does an increase in strength automatically mean size growth?

[Elite_Fry]

does an increase in strength automatically mean size growth?
because i am sooo much stronger than my friends but yet im about the same weight.. what's with this??
my diet and training is all right

 

[Scottygunz]

No, I dont think strength means size growth.

 

[bignate73]

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

 

[CytoMel]

does an increase in strength automatically mean size growth?
because i am sooo much stronger than my friends but yet im about the same weight.. what's with this??
my diet and training is all right

Yes an increase in strength and your muscles will generally grow bigger. This probably the most basic law of weight training and thgey accompany each other. Just because you are the same size as your friends and stronger has nothing to do with you individually getting bigger after getting stronger. I bet anything that your muscles are now bigger as a result of you getting stronger.

 

[SSAlexSS]

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

Intially yes. As you learn the exercise it becomes more natural and you use more weight.

Howeever YOU HAVE TO HAVE MUSCLE INCREASE as you strength drasticly increases.
PERIOD.

 

[Arioch]

Hey Alex,

Wanna bet?

Let's see some references.

And then explain why some powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters can remain in the same weight class for years (or even a decade) with little to no body composition alteration yet they can increase their total year after year.

 

[SmooThy5464]

i hear ya man i am startin to put up much more then my friends i lift with and we r alll about the same weight gettin pissed

 

[BenBen]

When you train, you do not Add more Muscle tissues rather you increase their size I.E. each Muscle Cell grows a bit. how much do they grow? that depends on the type of Workout you do (how you stimulate your muscles), Genetics, the food you eat etc. but when you increase your strength you increase your muscles size.
Bye

 

[endpoint]

oh god here we go again.

alex,
try the power to the people training that you were talking about in another post (not the bear) try it for a few months.
you will get stronger with out gaining mass. some people even lose weight but still get stronger.

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

imagine your bicep is a crain.
the cable is your muscle, and the engine is your CNS.

the cable you have is enough to hoist 25 cars.
but the engine can only muster enough power to pull 5 cars.
you dont need a better cable you need a stronger engine

thats the same as any muscle. i read somewhere that the average "all out" muscle contraction is only 10% of what the muscle is capable of. dont quote me on that

 

[BenBen]

Hey,
Interesting Explanation, never heard of it, I would investigate though.
I think strength has a lot to do with muscle size but only compare to oneself. when you loose muscle mass (due to lack of training, accident or whatever) you will never grow stronger (compare to yourself), only weaker. When we train, and our muscles feel "more dense" it means that you have increased your muscle size. That is the only way the muscle knows how to cope with the on going stress you put it through training.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Bye.

 

[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.

 

[BodybuildingUniverse]

not necessarily but if you are feeding the machine and resting properly your muscles can't help bvut grow over time if you are forcing them to do more work.

 

[I'D RATHER BE DEADLIFTING]

I have gotten much stronger in the past few months and have not gotten bigger. My goal is strength, not hypertrophy. Two entirely different ways to train.

 

[aurelius]

heavywear not necessarily but if you are feeding the machine and resting properly your muscles can't help bvut grow over time if you are forcing them to do more work.

In what Muscle and Fitness did you find this gem?

 

[Realgains]

NO! you can up strength with no size ...but only to a point

 

[I'D RATHER BE DEADLIFTING]

aurelious- do you realize what magazine that heavywear puts out? Not quite like muscle and fitness, lol. He knows plenty about strength training/powerlifting.

 

[aurelius]

I don´t doubt it. Just that his post sounded exactly like so many supplement adds and "add 567 lbs. of muscle in 20 minutes" Weider wonder articles that I lashed out.

Curse you Joe. You stole my faith in humanity!