size/strength connection

  • Thread starter imported_duffman
  • Start date
I

imported_duffman

Guest
Hey guys.
This is an interesting article i found on an Australian web site about the absolute connection between strength and muscle size. Any experts with opinions would be appreacated.(click on link

isze/strength
 
I believe that Bryan more or less agrees with that. He has already said that what determines the gains during a cycle is the difference of load between the starting load and the ending load.

This being said, IF you decondition, you can theoretically gain muscle several times with the same load. So it might be a bit more complicated than a question of strength increase. The variation of the level of conditionning also is to consider.

I believe that the conclusion of this article is a bit exagerated. I think that it is imperative to get stronger to get bigger if one doesn't decondition. But I doubt it is so accurate that you can have an equation like they say. I may be wrong of course.

The efficiency of the nervous system plays a significant role in strength. For instance, if you train too much - say several days in a row the same muscle to failure-, you might lose strength, but probably you won't lose muscle, because the nervous system overtrains.
 
It's easier to say a muscles CSA is equal to it's strength, BUT, if you really read the physiology stuff, it's the combined CSA of the fibrils that is directly proportional to it's strength. With whole muscles, the delta strength, is not always equal to the delta CSA. Due to fiber volume and pennation angles, it can vary a bit. But in general, one thing is for sure, if you increase the amount of fibrils in a fiber, this increases the amount of crossbridges and therefore must increase the strength of the fiber. In mammals, all across the species, each crossbridge produces almost exactly the same force.

Ron
 
This also makes me think of somthing that is said in the article that may not be true.

The guy says that being carb depleted makes you weaker. It shouldn't be the case because it is the size of the contractile material that matters, and THAT doesn't change with fluid retention in the muscles.


Also, if it is the CSA that determines strength, shouldn't it be strength athletes who should train - and eat - like bodybuilders, and not the contrary?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Also, if it is the CSA that determines strength, shouldn't it be strength athletes who should train - and eat - like bodybuilders, and not the contrary?
Click to expand...
why?

strength moves are specific. eating... well becuase its not needed.
 
Yeah but this guy says that there's a corelation between CSA and strength. He says that the CAUSE is the CSA and the effect is strength.

So he contradicts himself. He doesn't explain why an increase in strength would produce an increase of CSA, he explains the reverse.

So following strictly his logic, a system optimized for size like HST would also be optimized for strength.

I'm not saying that it is not important to increase strength to get bigger, I'm saying that he doesn't make his point correctly.
 
If you make big strength gains like PLs, OLs, Strongmen etc... it's because you stimulate GROWTH !!!

Most "amateurs" BBs don't make big strength gains because their pumping method is ineffective except to build some sarcoplasmic volume. The pros take so much drugs that it doesn't matter if they train or not. The simple fact of flexing their muscles might provide a contraction intense enough to make them grow :D
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So he contradicts himself. He doesn't explain why an increase in strength would produce an increase of CSA, he explains the reverse.
So following strictly his logic, a system optimized for size like HST would also be optimized for strength
Click to expand...
I understand him like that : an increase in strength doesn't produce an increase in CSA but IS THE RESULT of an increase in CSA. So strength athletes despite the fact they train for strength directly train for size (and to improve their technique on specific lifts).
Isn't hypertrophy training the best strength training, for GENERAL strength (not for specific strength on an exercise, demonstration of strength) ?
 
"The pros take so much drugs that it doesn't matter if they train or not. The simple fact of flexing their muscles might provide a contraction intense enough to make them grow "


---Yeah I read somewhere that a bodybuilder that chewed gum while on steroids made his jaw noticably bigger on one side. Don't know how true that story is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top