muscle size dictates potential for muscle strenght?
So, i since i had never heard of this when someone posted it, i thought i had to atleast check it out..
Quote:
The proper phases of weight training is in this order - Endurance, hypertrophy, strength, power. Thus, hypertrophy should be done before strength training as the potentiol to get stronger is far greater.
I asked if "muscle size dictates potential for muscle strenght?"
Quote:
muscle size dictates potential for muscle strenght
Is this true, if so.. why? does a muscle have to be of a certain size to be able to have a certain strenght? wouldnt the muscle simply become bigger if it was needed to "store" the strenght gains during a strenght routine?
so a newbie should focus on hyp reps of 8-12? around there. But isent that just as much to learn the lifts and get the CNS used to the movements and able to recruit muscle more effectivly?
I also found it to be a bit of a broad statement. thats why i wanted to post it here.
IMO it's more true than not. Think of it a little differently. If you take all things equal and put 30lbs of muscle (bigger muscles) on the a dude, he's going to have better potential to be stronger than he was 30lbs ago. That's a "duh" kind of statement right?
On the same hand you take a dude and put 100lbs on his squat, he's going to have more potential to put on muscle than he was 100lbs ago because he can work harder right?
If you get too locked into one you're kind of missing the forest. Keep a close watch on both. Spend more time training the one that means the most to you, don't neglect the other.
That order of progession is written for athletes.
Endurance training gives you a solid base to start building on.
Hypertrophy training gets the extra size which is needed in many sports.
Strength is used in season as intensity increases, volume decreases.
Once solid strength base built then power can be targetted.
Then progression starts all over again as you move into transition phase and then into off season training.
So, i since i had never heard of this when someone posted it, i thought i had to atleast check it out..
I asked if "muscle size dictates potential for muscle strenght?"
Is this true, if so.. why? does a muscle have to be of a certain size to be able to have a certain strenght? wouldnt the muscle simply become bigger if it was needed to "store" the strenght gains during a strenght routine?
I am not a fan of the quote at all. It is a typical linear plan like Josh Dunn mentioned and it isn't bad, but it makes it sound like its the only way to do things.
To answer Karky's question, no a muscles size does not indicate its strength. Look at all the low weight class powerlifters and olympic lifters, tons of strength, not a lot of muscle. Compare them to super heavy bodybuilders. They aren't usually weak, but for the amount of muscle they have aren't that strong either.
To address the quote. Its really not the best way to do things either, once a person goes through all of the phases, which isn't a bad idea for a begginer. You should origionally develop them in that order, but after that transitioning back into the first phase will only make a person weak and slow again.
Plus if a person is really interested in hypertrophy, jumping from a strength bases cycle into a hypertrophy bases cycle can work really really well. In a strength and power cycle you will learn to recruit more muscle fibers. Then when you go into a hypertrophy phases you will better be able to stimulate more fibers and create more growth.
Danny
__________________
Limitations are for people who have them.
I when starting off a new trainee start with lower level weights, higher reps and general balance movements and conditioning. After that it becomes very goal specific.
That order while not dangerous by any means, is I agree way to generalized and not optimal.
As far as muscle size in comparison to strength, not true at all. I personally have advanced highly in the strength department, in deficits, with very little muscle gain.
Side note: I saw who posted that and find myself to disagree a lot with their attitude, philosophies and general knowledge.
I when starting off a new trainee start with lower level weights, higher reps and general balance movements and conditioning. After that it becomes very goal specific.
That order while not dangerous by any means, is I agree way to generalized and not optimal.
As far as muscle size in comparison to strength, not true at all. I personally have advanced highly in the strength department, in deficits, with very little muscle gain.
Side note: I saw who posted that and find myself to disagree a lot with their attitude, philosophies and general knowledge.
You see some small guys who are strong, but rarely do you see a big muscular guy who is weak. Everyone likes to use big BB'ers as examples, but they dont max out very often.
Lots of the pro bb'ers could hit 15-20reps with a 500lbs squat. Sure lots of 165lbs kids can can squat 500lbs, but, 15 times? Doubt it.
When I finished break in and fatloss, looking at my body, BF, and wt of my lifts I decided that my major deficit was strength, I had already piled on maybe 20+ pounds of muscle, but not particularly strong. I had been when I was younger.
You see some small guys who are strong, but rarely do you see a big muscular guy who is weak. Everyone likes to use big BB'ers as examples, but they dont max out very often.
Lots of the pro bb'ers could hit 15-20reps with a 500lbs squat. Sure lots of 165lbs kids can can squat 500lbs, but, 15 times? Doubt it.
Apples and oranges, though, don't you think? How many big bodybuilders who haven't used performance-enhancing drugs could bang out 15-20 reps of a double-body-weight squat?
Apples and oranges, though, don't you think? How many big bodybuilders who haven't used performance-enhancing drugs could bang out 15-20 reps of a double-body-weight squat?
Thank you. That needed to be said.
Coming down from the rarified climes of the pros, as a moke who works out in his basement, I have had some of my best strength gains while cutting or maintaining.
__________________ In Fitness & Friendship, MAHLER
______________________________ __________________________ There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You carry the light with you.
Cross sectional area of a muscle is only one small part of how strong a muscle is. There are many other neurological factors involved. The perfect example that people have already pointed out is lower level weight class powerlifters. Insanely strong and not very big....
Apples and oranges, though, don't you think? How many big bodybuilders who haven't used performance-enhancing drugs could bang out 15-20 reps of a double-body-weight squat?
Hypertrophy is hypertrophy. I would think most people training squats for a number of years, lets say five, if they are dedicated could bang out a 2x bw squat for 15 reps.
What im saying is, a small guy may be strong. But very rarely is a big guy weak. You almost never see someone who hold alot of body mass struggling with moderate weights.
Yes, in absolutes, the big guy will almost always appear strong.
However, if we're talking about whether hypertrophy is hypertrophy, we're talking about cross-section or unit-mass, not the absolutes. So the REAL question is: Is the big guy just as strong after you adjust for unit of cross-section or unit of mass (i.e. strength per widest-diameter-of-muscle or strength per kg of muscle mass)?
And I'm not totally sure, but I'm pretty sure that it's not a linear relationship between cross-sectional diameter and strength. And no, it's not exponential either.
Hypertrophy is hypertrophy. I would think most people training squats for a number of years, lets say five, if they are dedicated could bang out a 2x bw squat for 15 reps.
Would that hold true whether they were big or small? Whether they trained for hypertrophy or strength or both? (Just so you know where I'm going with this...I'm saying it's not SIZE that dictates whether or not they can do it...it's TRAINING.) Hypertrophy IS hypertrophy. I agree with that. Hypertrohy does not necessarily equal strength.
Quote:
What im saying is, a small guy may be strong. But very rarely is a big guy weak. You almost never see someone who hold alot of body mass struggling with moderate weights.
What I'm saying is that people who train are strong relative to their body weight and size. I'm sure we all know plenty of guys who are 240 pounds who can't do 2x bw squats. There is a big guy who lives on my block who works construction. He doesn't lift weights. There ain't NO WAY that guy is doing 15 2x bw squats. He's not even doing 15 1x bw squats.
MAybe a big guy who TRAINS is rarely weak. At least in absolute terms. But that is a trivial statement. It says nothing.
If you are a natural lifter (and not a newbie) you need to get stronger to get bigger.
I don't see how sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will help with strength gains.
__________________ - It's Rage, the rules are different!
- Rage is more ... testosteron-y
- Keep a rage handy to wipe your fingers so your not tempted to lick them
I think it is more genetics that determine if the persons muscle size mean strength.
When I was in freshmen football most of the seniors/junior had larger measurements than me in my legs yet I was 2x stronger than them (at that time I was about 14 yrs old 170 lbs and squating over 645 lbs 1RM). Even right now in the gym there are bigger people but I can push more weight up at once. But hey train different than me all I see them doing is DB items and they generally run about 10 to 15 reps where I got for weights I can usually do correctly for 3 to 5 reps
Has anyone noticed a bunch of people getting bigger without getting stronger? I get that you don't NEED to get bigger to get stronger and that's it's not a 1:1 ratio...blah blah blah...but as blanket statements go wouldn't the same trained individual *usually* be stronger (1RM) with more muscle mass than without, assuming all else is equal (training, sleep, blah)
Has anyone noticed a bunch of people getting bigger without getting stronger? I get that you don't NEED to get bigger to get stronger and that's it's not a 1:1 ratio...blah blah blah...but as blanket statements go wouldn't the same trained individual *usually* be stronger (1RM) with more muscle mass than without, assuming all else is equal (training, sleep, blah)
Yes.
The reason a bigger muscle has the potential to be stronger is because it has a bigger cross sectional area. Straight out of Supertraining, 1.6 The Nature of Strength:
Quote:
Structural factors, however, only provide the potential for producing strength, since strength is a neuromuscular phenomenon which exploits this potential to generate motor activity. It is well known that strength is proportional to the cross-sectional area of a muscle, so that larger muscles have the potential to develop greater strength than smaller muscles. However, the fact that olympic lifters can increase their strength from year to year while remaining at the same bodymass reveals that strength depends on other factors as well.
I believe the biggest determinant of strength is neuromuscular efficiency, how many of your fibers your nervous system can hit. However, all else being equal, having larger muscles will give you more power behind those fibers. Now, I don't believe that 'hypertrophy is hypertrophy.' There are two very distinct types of muscle growth. There is myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Myofibrillar hypertrophy obviously increases strength because it increases the size of the fiber myofibrils, which increases the size of the sarcomere's, the functional contractile unit of muscle. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy gets a bad rap because it's been deemed 'non-functional' hypertrophy, as in it doesn't help with strength. While I don't believe this type of growth has the same potential for strength as myofibrillar hypertrophy, I don't think it's non-functional at all. When acetylcholine is delivered to the muscle from the nerve end brushes, calcium is released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum into the sarcoplasm to produce the contraction, wouldn't it stand to reason that increasing the volume of sarcoplasm would increase a muscles potential for power? A disclaimer: that's a hypothesis of mine, I haven't read that anywhere, but it makes sense to me. I think that's another reason bodybuilders have greater strength endurance as well. Once a muscle contracts and the myosin filaments 'lock on' to the actin, it takes calcium to release them so the muscle can contract further, bodybuilders tend to have more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, hence more calcium, hence the ability to produce more/longer muscle contractions, even though their maximum contractions may not be as strong as a more neurally efficient weight lifter.
So, my response to original question is yes, a bigger muscle has the potential to be a stronger one, but this is a very narrow, short-sided view point. Other factors must be developed to realize this potential. It certainly does not mean that bigger muscles will always be stronger.
__________________
I do not workout. I TRAIN.
I do not eat. I FEED.
I do not sleep. I RECHARGE.
My greatest fear in this life is the fear of being ordinary.
I believe the biggest determinant of strength is neuromuscular efficiency, how many of your fibers your nervous system can hit.
Jason this is a very good point, and one that I've looked into quite a bit because I think it is an important factor in developing optimal strength and power in athletes. What are your thoughts about ways to train that increase the number of fibers that are recruited?
Jason this is a very good point, and one that I've looked into quite a bit because I think it is an important factor in developing optimal strength and power in athletes. What are your thoughts about ways to train that increase the number of fibers that are recruited?
Believe it or not, I'm writing an article on that subject right now. I'm not a 'fitness expert' or anything, don't have any of the fancy letters behind my name yet. But one thing I'd like to do other than train athletes and own my own gym is write articles, so I practice a lot. I was planning on posting this one here though to get some critisizm, I'm almost done with it. Short answer, I believe efficiency is best improved through frequent 'practice' and (duh) heavy lifting. No different than any other skill, you improve the ability of your nervous system by giving it (proper) practice.
__________________
I do not workout. I TRAIN.
I do not eat. I FEED.
I do not sleep. I RECHARGE.
My greatest fear in this life is the fear of being ordinary.
Believe it or not, I'm writing an article on that subject right now. I'm not a 'fitness expert' or anything, don't have any of the fancy letters behind my name yet. But one thing I'd like to do other than train athletes and own my own gym is write articles, so I practice a lot. I was planning on posting this one here though to get some critisizm, I'm almost done with it. Short answer, I believe efficiency is best improved through frequent 'practice' and (duh) heavy lifting. No different than any other skill, you improve the ability of your nervous system by giving it (proper) practice.
I hope you do post it here. I'd love to read it.
I think you'll get a good reception, too. People around here love to be supportive of those that are striving toward their goals. I'm sure you'll get plenty of constructive critisism, but that's really the important part, right?
We can only write for ourselves for so long before we stop getting better.
muscle size dictates potential for muscle strenght?
Linear Mode
