I agree that everyone with a 400lbs bench will have a muscular chest. So as you grow stronger you grow larger. We all know that. But what about this: Does Size = Strength? I see alot of lifters with very good size and muscularity but the strength does not match up. Why?
I have seen guys come into the gym and go to 405 bench cold, and do it for 10-12 reps. No chest size at all. Yes his chest was outlined and all but no size. Clearly if he followed the notion of strength = size, his chest should be very muscular. But his chest and arms are not.
The strange thing is that i noticed for all the guys who train they all train differently to get their results. For some it's always heavy, for some it's volume, for some it's intensity regardless of light or heavy weights. One particular large muscular individual said the best is to do completely different exercises each session, or always change the order.
But like i said they did it differently. They didn't follow any routine. I guess it could be said their routine is in not having one.
I have never seen a guy bench press 405x10 who was not significantly more muscular than most gym goers. If someone purposefully keep their bodyweight down for a competition(weight class) or for some personal reason and continued to train for strength you might get some skewed results but this is rare for sure to see someone who matches up with what you are saying here.
No not at all. He was a lean, a larger guy, definitely 6 feet and 230 or around there. Don;t get me wrong, you can see his chest muscles but the muscularity is more like that of Bruce lee and not Arnold, which is what i would expect. Flat muscles with no fullness at all.
He is bigger then the average gym goers, obviously, but nowhere to the proportion you'd expect from that strength. I guess Strongman competitions are a good example also. Some competitors look like they never worked out and very few look like Pudzianowski. But by the philosophy of strenght = size they all should look like that.
There are fat ones that are absolutely huge but still not as strong as smaller guys.
I'm finding that there are no fast rules that apply to everyone. It seems different for everyone.
Size does equal strength, but people lift with different mechanics. Maybe your friend with the 405 bench is very tricep and shoulder dominant. Maybe the bench press isn't the best lift for him to grow his chest. There's a point where the size of the muscle surpasses what is necessary for lifting the weight, which is often the case with bodybuilders as the goal is to grow as much muscle through different exercise selection and various techniques. Different techniques work for each individual based on their genetic predispositions.
There's also neural efficiency and technique to consider, along with myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
This is retarded. Noting that genetic freaks exist does not erase basic principals as they relate to gaining muscle mass. You will not be going from skinny to fucking huge without getting a hell of a lot stronger. This is FACT.
Why would i lie? It's the truth. He rushed into the gym late, his buddy already was at 405 for multiple sets. He ren in, threw his bag by the bench and got to it. Why do you always have such a pissy attitude? Aren't you highly educated?
Kid, my education in and out of the gym is what tells me you are writing pure bullshit when you write that someone with NO SIZE AT ALL comes in and benches 400lbs for reps. Then, as if this couldn't be predicted, he suddenly starts gaining muscle until he is over 230lbs at 6 feet tall who is bigger than the average gym goer.
Yes, that is, in my educated opinion, FUCKING BULLSHIT.
In case you can't read between the lines. The question is how much correlation is there between size and strenght?
It was your very own posts here that stated that if i was to ask any number of muscular guys how they got there i would get different answers from all of them. You said yourself that experimentation is key to learning your body. So why bash the notion that for some people strength does not = size? Yes the correlation is there but for some it's skewed one way and for other the other way.
Overall the equation SIZE=Strength is right..taking into account bf% If you are 230lb with like 25% bf you will looker bigger..but hold more fat than muscle fiber vs the guy at 205 @ 10%bf.
However what you are seeing is the result of Genetics. Each individual has different size muscle bellies, and longer or shorter insertion point. Also depending on if they have more slow or fast twitch fibers for said muscle group, can affect the look.
Overall you cant be benching 405 for that many reps w/o having a highly developed chest. However some people who bench 315 can seem to have a larger chest. Genetics, bf, height, and weight all play a factor in this.
Of course you are seeing them with their shirts on. (No Homo) But some people have such low bf% their chest might not "look" big with a shirt on.
A perfect example is my buddy of mine. He is a Extreme ectomorph but hes worked hard for a lot of years and weight 185lb shredded. Me 190 around 10-12%bf. I look much bigger than him, but he can out bench me by like 50lb. But when you see the guy at the beach he's a beast and looks like what he can bench.
"No not at all. He was a lean, a larger guy, definitely 6 feet and 230 or around there. Don;t get me wrong, you can see his chest muscles but the muscularity is more like that of Bruce lee and not Arnold, which is what i would expect. Flat muscles with no fullness at all."
See i was stating that his muscularity is of the full muscle bellies like in Arnold. his chest muscles have the flat shape.
Some people are just going to be stronger at the same level of muscularity as another person. It is a disadvantage in bodybuilding I think because you end up beating your body up with heavier weights than the other guy does to get the same look and muscular size.
But seriously, if you can bench 405 once I would venture to say you have some pretty decent muscularity let alone 10 times. I have never even seen 405 pressed 10 times.