T Nation

Relative Strength and Mass?

Hey Guys,

I’ll just right to the chase on this one, when someone is imrpoving their relative strength as much as possible, my understanding is that first there are neurological gains, then the muscle must hypertrophy to still give relative gains…

Obviously the new muscle add’s weight to the athlete but it can still pull more than it weighs so its still an overall increase in relative strength.

My question is, at what point do hypertrophy gains outweigh gains in relative strength? Cause if the muscle can pull more than its own weight, surley relative strength will never decrease?

Thanks in advance guys…

Justin

This would be true if only one muscle was getting bigger :wink:

However, the new muscle is added all over the body. So the new fibres in muscles involved in doing eg a pullup, have to lift not only themselves but also the new muscle fibres in other muscles.

BTW, even elite athletes are still well below reaching maximum neural efficiency. Evolution has given us inhibitory mechanisms that are set very conservatively. By contrast, a chimpanzee is 5 to 7 times stronger than a man, and can rip your arm off (literally).

isn’t the reason the chimps r so strong is because of the skeletal strucutre? doesn’t it have something to do with where their tendons insert and stuff like that?

[quote]metallica76660 wrote:
isn’t the reason the chimps r so strong is because of the skeletal strucutre? doesn’t it have something to do with where their tendons insert and stuff like that?[/quote]

That may be part of the reason. Can’t be the whole reason though. Think of the grip strength that would be required to rip an arm off, for example.