The 3 main factors that determine strength

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 01:36 PM

Innervation

Without your nervous system, you couldn’t lift a blade of grass. To be strong, you need to have an efficient nervous system that innervates a large quantity of your muscle mass. Motor nerves end in the muscle at synaptic junctions called motor end plates. From there, multiple parallel muscle fibres are innervated by the dendrites of the neurons or nerve cells. The more efficient your nerve supply, the stronger you are. Think of a powerlifter or an Olympic lifter. They are incredibly strong for the amount of muscle mass they have, compared to a bodybuilder. This is because they lift very heavy weights for low reps in a high number of sets. Lifting very heavy means you have to recruit more muscle fibres than if you lift a lower weight. As a result your nervous system becomes accustomed to recruiting all your muscle fibres in order to provide the necessary strength.

Cross-sectional area

The main component of strength is muscle mass, or to be more precise, the cross-sectional area of that mass. It is not the length of your muscles that affects your strength, it is how massive they are in cross-section. This is because the greater the cs-area, the greater the number of myofibrils contracting for you to lift a weight.

All skeletal muscle exerts the same force if it is recruited by the nervous system, so how strong you are will mostly depend on how much muscle you have, obviously so. By increasing the number of sarcomeres in the myofibrils found in muscle fibres, you increase the contractile strength of your muscles.

Leverage

Someone with long arms, and therefore long levers is technically at a disadvantage if their bone structure does not match. A person with long thin arms will not have the necessary connective tissue and musculature to overcome the poor leverages associated with their bones. Consider two bodybuilders that are identical, only one is six inches taller and all their levers are longer. They may have the same muscle mass, but the one with the shorter levers will be stronger because the weight they are moving through a range of motion is closer to their body and leverage is more efficient. If the person with the longer levers happened to have thicker bones, more muscle mass and more connective tissue, they will be stronger despite their mechanical disadvantage because they are a bigger person and will be proportionally stronger.

By Digitor

**the OMU** · 10-09-2006, 03:00 PM

would this by any chance have to do with cowpimp?

And i would really have to disagree with your post. Strength is based on skill and core/ab strength, not size. If you have a clean ripped 6pack doesnt mean that u actually have strong abs.

Theres a big different between powerlifting and bodybuilding. Bodybuilding is all about getting big, powerlifting is all about skill and technique. Powerlifters are stronger but not as big as bodybuilders. If this 'goes against all science' i have all these moderators backing me up.

**P-funk** · 10-09-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by the OMU

would this by any chance have to do with cowpimp?

And i would really have to disagree with your post. Strength is based on skill and core/ab strength, not size. If you have a clean ripped 6pack doesnt mean that u actually have strong abs.

Theres a big different between powerlifting and bodybuilding. Bodybuilding is all about getting big, powerlifting is all about skill and technique. Powerlifters are stronger but not as big as bodybuilders. If this 'goes against all science' i have all these moderators backing me up.

strength is based on the three things in Digitor's article, as well as angle of pennation (which he doesn't include for one reason or another).

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by the OMU

would this by any chance have to do with cowpimp?

And i would really have to disagree with your post. Strength is based on skill and core/ab strength, not size. If you have a clean ripped 6pack doesnt mean that u actually have strong abs.

Theres a big different between powerlifting and bodybuilding. Bodybuilding is all about getting big, powerlifting is all about skill and technique. Powerlifters are stronger but not as big as bodybuilders. If this 'goes against all science' i have all these moderators backing me up.

This thread says The nervous system, skeletal muscle and leverage are the three main factors.

You say Strength is based on skill and core/ab strength, not size...well the core is skeletal muscle so you agree with that point.
The nervous system is being developed fits your opinion of skill being important. So you seem to agree with the thread completly as far as I can see.

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by P-funk

strength is based on the three things in Digitor's article, as well as angle of pennation (which he doesn't include for one reason or another).

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

And point of insertion.

His goal is to keep his threads at a level that most people can understand without education in kinesiology, anatomy and physiology or related fields.

**Dale Mabry** · 10-09-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by P-funk

strength is based on the three things in Digitor's article, as well as angle of pennation (which he doesn't include for one reason or another).

And point of insertion.

**P-funk** · 10-09-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

And point of insertion.

right.

**P-funk** · 10-09-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

His goal is to keep his threads at a level that most people can understand without education in kinesiology, anatomy and physiology or related fields.

Are you implying that I don't do the same?

I try and keep it basic....101, for everyone.

At the same time, reading his post, I am not sure many people know or need to know what motor neurons, the synaptic junction and motor end plates are.

When discussing this stuff, there is certain terminology that applies, that is going to get tossed around.

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by P-funk

Are you implying that I don't do the same?

I try and keep it basic....101, for everyone.

At the same time, reading his post, I am not sure many people know or need to know what motor neurons, the synaptic junction and motor end plates are.

When discussing this stuff, there is certain terminology that applies, that is going to get tossed around.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This thread is just one thing he wrote, and is not meant to be compared to any other persons writings or opinions on this or any other site.

**Dale Mabry** · 10-09-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by P-funk

strength is based on the three things in Digitor's article, as well as angle of pennation (which he doesn't include for one reason or another).

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

And point of insertion.

His goal is to keep his threads at a level that most people can understand without education in kinesiology, anatomy a

Point of insertion is pretty basic, most people could figure out what it is without looking it up. Although, he could have just put genetic physiological factors in one group.

How do you edit a post without it showing that it was edited?

I knew you did it in the other thread, but wasn't positive.

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Point of insertion is pretty basic, most people could figure out what it is without looking it up. Although, he could have just put genetic physiological factors in one group.

How do you edit a post without it showing that it was edited?

I knew you did it in the other thread, but wasn't positive.

Seems basic to me also but most people get lost fast when the conversation gets too technical....But that is not why I posted this thread, I just like what he had to say and thought some people might want to read it.

My editing powers will remain a secret for now. .

**Witchblade** · 10-09-2006, 04:14 PM

Looks like a good read to me. Could someone explain me what that 'point of insertion' is?

**Dale Mabry** · 10-09-2006, 04:18 PM

Where the muscle inserts in relation to the joint.

**assassin** · 10-09-2006, 06:59 PM

good simple article if it had a couple more lines I wouldn't have read it...

**Trouble** · 10-09-2006, 10:31 PM

Ahh me, not a peep about CNS recovery and oxidative respiration damage and its repair, nor about repair capacity of muscle, connective and nerve tissue.

Nor a word about cellular energetics being important. Just a bit of simplistic handwaving about biomechanics with a tat of CNS blathering. What is the metric of 'efficiency' of nerve supply. Not a peep about the other sensors that play a role in muscle memory.

Life for this writer is simple, uncomplicated, and unfortunately, spotty. Muscle insertions are quite important, and one would think, perhaps, so would be the efficiency of fuel untake and storage that runs muscle biomechanics and really has quite a bit to do with both strength and recovery.

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 10:34 PM

You read too much into it, this is not rocket science and his article is beautifully simple and for the most part true. You don't like it?? Write your own in your own words...Then post it in it's own thread.

Please no cut and paste BS.

**Dale Mabry** · 10-09-2006, 10:38 PM

I would use

Enzymatic
Physiological
Neurological

if I had to choose just 3, but they are all inter-related to an extent.

I read somewhere that a difference of 1cm wrt point of insertion makes a huge difference, especially with a multi-pennate muscle..

**Trouble** · 10-09-2006, 10:47 PM

Dale; Perfecto 3-pointer; I might go so far as to include a mention on gene or hormone regulation along with enzymatic (subcellular processes). Agreed on the choices and comment on pinnation (as this affects the applied moment force through a point).

Foreman: I write in my own words. You asked for the science citations, I supplied them, per request.

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Trouble

Dale; Perfecto 3-pointer; I might go so far as to include a mention on gene or hormone regulation along with enzymatic (subcellular processes). Agreed on the choices and comment on pinnation (as this affects the applied moment force through a point).

Foreman: I write in my own words. You asked for the science citations, I supplied them, per request.

Then your very, very short 35 word post was way to simple and did not even come close to surpassing the thread starters opinion. I am very disappointed in you. Also from what I read of your tiny post I have to say you are 100% wrong.

**kenwood** · 10-09-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Then your very, very short 35 word post was way to simple and did not even come close to surpassing the thread starters opinion. I am very disappointed in you. Also from what I read of your tiny post I have to say you are 100% wrong.

i agree

**PWGriffin** · 10-09-2006, 11:36 PM

This shit is getting old. Foreman. Guess what. You don't know shit compared to these people. You are completely outclassed. Stop it...You sound like a little fucking kid. You don't even have to admit your wrong (I doubt that's possible) just STFU and quit telling educated people they are wrong based on nothing. You are not even amusing anymore. Just immature.

**viet_jon** · 10-09-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by kenwood

i agree

what do you agree on?

that this post is BS?

Originally Posted by trouble

Dale; Perfecto 3-pointer; I might go so far as to include a mention on gene or hormone regulation along with enzymatic (subcellular processes). Agreed on the choices and comment on pinnation (as this affects the applied moment force through a point).

Foreman: I write in my own words. You asked for the science citations, I supplied them, per request.

do you know what a hormone regulator is?
enzymatic?
pinnation?

me neither, so I don't go saying I agree with this or that.

**kenwood** · 10-09-2006, 11:44 PM

i agree with whatever foreman says!

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

This shit is getting old. Foreman. Guess what. You don't know shit compared to these people. You are completely outclassed. Stop it...You sound like a little fucking kid. You don't even have to admit your wrong (I doubt that's possible) just STFU and quit telling educated people they are wrong based on nothing. You are not even amusing anymore. Just immature.

It is not about me son. This thread is from another person. Trouble only posts cut and paste stuff, and most of it is just one opinion of many. I realize you idolize these people but most of them really do not know much and have not been in the game for long.

I am sorry I prove them wrong every time and do not buy in to unproven theory....I believe in experience and documented science and that it is. On a side note you seem to know almost nothing at all and I would bet in the gym you are very unimpressive. I also see you have no pics....Typical.

**TJ Cline** · 10-09-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by kenwood

i agree with whatever foreman says!

The guy in your avatar has arms as fat as Dale Mabry.

**Trouble** · 10-09-2006, 11:58 PM

At least you could include proper attribution of your source when you copy and paste in an article here, Foreman.

http://extremebodybuilding.net/showthread.php?t=178

**TJ Cline** · 10-10-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Trouble

At least you could include proper attribution of your source when you copy and paste in an article here, Foreman.

http://extremebodybuilding.net/showthread.php?t=178

I sited his name, that is more that you do...what is it now, about 500 posts you have never given credit to any person. Do you really want to start a fight with me???? I have all day to pull up your posts that are cut and paste....and most never give a source.......and you enjoy taking credit for what others have discovered .

Also look on that site....I have posted things from other sites there....and I have at ever turn posted the author.....you might try that some time Trouble .

And by the way....unlike you I give Rob the respect not to promote other sites....you might keep that in mind in the future.
Rules On This Board - Read Me!

Read the rules before you link other sites to IM

The 3 main factors that determine strength

Innervation

Without your nervous system, you couldn’t lift a blade of grass. To be strong, you need to have an efficient nervous system that innervates a large quantity of your muscle mass. Motor nerves end in the muscle at synaptic junctions called motor end plates. From there, multiple parallel muscle fibres are innervated by the dendrites of the neurons or nerve cells. The more efficient your nerve supply, the stronger you are. Think of a powerlifter or an Olympic lifter. They are incredibly strong for the amount of muscle mass they have, compared to a bodybuilder. This is because they lift very heavy weights for low reps in a high number of sets. Lifting very heavy means you have to recruit more muscle fibres than if you lift a lower weight. As a result your nervous system becomes accustomed to recruiting all your muscle fibres in order to provide the necessary strength.

Cross-sectional area

The main component of strength is muscle mass, or to be more precise, the cross-sectional area of that mass. It is not the length of your muscles that affects your strength, it is how massive they are in cross-section. This is because the greater the cs-area, the greater the number of myofibrils contracting for you to lift a weight.

All skeletal muscle exerts the same force if it is recruited by the nervous system, so how strong you are will mostly depend on how much muscle you have, obviously so. By increasing the number of sarcomeres in the myofibrils found in muscle fibres, you increase the contractile strength of your muscles.

Leverage

Someone with long arms, and therefore long levers is technically at a disadvantage if their bone structure does not match. A person with long thin arms will not have the necessary connective tissue and musculature to overcome the poor leverages associated with their bones. Consider two bodybuilders that are identical, only one is six inches taller and all their levers are longer. They may have the same muscle mass, but the one with the shorter levers will be stronger because the weight they are moving through a range of motion is closer to their body and leverage is more efficient. If the person with the longer levers happened to have thicker bones, more muscle mass and more connective tissue, they will be stronger despite their mechanical disadvantage because they are a bigger person and will be proportionally stronger.

By Digitor......wow look at that I gave credit to the source....you should try that.

**viet_jon** · 10-10-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Trouble

At least you could include proper attribution of your source when you copy and paste in an article here, Foreman.

http://extremebodybuilding.net/showthread.php?t=178

how come that link doesn't work?

last I heard, it was invite only, maybe that's it.

**Dale Mabry** · 10-10-2006, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

It is not about me son. This thread is from another person. Trouble only posts cut and paste stuff, and most of it is just one opinion of many. I realize you idolize these people but most of them really do not know much and have not been in the game for long.

I am sorry I prove them wrong every time and do not buy in to unproven theory....I believe in experience and documented science and that it is. On a side note you seem to know almost nothing at all and I would bet in the gym you are very unimpressive. I also see you have no pics....Typical.

You have documented zero scientific articles...pathetic. The same can be said re: digitor's article as you have said about Trouble's article, only that Trouble has the schooling to back up what she says. He uses not one single citation to prove his points and your blindfollowing is reminiscent of the biblepushers of the 1800's.

I am shcoked and dismayed at how Digitor would blatantly steal other people's ideas and pass them off as his own without giving proper citations to the original work. He obviously steals other people's work and passes it off as his own. Jesus would not be pleased with this.

The hurt you have caused many here is deep, and irreparable, and to this I say good day, kind sir.

**ZECH** · 10-10-2006, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

You have documented zero scientific articles...pathetic. The same can be said re: digitor's article as you have said about Trouble's artcile, only that Trouble has the schooling to back up what she says.

Absolutely agree.

Thread: The 3 main factors that determine strength

Thread Tools

Display

The 3 main factors that determine strength

Similar Threads

Factors Other Than Genes Could Cause Obesity

What do you use to determine how many mg to use

Factors Other Than Genes Could Cause Obesity

factors for identifying over training

Posting Permissions