Thread: strength gains = muscle mass?

Only if you are taking in more calories than you are burning off.You can definately get stronger without a correlating increase in muscle size.Simply look at powerlifters ,especially in the lower weight classes.

They are correlated, but it certainly is not linear. But as a general rule of thumb, yes, you can assume as much.

I find, frequently, that strength gains happen first, then hypertrophy kicks in shortly thereafter.

On the flipside of the question.

What do you lose first, muscle or strength?

I apologize for being so broad. I would assume that you can keep muscle longer than strength if you continue to use the same weights and eat properly. Then I suppose you could assume that strength would hover if kept at the same weights and eatting properly.

Anymore incite on this?

Personally, strength. I imagine that differs.

whats the difference in training principles between powerlifting and normal mass building training?

powerlifters do a lot of triples, doubles, and singles along with speed work, use of chains, and bands to work for the explosive power. they do box squats of various heights to strengthen their squats in certain areas to help gain that explosiveness. pretty much all of powerlifting is optimizing form to become more explosive and strong. they don't care what they look like, at least most of them it seems anyways.

powerlifting focused mainly on their three lifts: deadlift, squat, and bench. any other work they do is to strengthen these lifts in some way.

mass building obvious focuses on getting a symmetrical look and a big look for some. so you're going to basically do those 3 fundamental lifts as well, but you add the extra lifts that work best for your physique.