Size or strength; what comes first?

[alfresco]

For many year I have kept what I consider to
be accurate records of my exercise routines,
my weight, body composition and measurements.

With that information, at one point in time
I plotted the relationship between size and strength.

Everything else being equal . . . in my case,
size has always preceded a strength increase.
And size has always come in a stair - step
like fashion (plateaus) getting bigger, and then
getting stronger.

What has been your experience?

 

[sassbs11]

For me is been strength first, i guess its all down to my workout routine as its based on lifting more weight than actually how many reps.

 

[Fa Seeshus]

my size comes with increased training density (how much actual work i can do in a set period of time). i think that is also a type of strength though.

for example, if i train with long rest periods and build up to a higher max in a movement, i may not see that much size increase. i then shift my workout style and try to stay with the heavier poundages, but begin slightly increasing volume while decreasing rest periods. this is when the size comes.

one funny thing about writing down your poundages, is alot of times dudes don't take into account the pace of the workout. they may look in the book and think they were weaker this week, but then they don't realize that they did the workout in 20 minuites less time. in my view, they probably got stronger.

if you wanted to be really technical about it, you could just time the rest intervals.

 

[CB]

Strength for me, by far. My chest is especially stubborn when it comes to growing, but the strength is always there.

 

[saudades]

I always seem to get the strength increase first. In fact, the strength part of the "step" as you describe it is normally a long step and then a short step of size. I wish it were the other way around or at least more equal.

 

[HUTCH]

strength

 

[natabolic]

Growth is easier for me than strength gains. I barely ever increase in strength, yet, i continue to grow. So for me, its size, then strength follows.
Thinking about trying DC training to maybe add some more strength + size

 

[Pekkerwood]

For me, Strenght. I feel along the same lines as Fa Sheesus. If I take a two to three minute rest between sets and do low range reps, I get stronger quicker but not necessarily bigger. When I decrease rest between sets and increase reps to the 12 range, I feel like I get "bigger" faster. This latter part may just be my perception.

I have gotten stronger without getting bigger, but I have never gotten bigger without an increase in strength.


Pekkerwood

 

[HawaiiMuscle]

my size comes with increased training density (how much actual work i can do in a set period of time). i think that is also a type of strength though.

for example, if i train with long rest periods and build up to a higher max in a movement, i may not see that much size increase. i then shift my workout style and try to stay with the heavier poundages, but begin slightly increasing volume while decreasing rest periods. this is when the size comes.

one funny thing about writing down your poundages, is alot of times dudes don't take into account the pace of the workout. they may look in the book and think they were weaker this week, but then they don't realize that they did the workout in 20 minuites less time. in my view, they probably got stronger.

if you wanted to be really technical about it, you could just time the rest intervals.

I agree with this statement completely. Heavy weights plus lot of volume seems put of lot muscle on me vs. heavier poundage less volume. I think it all comes down to totally work and totally poundage for each workout.

 

[abolish the weak]

CONCENTRATION. The weights are just a tool to work the muscle. Sometimes I'll walk over to a bench press w/ 225 on it and use that, I wont add anything to it(even though I'm able to go up around 405) but concentrate on every single squeeze and contraction, time under tension. My goal is to take that 225 lbs and make it feel like 405. The following week I may go up to 400 lbs and get 2 more reps out of it because I gave my body some kind of a break and did something for development rather than just strength. Thats key to me, its development

 

[OuchThatHurts]

For many year I have kept what I consider to
be accurate records of my exercise routines,
my weight, body composition and measurements.

With that information, at one point in time
I plotted the relationship between size and strength.

Everything else being equal . . . in my case,
size has always preceded a strength increase.
And size has always come in a stair - step
like fashion (plateaus) getting bigger, and then
getting stronger.

What has been your experience?

This has probably been debated since the first caveman started curling a large rock. I don't know exactly what the percentages could be but I do know it's some combination of both. As your muscle gains in size and number of fibers, it's workload capacity is going to increase. Could be a lot or a little. Much in strength has to do with how close the tendon is to the rotational axis (musculoskeletal leverage) of whatever joint you're working. Simple mechanics. There will be guys who will need twice the muscle to move the same amount of weight based on a few millimeters of difference in insertion points. I once read that for a guy to curl 75lbs, his biceps actually contract with the force of 500lbs because the weight is at the far end of the lever away from rotational axis (the distance from where the weight is to your elbow joint).

 

[Fa Seeshus]

DC, though technically a low-volume program, does a good job at addressing the amount of work in a given time-frame aspect of strength through the drop sets.

another way to integrate heavy weight and sufficient volume is to use post-exhuastion supersets. you could do weighted chins followed by rows or pullovers, squats followed by leg-press or lunges, etc. then you get full recovery so you can still continue to use heavy weight on the first movement.

both of these approaches provide training density without having to endlessly pump light weights.

 

[Chrysler]

Strength first. However, I've made noticeable increases in muscular size without strength increases. And, in fact, I've noticed noticeable decreases in muscular size with strength increases. Weird wild stuff. Prolly a water thing or something.

 

[Dangkolo]

STRENGTH=SIZE

 

[Tom]

Totally disagree

Strength does not = Size....Over the years I've seen many powerlifters increase strength significantly while remaining in the same weight class. Also seen many bodybuilders use light weights and put over an inch and a half on thier arms and gain no strength at all. No correlation can be made between the two.

 

[Raging Bull]

STRENGTH=SIZE

Right on brother:st:r-wars

 

[btech]

Strength does not = Size....Over the years I've seen many powerlifters increase strength significantly while remaining in the same weight class. Also seen many bodybuilders use light weights and put over an inch and a half on thier arms and gain no strength at all. No correlation can be made between the two.

Do you believe it is possible that, if one day you bench 135x8, two years later you bench 275x8, no size increases will occur?

 

[gettnlarge01]

Depends on what I train for. If I train for strength then strength will come before any size gains and vise versa.

 

[maldorf]

must keep in mind that strength can result from a motor unit firing more efficiently. As you train the motor units will become more efficient and work together as units better. This is why you see a large strength increase when you first start weight lifting, and your size doesnt go up all that much.

 

[Tom]

well....

Do you believe it is possible that, if one day you bench 135x8, two years later you bench 275x8, no size increases will occur?

could i not have gotten stronger and remained the same size but the tendons and ligaments have adapted to the heavier load?