting for the obligatory Jkurz-ism about how you don't need to lift heavy to get bigger.. come on, someone?
 
Tweakle said:
waiting for the obligatory Jkurz-ism about how you don't need to lift heavy to get bigger.. come on, someone?
highrep above 15 triggers muscle growth, anything below 6 is for getting stronger but not bigger
 
I watched this bastard deadlift about 525 for a good 3, which is my own personal best from a few years ago. At that time, my muscles were smaller but I had more fat on me. This guy is similarly smaller than I was even back then, but has more fat on him.

So, if anything, I'd say its body mass as opposed to muscle-size. It's definitely not the size of your muscles - well, bigger muscles lead to greater strength but how well they are cushioned/insulated/whatever at the joints by fat and water plays a huge role in strength.
 
"All else being equal" is hardly ever the case. Someone training for muscle size will not be as strong as someone training for strength. Yes there is a limit to how strong as muscle can get before it has to grow to get stronger, however a muscle can get bigger without it get stronger. Ronnie Coleman aside, most bodybuilders are not as strong, pound for pound, as your average non-super heavyweight powerlifter or weightlifter. I also disagree that body mass is relevant. Super heavyweights carry a lot of fat but it's merely a byproduct of trying to pack as much strength as they can into their body.
 
Top Bottom