Muscle size to strength ratio ?

[Rissole]

Just to settle an arguement between me and my training partner probably a dumb question.
My biceps are 16 1/4 inches (pythons!!) lol and his are 14 and a bit. Would smaller biceps mean that you can't lift as much or not??
At the moment he's kind of lifting the same as me (but how do you say "not as clean") I like to focus on being supa clean on all my lifts
Part of Yesterdays workout:
ME
Standing curl 37kg 12/10
Alternate d/b curls 20kg 9/9
Incline curls 17kg 12/10
HIM
Standing curl 37kg 12/12
Alternate d/b curls 20kg 12/10
Incline curls 17kg 9/9
Any comments welcome and once again thanks guys

 

[LAM]

muscle size is not directly proportional to strength...

 

[KryptoAllez]

Originally posted by LAM
muscle size is not directly proportional to strength...

Exactly right. My little 13" arms are as strong as some 14" arms I know. I've also seen evidence of muscle size not being proportional to strength at bench press competitions and from watching the strong man/woman competitions. The biggest guy/girl isn't always stronger.

 

[Robboe]

Originally posted by LAM
muscle size is not directly proportional to strength...

Maybe, but you'd expect a larger muscle to be stronger in relation to a smaller one. that is, more muscle fibres = more potential strength.

 

[LAM]

true but on the other hand.

A larger muscle may have larger muscle fibers but a smaller muscle can have a much higher muscle density, which is genetically predetermined.

 

[Scotty the Body]

A lot depends on genetic make up, but generally, large muscles = more strength.

 

[KryptoAllez]

Originally posted by LAM
true but on the other hand.

A larger muscle may have larger muscle fibers but a smaller muscle can have a much higher muscle density, which is genetically predetermined.

Some people's muscles may have more mitochondria inside the muscle cells, some could have more sacromeres, or more actin and myosin filaments etc, which may not necessarily make the actual muscle bigger.

 

[Arnold]

I agree with LAM.

Another thing to add is genetic leverage, where the tendons attach.

 

[Robboe]

Hmmm...I was comparing bigger muscles on the same person.

If John Smith has a size X muscle, then in general terms, for the same muscle, anything larger than X would be stronger. Unless something strange occurs of course.

 

[LAM]

that's true...

 

[Twin Peak]

Two examples:

Powerlifters are stronger, bodybuilders have bigger muscles.

Franco was MUCH stronger than Arnold, nuff said.

 

[Rissole]

Thanks Guys

 

[gopro]

Strength can be gained with little gain in hypertrophy. Therefore, a bigger muscle does not mean a stronger one.

 

[KryptoAllez]

Originally posted by gopro
Strength can be gained with little gain in hypertrophy. Therefore, a bigger muscle does not mean a stronger one.

Yeah, I'll say! My biceps have gotten stronger yet they're STILL only 13"! Same with my triceps, I can do a decent amount of weight with them but yet they are one of my lagging body parts!

 

[LAM]

Krypto....have you tried not doing any direct bicep work for a while ?

 

[Snake_Eyes]

A bigger muscle, that is to say one that has increased its cross-sectional area, is going to have a larger absolute strength than it previously had.

Whether or not it is *actually* stronger is going to depend on how much of that absolute strength turns into usable strength; ie, the strength deficit.

Powerlifters are usually stronger than BBers yes, but this can have to do with a lot of factors: technique, leverages, neuromuscular, etc.

Muscular density isn't really an issue. The only things in a muscle that could make it produce more force are the myofibrils (the actin-myosin chains), and those take up quite a bit of room. That is to say, it'd be practically impossible to increase their size without increasing the fiber's overall size.

 

[KryptoAllez]

Originally posted by LAM
Krypto....have you tried not doing any direct bicep work for a while ?

No, I guess not, I mean I have been training biceps and triceps together for a while now. Just this week I changed my split only cause I'm trying to fit everything in before going out of town for a week so I did back and biceps together on Monday. Boy could I tell a difference! My biceps were failing a LOT quicker than normal! Anyway, why? Think I need a break or a change? I probably do. It's not that big of a deal though, it's really not a priority for my biceps to be bigger, my triceps yes but my biceps seem to look okay. I was just intriqued by how I've gotten stronger on bicep movements but yet have not gained any size.

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
...
Muscular density isn't really an issue. The only things in a muscle that could make it produce more force are the myofibrils (the actin-myosin chains), and those take up quite a bit of room. That is to say, it'd be practically impossible to increase their size without increasing the fiber's overall size.

But then how do you explain getting stronger WITHOUT the muscle actually getting bigger? I'm thinking it's possible to add sarcomeres to the myofibrils which wouldn't necessarily increase muscle size, or perhaps so minute that you wouldn't be able to measure it yet still be stronger? In any case, it is OBVIOUSLY possible to get stronger WITHOUT increasing muscle size so obviously the body has a way of doing that and I'm curious to know how that happens.

 

[ponyboy]

I think fiber recruitment also has something to do with this issue. If someone has a larger muscle but cannot recruit as many fibers to perform the selected exercise, then they will not be able to lift as much. Some people can recruit more fibers than others for certain lifts. This usually comes with experience performing a lift and that whole mind-muscle connection.

 

[LAM]

I think EVERYONE has brought up some valid points...

 

[KryptoAllez]

Originally posted by ponyboy
I think fiber recruitment also has something to do with this issue. If someone has a larger muscle but cannot recruit as many fibers to perform the selected exercise, then they will not be able to lift as much. Some people can recruit more fibers than others for certain lifts. This usually comes with experience performing a lift and that whole mind-muscle connection.

Yeah, wow, nice one. Kewl.

 

[gopro]

If we are talking brute strength here...like the ability to bench press 500 lbs for a single or double for example, than it is quite possible to do this without a tremendous amount of hypertrophy.

Hypertrophy is best built with tension times between 40-60 seconds, or about 7-13 reps (depending on rep speed). Great strength can be attained with very low rep lifting, but you will be working your nervous system and tendon/ligament attatchments more than your muscles with this type of training.

Personally, I like to be "strong" as well as big, but I know many guys that are pretty huge that can barely bench 225 lbs. They tend to work for a pump in a medium to high rep range with a slower rep cadence which is most effective (I said most, because all types of training have merit and benefits) for pure muscular hypertrophy.

 

[Snake_Eyes]

Originally posted by KryptoAllez


But then how do you explain getting stronger WITHOUT the muscle actually getting bigger? I'm thinking it's possible to add sarcomeres to the myofibrils which wouldn't necessarily increase muscle size, or perhaps so minute that you wouldn't be able to measure it yet still be stronger? In any case, it is OBVIOUSLY possible to get stronger WITHOUT increasing muscle size so obviously the body has a way of doing that and I'm curious to know how that happens.

Krypto-- the sarcomere is simply a structure of actin-myosin filaments. Its not something you can really "add" in the way you're thinking, at least not without adding more myofibrils and thusly size.

As was stated already, gains without size are attributed to neurological factors (as related to the strength deficit I mentioned above).

 

[KryptoAllez]

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Krypto-- the sarcomere is simply a structure of actin-myosin filaments. Its not something you can really "add" in the way you're thinking, at least not without adding more myofibrils and thusly size.

As was stated already, gains without size are attributed to neurological factors (as related to the strength deficit I mentioned above).

Yes but a sarcomere is literally a "muscle segment" and they are connected by a thin protein sheet that connects the actin filaments to each other and also connects each sarcomere to each other. So why would it not be possible to add more sarcomeres?

 

[Snake_Eyes]

Basically, the sarcomere length falls into a fairly standard range for the majority of muscles, and doesn't tend to change even after training.

Granted I'm going to have to do some fairly major digging to find out exactly why this doesn't happen, but my hypothesis is that formation of a new Z-band (the protein sheet) and thusly a new sarcomere would A) disrupt the existing contractile apparatus and B) require an anatomical lengthening of the muscle fiber itself to accomodate a new sarcomere of any meaningful size.

Additionally, I should add that simply adding sarcomeres in a fiber that doesn't grow longer without adding more functional myofibrils would be a useless exercise, since it wouldn't result in any greater force production.