Is it necessary to continually up the poundages to grow?

[Tom Treutlein]

I didn't make any wrong assumption. I said if you could manage to make those strength gains. I already took into account the fact that you probably wouldn't because you weren't eating. However, my point was, if you were to make those strength gains then you'd most certainly be bigger, no?

 

[Bonkme2]

Ok, I'm not trying to make it sound like I was homeless or anything. I'm not wilting away. But realistically, when you can barely pay the rent, and you're trying to decide which bill you're going to pay late this month, extra calories aren't quite as high on the list.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

I'm in that same situation man.

 

[WalkingBeast]

I still never quite understood one thing, and that was, if you can manage to make small strength increases over time (past the 1-3 or maybe even 4 and 5 rep ranges) then why wouldn't you grow even if you ate 2 times a day? I mean, sure you wouldn't be making those strength gains too quickly, but if you are making them, then you'll most likely be growing, I would think.

Strength doesnt necessarily come with size. There have been many times where my strength has increased dramatically without any measurable increase in size. Lately my strength has been increasing, but upper body size has been plateaud. Alot of the strength increases could be due to neural adaption, and learning to use the muscle more efficiently. Either that, or maybe density. I believe ultimately to gain size, strength will have to increase. But to gain strength, size doesnt always have to increase. Of course it depends how much strength you want to gain. You wont likely bench 700lbs at 140. I think the strength increases are necessary to force the muscle to adapt and grow. I cant see myself growing off of light weights for high reps, and never increasing weight or reps. If I started at 105lbs BW Id get some growth in the beginning, no doubt, but not much, and the growth would end quickly. Youll basically grow no matter what you do in the beginning. Hope that helps

 

[JKurz1]

All I can do is ofer some advice based on personal observation. I know quite a few dudes, who top the scales off at 275-290lbs and can barely bench 400lbs. To me, that's an pure example of size not equally strength.......or at least not the strength they should have at that weight........then I know some dudes who are naturally just strong......one dude is prob. 6'2, 180 and front squats 2 plates + for 12......plus, there's always the bowling ball/fire hydrant dudes that weigh in at <180 and bench 350 for reps......conclusion is it really comes down genetics, tendon and ligament strength, and effort.

Although, in the majority of cases, I'd have to agree that size is comparable to strength..........and that muscle needs that added stimulation to grow.......

 

[Lord_Suston]

Now explain why this analogy works so well?

AS a genralization, if the weight are always the same then your body hits a max weight to optimize bodyweight versus strength. For example if you can do 20pull-ups your body has two options, A get more muscle to do all 20reps or reduce bodyweight to make the 20reps easier. The biggest lifters aside from Gentic freaks or Juice are the ones who lift the most.

 

[JKurz1]

AS a genralization, if the weight are always the same then your body hits a max weight to optimize bodyweight versus strength. For example if you can do 20pull-ups your body has two options, A get more muscle to do all 20reps or reduce bodyweight to make the 20reps easier. The biggest lifters aside from Gentic freaks or Juice are the ones who lift the most.

this is very true.......however, I personally have 10x more respect for the dude that bench 350 at 175lbs than the fat ass who tops in at 290 and brags that he got 400.............lb for lb is the key...........