Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

muscular vs. strong?

workinglegs

New member
I know a a girl at the gym with legs much more muscular than mine but I never see her lift any heavy weights? Is it possible to be more muscular than someone but not as strong? Her legs have more muscle and more shape but I doubt she's as strong and frankly I'd rather have bigger legs rather than stronger ones ...

I've posted in this in a few different forums ... looking for some further insight on building up my legs ... I've started on the stronglifts 5x5 program and I'm up to 200 lbs on squats. I'm assuming if I can get to 225 or more I'll rid myself of my chicken legs ... I hope.
 
so....whatcha lookin for for an answer??

everyone has an area that is....difficult
 
yes, but Im wondering if this might have more to do with bf%??

the visual effect that is
 
I have very muscular legs but I almost never lift heavy for legs becaus my legs grow so easy. Everyone has a body part like that and everyone had a body part that is weak.
 
I'm confused, why is there a picture of a girl next to a guy?
 
I know a a girl at the gym with legs much more muscular than mine but I never see her lift any heavy weights? Is it possible to be more muscular than someone but not as strong? Her legs have more muscle and more shape but I doubt she's as strong and frankly I'd rather have bigger legs rather than stronger ones ...

Absolutely.

You need to focus on forcing your legs to adapt to heavier weights at lower repetitions, which will increase your muscle strength much faster than your muscular size.
 
I'm confused, why is there a picture of a girl next to a guy?

well ... because my question is about how i've known some girls with legs that are much more muscular than than mine but not as strong ... hence the question about muscular size vs. strength

I want more muscular legs ... not really stronger legs (although as a by-product I really wouldn't mind that)

Makes me wonder if I should be doing lunges and aerobics like a lot of these girls rather than squats which they rarely do ?
 
well ... because my question is about how i've known some girls with legs that are much more muscular than than mine but not as strong ... hence the question about muscular size vs. strength

I want more muscular legs ... not really stronger legs (although as a by-product I really wouldn't mind that)

Makes me wonder if I should be doing lunges and aerobics like a lot of these girls rather than squats which they rarely do ?
Well, the pic of the girl you showed looks in competition condition, so any time you have someone whose bodyfat is lower they appear more muscular ... but the short answer is, yes, a person can have larger muscles and not have the same level of strength. Strength and hypertrophy are, in a strange way, almost two different animals.

Also, there's a lot that goes into making a muscle appear large. I mentioned bodyfat, but you also need to consider height and frame size. I'll use myself as an example. If I flex my upper arm right after working out I can probably get over 16" but big deal :whatever: I'm a long limbed 5'9" it really doesn't look like much. Put that same 16" upper arm on mesomorphic girl who stands 5'3" and it's a whole different ball of wax.

Going back to your original post, you are interested in what is called HYPERTROPHY. A program like a 5 x 5 is geared more towards overall strength development, it's a solid core program, and certainly a great starting point. But I'm sorry, there is no magic number (pulling or pushing a certain amount of weight) that will give you a certain muscular look. How your muscles develop is entirely dependent on what type of muscle fiber you've got in any given body part. Being able to squat 225 may not necessarily give your legs the look you want, neither may squatting 550. Legs are notoriously difficult to get to bulk up for a lot of people (for which there is a perfectly good evolutionary reason, legs are generally made up of slow twitch fibers which are better for endurance). Slow twitch muscles are more efficient at using oxygen to generate more fuel (known as ATP) for continuous, extended muscle contractions over a long time. They fire more slowly than fast twitch fibers and can go for a long time before they fatigue. Therefore, slow twitch fibers are great at helping athletes run marathons and bicycle for hours.

Fast twitch fibers use anaerobic metabolism to create fuel, they are much better at generating short bursts of strength or speed than slow muscles. However, they fatigue more quickly. Fast twitch fibers generally produce the same amount of force per contraction as slow muscles, but they get their name because they are able to fire more rapidly. Having more fast twitch fibers can be an asset to a power lifter or body builder, since they need to quickly generate a lot of force.

As a general rule of thumb, slow twitch muscles have a longer appearance and don't bulk and bunch in the same way as fast twitch muscles (think of it this way, Lance Armstrong would probably NEVER make a good bodybuilder).

I mean, I'm by no means an expert, but just trying to give you a starting point.

And in the final analysis, even if you're considering stepping on a stage someday, weight training is about competing against yourself. Setting your goals, achieving them, and surpassing them. Comparing your abilities or appearance against another person a formula for permanent disappointment. There is always someone out there (of either gender), who is bigger, stronger or more cut than you will ever be. On the other hand, there truly are no limits to the potential your own body has, how much you can do or how far you can take yourself.
 
And in the final analysis, even if you're considering stepping on a stage someday, weight training is about competing against yourself. Setting your goals, achieving them, and surpassing them. Comparing your abilities or appearance against another person a formula for permanent disappointment. There is always someone out there (of either gender), who is bigger, stronger or more cut than you will ever be. On the other hand, there truly are no limits to the potential your own body has, how much you can do or how far you can take yourself.

Great post overall but this here is exceptional advice really about life in general. You are always on point MM :)
 
Well, the pic of the girl you showed looks in competition condition, so any time you have someone whose bodyfat is lower they appear more muscular ... but the short answer is, yes, a person can have larger muscles and not have the same level of strength. Strength and hypertrophy are, in a strange way, almost two different animals.

Also, there's a lot that goes into making a muscle appear large. I mentioned bodyfat, but you also need to consider height and frame size. I'll use myself as an example. If I flex my upper arm right after working out I can probably get over 16" but big deal :whatever: I'm a long limbed 5'9" it really doesn't look like much. Put that same 16" upper arm on mesomorphic girl who stands 5'3" and it's a whole different ball of wax.

Going back to your original post, you are interested in what is called HYPERTROPHY. A program like a 5 x 5 is geared more towards overall strength development, it's a solid core program, and certainly a great starting point. But I'm sorry, there is no magic number (pulling or pushing a certain amount of weight) that will give you a certain muscular look. How your muscles develop is entirely dependent on what type of muscle fiber you've got in any given body part. Being able to squat 225 may not necessarily give your legs the look you want, neither may squatting 550. Legs are notoriously difficult to get to bulk up for a lot of people (for which there is a perfectly good evolutionary reason, legs are generally made up of slow twitch fibers which are better for endurance). Slow twitch muscles are more efficient at using oxygen to generate more fuel (known as ATP) for continuous, extended muscle contractions over a long time. They fire more slowly than fast twitch fibers and can go for a long time before they fatigue. Therefore, slow twitch fibers are great at helping athletes run marathons and bicycle for hours.

Fast twitch fibers use anaerobic metabolism to create fuel, they are much better at generating short bursts of strength or speed than slow muscles. However, they fatigue more quickly. Fast twitch fibers generally produce the same amount of force per contraction as slow muscles, but they get their name because they are able to fire more rapidly. Having more fast twitch fibers can be an asset to a power lifter or body builder, since they need to quickly generate a lot of force.

As a general rule of thumb, slow twitch muscles have a longer appearance and don't bulk and bunch in the same way as fast twitch muscles (think of it this way, Lance Armstrong would probably NEVER make a good bodybuilder).

I mean, I'm by no means an expert, but just trying to give you a starting point.

And in the final analysis, even if you're considering stepping on a stage someday, weight training is about competing against yourself. Setting your goals, achieving them, and surpassing them. Comparing your abilities or appearance against another person a formula for permanent disappointment. There is always someone out there (of either gender), who is bigger, stronger or more cut than you will ever be. On the other hand, there truly are no limits to the potential your own body has, how much you can do or how far you can take yourself.

Thanks for the input. Although there's no magic formula do you ascribe to the idea that medium weight and higher reps and sets are more conducive for hypertrophy?

How long should you expect to train/experiment with a routine before you change it up again?

Can you try a leg workout for 3 months and expect to get some measurable growth? If my legs start at 18 inches could I expect to gain an inch after a few months and if not change out again ... up the reps or sets?

I understand the basics of the hypertrophy vs endurance ... wondering on how long you try a certain routine before you move on ?

Thanks ....
 
Thanks for the input. Although there's no magic formula do you ascribe to the idea that medium weight and higher reps and sets are more conducive for hypertrophy?

How long should you expect to train/experiment with a routine before you change it up again?

Can you try a leg workout for 3 months and expect to get some measurable growth? If my legs start at 18 inches could I expect to gain an inch after a few months and if not change out again ... up the reps or sets?

I understand the basics of the hypertrophy vs endurance ... wondering on how long you try a certain routine before you move on ?

Thanks ....
The human body is not a physics equation. And even if it were, you're asking me to create a hypothesis based on incomplete information, i.e., I don't know if you're eating sufficient calories in the correct macros, I don't know what level of intensity you're putting in, I don't know if you're doing the exercises with correct form, I don't know how old you are, what your overall health is, etc., etc., etc.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to frustrate you on purpose, but so much goes into muscular development.

Your workouts might be all right, but if your diet is inadequate then you'll never get the results you want, do you see my point? And if you're really new to weight training, IMO (my opinion, I want to emphasize that) I think you need to give a routine at least three to six months before your body knows what it's really doing, much less if it's time to change things up.
 
Top Bottom