does an increase in strength automatically mean size growth?

[endpoint]

hypertrophy and atrophy have almost nothing to do with strength.

 

[gwl9dta4]

muscle size has nothing to do with strength.
strength comes from the central nervious system and other systems in the body that contract muscles.

200% correct sir.

 

[BenBen]

Hey,
Found an interesting Article about Strength, Size and CNS.
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=53
Bye.

 

[Arioch]

That is a piss-poor article. It would be nice if we could utilize a a single factor theory to figure out what we needed to do to get stronger. One can train the CNS directly, improving neuromuscular facility, by the maximal effort method (a single, maximal effort lift). Training in a dynamic manner can lead to increases in RFD, or rate of force development, allowing faster activation of specific fibers. Dynamic training can also stimulate the enervation of the golgi tendon organ, increasing the functional application of the myotactic reflex.

All of these can occur with little to no increase in size.


Yes, to fullly achieve your potential, you must grow. But that was not the question.

 

[gwl9dta4]

From my experience the relationship is about 4 to 1. Meaning for every 4 units of strenght gained there will be 1 unit of muscle. Ofcourse the scenario with the units is all hypothetical.

But after years of training with heavy weights and good form following the motto of "must lift heavy" and do all the basic movements i realized that my gains even with some "supplements" if you know what i mean , were nothing extrordinary. But me strenght was very decent.

Then there came a time where i threw that way of thinking out the window and i just got tired of trying to get strong and made a switch in the routine, and trained solely for the intense burn, and i mean intense, on some sets ding reps as high as 30, instead of the usuall 8-12. Basically doing whatever it took to get a mind blowing burn like i was going to tear the muscle. Needless to say lot's of pain in training. But the results were totally different from my previous routine. While my strenght decreased by about 20 to almost 40% on some lifts i blew up in size. Over the course of about 8 months i went from 240 to 275 and finally looked like a BB. BTW i am 6'2. My arms went from a pumped 17.5 to a full 20 inches, while being much weaker but still by no means weak.

That had conclusively proved to me that strenght and muscle size go hand in hand but in a very disproportionate manner, about 4 to 1. At least for me.

 

[Lord_Suston]

Muscle size is only an inderect way to increase strength. Neural muscular efficiency is one of the most prominent aspects of strength. Cross sectional size helps as well but is relatively minor in comparison to weight you can lift. example When i curled only 35's when i was younger my arms were probably no more than 14 now at size 16-17 I can curl 70 no problem, Not a one to one ratio. plus we don't even use the tricpet measurement also. Your CNS also allows maximal contraction when it has been conditioned to, with practice, some people just have a better efeciency. This is why AN INCREASE IN SIZE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN SIZE GROWTH.

 

[gettinlarger]

Lord, you are one smart motherfucker. come lift with me and get me huge. haha

 

[Lord_Suston]

come up to NY and bring a bucket, Cause you're gonna puke and probably pass out. But damn it will be fun. Seriously though always try to workout smartly, and foll can just throw around weight or be fat, it takes intelligence to get real results...

 

[bigguns7]

From my experience the relationship is about 4 to 1. Meaning for every 4 units of strenght gained there will be 1 unit of muscle. Ofcourse the scenario with the units is all hypothetical.

But after years of training with heavy weights and good form following the motto of "must lift heavy" and do all the basic movements i realized that my gains even with some "supplements" if you know what i mean , were nothing extrordinary. But me strenght was very decent.

Then there came a time where i threw that way of thinking out the window and i just got tired of trying to get strong and made a switch in the routine, and trained solely for the intense burn, and i mean intense, on some sets ding reps as high as 30, instead of the usuall 8-12. Basically doing whatever it took to get a mind blowing burn like i was going to tear the muscle. Needless to say lot's of pain in training. But the results were totally different from my previous routine. While my strenght decreased by about 20 to almost 40% on some lifts i blew up in size. Over the course of about 8 months i went from 240 to 275 and finally looked like a BB. BTW i am 6'2. My arms went from a pumped 17.5 to a full 20 inches, while being much weaker but still by no means weak.

That had conclusively proved to me that strenght and muscle size go hand in hand but in a very disproportionate manner, about 4 to 1. At least for me.

Good information.

 

[Phenotype X]

no it doesnt. there are neural changes that show up as strength gains.

My thoughts exactly. Neural cells (containing chemical receptors, neurotransmitters, synapses, axons etc.) may undergo an increase in the amount of chemicals which correspond to strength due to a stronger response through contraction, from this increased influx allowing the muscle to contract more strongly.