# Muscle Size v Strength



## Rusty_Mann (Oct 31, 2011)

Ok so like most one here i read up on techniques etc but i have heard a lot about the proportion of size of the muscle v the strength .... as and example when i used to train with bigger guys who were BB physique i could lift as much or just a little less, somethimes more depending on the exercise we did. i'm only 5ft 11 and they were 6,2 6,4 in size

The way it's been described to me is that the muscle i have is strong just the muscle belly not being as fuller is this true ?

cheers


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

or the bigger guys were weak ...


----------



## Rusty_Mann (Oct 31, 2011)

ewen said:


> or the bigger guys were weak ...


Never occurred to me ? Surely not ...


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Rusty_Mann said:


> Never occurred to me ? Surely not ...


bodybuilders dont need to be strong to be big as they fil the muscle with blood to stretch - hypertrophy .

where as the strength muscle fibers get reinforced like bunkers rather than bigger although over time they do get bigger .


----------



## Proteincarb (Oct 12, 2010)

So is it for muscle growth 8-12 reps squeeze and pump the muscle. And for strength 1-5 reps brute force?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

You've got two kinds of muscle hypertrophy - sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar.

Sarcoplasmic is where the muscle fibre increases in size due to holding more sacroplasmic fluid, but no increase in the size of the actin any myosin proteins which are the structural bits of the muscle that slide against each resulting in movement. An increase in sarcoplasmic material results in no additional strength gain, but provides more of the 'cellular machinery' and fuel to aid muscular function and adaptation.

Myofibrillar is where the actin and myosin, those structural bits, increase in size. This is most of what makes a muscle stronger - increased CNS efficiency and adaptations at the neuromuscular plates also being seperate adaptations that lead to improved strength.

Is possible to train in a way which develops a lot of one kind of hypertrophy and minimal amount of the other, but no hypertrophic exercise results in just one type of hypertrophy, so you always get both to some degree.

What this does mean though is that muscles can be of similar size but also have very different strength potential, and not just because of the different degrees of types of hypertrophy that have built the muscle, but also how well the CNS and nervous system has been trained to handle heavy maximal weights, and also the natural proportions of fast and slow muscle fibre types.

Positioning of muscle insertions and origins can also affect the amount of force a muscle can produce independent of that muscles size due to differences in leverage.... in simple terms, there are many reasons why a smaller muscle (or person) might be stronger than a larger one.


----------



## Rav212 (May 18, 2011)

Top post there dtlv74!

So could we say to "maximise" hypertrophy of both we could do all our heavy sets first (myofibrilar) then do one or two lighter sets for (sarcoplasmic) growth.

Been training for a few years now and never knew this really. Personally ive always trained for strength and people always look and are like how is he lifting that when the guy next to him is much bigger and does the exact same weight lol


----------



## littledaz (Nov 20, 2011)

Also have you not been in a gym and a "big guy" is only lifting what you would class as a light weight?

Target the muscle and work it.


----------



## Rav212 (May 18, 2011)

I thought it was all about tearing the muscle fibre with brute force to induce growth not pumping the muscle up with blood I.e high reps (sarcoplasmic) right?


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

also a persons genetics need to be taken into account (yeah i know it always comes up) but to use as an illustration,former mega poster on here @jw007 trains in far from bbing style,everything is low rep,maximum weight and working towards singles,yet built a huge amount of muscle this way,when i train that way i dont really see a huge degree of muscle growth tho strength increases are significant,i train more middle ground encompassing both low rep and v high rep stuff,i am straying away what,for me anyway,would be heavy weights and going for stuff giving me a better pump and 'feel' and seems certainly to be incurring more actual muscle growth,ie on incline bench i have topped out at 180kg for 4 reps,so will be shooting to get 150-160kg for 10-12 rep sets when training is in full swing gain etc.


----------



## Rick89 (Feb 27, 2009)

weeman said:


> also a persons genetics need to be taken into account (yeah i know it always comes up) but to use as an illustration,former mega poster on here @jw007 trains in far from bbing style,everything is low rep,maximum weight and working towards singles,yet built a huge amount of muscle this way,when i train that way i dont really see a huge degree of muscle growth tho strength increases are significant,i train more middle ground encompassing both low rep and v high rep stuff,i am straying away what,for me anyway,would be heavy weights and going for stuff giving me a better pump and 'feel' and seems certainly to be incurring more actual muscle growth,ie on incline bench i have topped out at 180kg for 4 reps,so will be shooting to get 150-160kg for 10-12 rep sets when training is in full swing gain etc.


good post mate

I train for strongman and find i grow more muscle like this than the typical bodybuilding i did for ages

I very rarely go over 5 reps and never train a bodypart as such but more hit movements each session so say one session could be a few deadlifts with some overhead pressing aswell for example

sometime a muscle is hit 3 times a week the way I train but has given me insane hypertrophy training like this


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Rav212 said:


> I thought it was all about tearing the muscle fibre with brute force to induce growth not pumping the muscle up with blood I.e high reps (sarcoplasmic) right?


Sarcoplasmic fluid is different to a pump or blood volume in the muscle - its the fluid within the muscle cells themselves (the muscles equivalent of cytoplasm in other cells) and is the site of the energy stores and the machinery which helps synthesise new muscle protein... it shouldn't be thought of as 'fluid in the muscle' but as part of the muscle itself.

When you exercise you don't just breakdown the myofibrils, you also deplete the sarcoplasm of amino acids, globulins, energy stores etc, and the adaptation that occurs in response to the loss of these is an increase in their volume. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy has to occur for myofibrillar hypertrophy to then follow, it's just that when you train with a relatively high volume and moderate load, the drain on the sarcoplasm is significantly elevated so therefore is the adaptation and increase in size. This both helps myofibrillar hypertrophy to occur later, and causes a greater size increase relative to the amount of exercise done than the myofibrillar breakdown-rebuild does alone.


----------



## Rav212 (May 18, 2011)

Genitics- this will have to do with which muscle fibres we have more of I'm guessing. I.e a person with more type 1 muscle fibres will benefit with heavy weights low reps for muscle growth, and a person with more type 2 muscle fibres will benefit from high reps lower weights I'm starting to belive anyway lol. Ive built myself for years on heavyweights think I might have a go on lightweights well for 6 weeks atleast to see what happens.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Rav212 said:


> Genitics- this will have to do with which muscle fibres we have more of I'm guessing. I.e a person with more type 1 muscle fibres will benefit with heavy weights low reps for muscle growth, and a person with more type 2 muscle fibres will benefit from high reps lower weights I'm starting to belive anyway lol. Ive built myself for years on heavyweights think I might have a go on lightweights well for 6 weeks atleast to see what happens.


give it more than 6 weeks mate,wether your natty or not


----------



## Rav212 (May 18, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> Sarcoplasmic fluid is different to a pump or blood volume in the muscle - its the fluid within the muscle cells themselves (the muscles equivalent of cytoplasm in other cells) and is the site of the energy stores and the machinery which helps synthesise new muscle protein... it shouldn't be thought of as 'fluid in the muscle' but as part of the muscle itself.
> 
> When you exercise you don't just breakdown the myofibrils, you also deplete the sarcoplasm of amino acids, globulins, energy stores etc, and the adaptation that occurs in response to the loss of these is an increase in their volume. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy has to occur for myofibrillar hypertrophy to then follow, it's just that when you train with a relatively high volume and moderate load, the drain on the sarcoplasm is significantly elevated so therefore is the adaptation and increase in size. This both helps myofibrillar hypertrophy to occur later, and causes a greater size increase relative to the amount of exercise done than the myofibrillar breakdown-rebuild does alone.


So what would u say is the beat way to help maximise sarcoplasmic fluid or induce the most hypertrophy


----------



## richgearguy (Jun 23, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> You've got two kinds of muscle hypertrophy - sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar.
> 
> Sarcoplasmic is where the muscle fibre increases in size due to holding more sacroplasmic fluid, but no increase in the size of the actin any myosin proteins which are the structural bits of the muscle that slide against each resulting in movement. An increase in sarcoplasmic material results in no additional strength gain, but provides more of the 'cellular machinery' and fuel to aid muscular function and adaptation.
> 
> ...


Interesting. So I would expect that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is much more transient and short-lived than myofibrillar hypertrophy, as fluids should be lost more easily than structural tissues (actin and myosin) ....true? If so, how can we maximise the myofibrillar gains?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Rav212 said:


> So what would u say is the beat way to help maximise sarcoplasmic fluid or induce the most hypertrophy


In all honesty, simply performing sets which cause failure between 5 and 12 reps are the most efficient overall for stimulating both aspects of muscle hypertrophy... otherwise alternating heavier/lower rep sessions with higher rep sessions.

Training is rarely a persons limiting factor IMO - occasionally you find someone doing something really silly, but most of the routines out there are very effective if followed correctly and with the right intensity, despite any superficial differences between routines. Is normally diet where people go wrong I think (they stimulate the growth well enough but just don't feed well enough to make it happen to maximum potential).


----------



## Rav212 (May 18, 2011)

Totally agree there with the diet thing I still ain't mastered it myself it's definatly the hardest aspect of BB I think.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

richgearguy said:


> Interesting. So I would expect that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is much more transient and short-lived than myofibrillar hypertrophy, as fluids should be lost more easily than structural tissues (actin and myosin) ....true? If so, how can we maximise the myofibrillar gains?


Yep, when you start training from a point of not having done it before, sarcoplasmic growth happens first and myofibrillar doesn't happen much at all until a few weeks in - this is because for the myofibrillar structures to grow significantly, they need an increase in the sarcoplasm first. When you stop training it's the sarcoplasm which loses volume first. Initial strength loss with detraining is due to changes in the CNS more than myofibrillar atrophy.

Best way to maximise myofibrillar hypertrophy is simply to train in a progressive way, and to always train to a point where you are stimulating strength adaptation. Obviously this is more efficient with moderate-heavier weights and moderate-low reps, and that kind of training also stimulates the muscle fibres with the greatest hypertrophy potential too so is doubly suited. Sacoplasmic hypertrophy will be stimulated through this form of training if the volume is sufficient.

You don't have to go to total failure, but you do have to include in your training loads that require extreme effort to lift, and to gradually and consistently be progressive in increasing that threshold.

Sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy are tied to each other though, and generally it's not something to worry about too much... if you are growing consistently and increasing strength consistently then that in itself inicates that training is stimulating both sets of adapatations.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> You've got two kinds of muscle hypertrophy - sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar.
> 
> Sarcoplasmic is where the muscle fibre increases in size due to holding more sacroplasmic fluid, but no increase in the size of the actin any myosin proteins which are the structural bits of the muscle that slide against each resulting in movement. An increase in sarcoplasmic material results in no additional strength gain, but provides more of the 'cellular machinery' and fuel to aid muscular function and adaptation.
> 
> ...


Some serious knowledge being laid down in this thread, thanks Dtlv74 a great read! not quite on topic but in terms of DOMS is that directly related to tearing / hypertrophy? can you still have had an effective session if the DOMS isnt really there? not trying to hijack the thread lol!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> Some serious knowledge being laid down in this thread, thanks Dtlv74 a great read! not quite on topic but in terms of DOMS is that directly related to tearing / hypertrophy? can you still have had an effective session if the DOMS isnt really there? not trying to hijack the thread lol!


Yes absolutely.

DOMS ins't fully understood scientifically, but the most accpeted theory and backed up theory correlates the inflammatatory and immune 'clear up' response to training as its cause... so its not the breakdown of muscle tissue itself that causes DOMS, but the bodies response to that tissue breakdown.

Therefore, in respect of DOMS being an indicator of stimulus to grow, it can't be said to be an accurate one because other factors outside of the effectiveness of the training session (genetics, dietary, horomonal, disease, even psychological stressors) can influence immunity and inflammation.

One thing that has convinced me that DOMS has little to do with indicating how much you grow is how I train and my experience with DOMS - I don't train all out bodybuilding all the time at all , and sometimes go through long periods where I focus on increasing fitness. During these periods I do a lot of full-on high rep plyometric exercises, and the DOMS I get from these is ten times more extreme than I get from weights (other than the first few sessions after a layoff I hardly get DOMS with weights anyway), yet the level of muscle growth from this kind of plyo training is much much smaller.

Studies on the effects of forms of exercise suggest that this kind of exercise is significantly more pro inflammatory, so support the idea that DOMS is more related to this inflammation than it is a predictor of muscle growth.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Dtlv74 again absolute gold dust, you are an invaluable fountain of knowledge! :thumbup1: thanks for the help


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> You've got two kinds of muscle hypertrophy - sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar.
> 
> Sarcoplasmic is where the muscle fibre increases in size due to holding more sacroplasmic fluid, but no increase in the size of the actin any myosin proteins which are the structural bits of the muscle that slide against each resulting in movement. An increase in sarcoplasmic material results in no additional strength gain, but provides more of the 'cellular machinery' and fuel to aid muscular function and adaptation.
> 
> ...


The best and most logical post I have seen from someone on here so far - OP this is in a nutshell everything you need to know.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

weeman said:


> also a persons genetics need to be taken into account (yeah i know it always comes up) but to use as an illustration,former mega poster on here @jw007 trains in far from bbing style,everything is low rep,maximum weight and working towards singles,yet built a huge amount of muscle this way,when i train that way i dont really see a huge degree of muscle growth tho strength increases are significant,i train more middle ground encompassing both low rep *and v high rep stuff*,i am straying away what,for me anyway,would be heavy weights and going for stuff giving me a better pump and 'feel' and seems certainly to be incurring more actual muscle growth,ie on incline bench i have topped out at 180kg for 4 reps,so will be shooting to get 150-160kg for 10-12 rep sets when training is in full swing gain etc.


What would you consider v high reps and do you incorporate differing rep ranges in each workout?

A question I've being wondering about recently, related to this is

Strength gains with high reps, are they the same as with low reps

If I was to do 100kg press x 6 reps then next week do 8 reps etc etc

is this the same as 80kg x 13 reps, then next week 15 reps, then 16 etc.

Reason I ask is I recently went on a high reps deload but found myself gaining

strength at a faster rate (using percentages) than for a good few years.

Wondered if I should of carried on with high reps (15+) till it stagnated a little.

Instead I went back to rest pause as usual, which does increase but at a much

smaller rate??

Hope you understand what I'm waffling about :lol:


----------



## 19072 (Aug 11, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> In all honesty, *simply performing sets which cause failure between 5 and 12 reps are the most efficient overall for stimulating both aspects of muscle hypertrophy...* otherwise alternating heavier/lower rep sessions with higher rep sessions.
> 
> Training is rarely a persons limiting factor IMO - occasionally you find someone doing something really silly, but most of the routines out there are very effective if followed correctly and with the right intensity, despite any superficial differences between routines. Is normally diet where people go wrong I think (they stimulate the growth well enough but just don't feed well enough to make it happen to maximum potential).


quick question Dtlv74...

this would be my typical leg workout

squat 5x5

front squats 3x8

lunges 3x10

sldl 3x10

calves 6x8

would tht be a good mix of both for low and high rep? im looking mainly strength but a lil more mass.

cheers buddy.


----------



## Avena (Jul 12, 2011)

herc said:


> quick question Dtlv74...
> 
> this would be my typical leg workout
> 
> ...


If I can answer...

There's no high reps there really, as those are considered 15 + Many people will find that legs actually do respond better to higher reps in terms of growth.

If you train for strenght then that's another story.


----------



## 19072 (Aug 11, 2010)

Avena said:


> If I can answer...
> 
> There's no high reps there really, as those are considered 15 + Many people will find that legs actually do respond better to higher reps in terms of growth.
> 
> If you train for strenght then that's another story.


thanks for that avena. it is strength im mainly after but i would also like some mass from it.

thats why i kept the squat low and heavy and everything else for around 10reps.

my calves just dont respond to high reps for growth.


----------



## Avena (Jul 12, 2011)

herc said:


> thanks for that avena. it is strength im mainly after but i would also like some mass from it.
> 
> thats why i kept the squat low and heavy and everything else for around 10reps.
> 
> my calves just dont respond to high reps for growth.


For calves just train them till absolute failure. Doesn't matter how many reps, but train till it HURTS! I used to train calves till they literally cramped up in pain. Now I never train them as they are big enough for my needs


----------



## The Shredder (Jul 7, 2011)

I think It's down to the individual person some people are just strong.

Like some bodybuilders most pros are not far off in size from eachother but some are very famous for there strength.For arguments sake Jay and ronnie wheren't massive differnt in size but does can jay squat or dead 800lbs?But there both ruffly the same size kinda guys.

I'm 83kg odd at 5.11 And last nigth i did a personal best 110kg x 10 before that 20x60.12x90 10x100 all down to the chest/slow down/no bounching etc.

But my chest isn't big at all the bottom part is almost flat no real meat.For instance there guys I know around my slimish build that have massive bukly chest at 12-13 stone bodyweigth and they couldn't hit barley hit 100 for the 10 let alone 110kg but there chest are bigger and better looking in everyway than mine.

Why? genetics my chest just isn't massive type.I just have to live with my A cups  but doesn't mean it isn't strong.


----------



## 19072 (Aug 11, 2010)

Avena said:


> For calves just train them till absolute failure. Doesn't matter how many reps, but train till it HURTS! I used to train calves till they literally cramped up in pain. Now I never train them as they are big enough for my needs


chers avena


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

Dtlv74, do you think it's worth mixing both 6-8 and 8-12 rep ranges in the same session? The goal is size gains but understandably you need both to train for strength in there too..

EG, set

1 6-8

2 6-8

3 8-12


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

musio said:


> Dtlv74, do you think it's worth mixing both 6-8 and 8-12 rep ranges in the same session? The goal is size gains but understandably you need both to train for strength in there too..
> 
> EG, set
> 
> ...


Sure can definitely work - ascending and descending pyramid sets (one where the load is increased with each set and the reps go down, the other where the heaviest weight and lowest reps are the first post-warm up sets and the higher reps follow afterwards) both can lead to decent gains IMO - different people seem to get on better with one approach over the other, and some prefer straight sets only... so play around with all three and find what works for you.

For what its worth my personal preference is to split heavy and light training into two sessions alternated, but that's as much a psychological preference for me as it makes the routine more interesting and varied, and keeps away boredom which is a motivation killer for me.


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

I still think people look at this wrong - the exercise (movment) dictates the reps, not the muscle.

Bigger the exercise lower the rep ranges.


----------



## berserkerzx (Jun 19, 2012)

I agree with Martin brown as CNS is involved in movement. In other words, big movement equals more CNS involvement. The second last post is about loading patterns, i was wondering which is more effective? Pyramid or flat loading? Should an intermediate use flat loading? According to periodization (bompa), flat loading more suited for advanced lifter


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

berserkerzx said:


> I agree with Martin brown as CNS is involved in movement. In other words, big movement equals more CNS involvement. The second last post is about loading patterns, i was wondering which is more effective? Pyramid or flat loading? Should an intermediate use flat loading? According to periodization (bompa), flat loading more suited for advanced lifter


That's right. There is also little point going mega heavy and low reps on single/small joint exercises that will increase injury risk - leg ext, tri ext, curls etc.

Flat loading isn't really something that should be avoided by inters/beginners even, it just may be a little more difficult to get the weight right for all sets whereas incremental sets allow you to get used to the weight and not overtax yourself on the first set or two I guess.


----------



## H10dst (Apr 18, 2010)

Possibly the best thread I've read in ages. Really good info. I've just started 5x5 and it feels like I do nothing in the gym but next day I feel like I've done a monster session!?'


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

martin brown said:


> That's right. There is also little point going mega heavy and low reps on single/small joint exercises that will increase injury risk - leg ext, tri ext, curls etc.
> 
> Flat loading isn't really something that should be avoided by inters/beginners even, it just may be a little more difficult to get the weight right for all sets whereas incremental sets allow you to get used to the weight and not overtax yourself on the first set or two I guess.


This sums up how I see it too, nicely put Martin.

I think the balance and direction of incremental loading or straight sets depends partly on the goal of the lifter and whether they periodise... I'll use different loading patterns and rep schemes at different times depending on the specific goal. Will also not necessarily use exactly the same rep and set structure for all exercises and all muscle groups... experience over time has shown me that the response of my body isn't uniform to a particular training style, with some regions of the body responding best to one thing and others to something different.


----------



## berserkerzx (Jun 19, 2012)

Thanks for the input guys, have a great day ahead


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

This is a brilliant thread. Thanks DTLV74!

I read this which i thought is pertinent to the thread 'Muscles don't understand reps, they only understand time under tension' from these pages

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/greg8.htm

http://www.simplyshredded.com/time-under-tension-the-scientifically-engineered-set-timing-technique-2.html


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

Interesting always wondered about this... I'm not big just look... Bigger than the average guy, but I'm v strong whereas my mates are stacked compared to me and I can do more than them? Weird. They always bloody say 'rather look big and be weaker than look small and be strong' bastards lol.


----------

