View Full Version : Does size = strength?
09-26-2007, 04:49 PM
I weighed in at 161 about a year ago but cut back to 155 by restricting my diet. I remember my max bench being at around 185-195 back then (able to do only 1 or 2 reps).
I got myself up to 205 for eight reps. When I cut back down to 155 I could still do 205 for 5/6 reps. Additionally, I don't appear to be as large or as thick as before.
What exactly happened? Is your size proportional to your strength or is there something else going on here?
09-26-2007, 05:29 PM
No, as their are many "big" and thick people who are very weak for their given size.
However, the reverse is true. Strength = Size. As you get stronger, you tend to develop more muscle, quicker and easier (at least in the beginning).
09-26-2007, 09:46 PM
*Generally speaking* I would say yes. There is a correlation (but not causation!!) with increased muscle mass with increased strength. However, how much depends on the type of training, diet, genetics, amount of sleep, etc.
What Steve said is also a good answer for the given question.
09-27-2007, 12:05 AM
all other things being equal, greater cross-sectional area will equal more strength. but all things are rarely equal. in two muscles of the same size, differences in motor unit recruitment, etc. will produce differences in strength/power capacity. also, fiber type has to be factored in. this is why bodybuilders are relatively weak despite appearing well-muscled--their type I fibers are the most hypertrophied and contribute little to strength/power. weightlifters on the other hand have more type II hypertrophy--in addition to excellent neuromuscular development--and are therefore able to produce greater force/power with smaller muscle sizes.
vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.