Strength = Size?


This poor woman has NO BREASTS AT ALL.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.[/quote]

Kilograms, right? I figure anyone can hit 945 pounds cold within a couple of years training.

Is this your gym? Is this the guy?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.[/quote]

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

no, it’s not 1:1

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

[/quote]

Kid, genetics is more complex than ‘a 1:1 relationship’. This is biology, not a fucking math problem.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This poor woman has NO BREASTS AT ALL.[/quote]

If you say so. But it may be time for another lens prescription. On the other hand, she may have no ass at all.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gregus wrote:

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.

BULL

SHIT[/quote]

thank you.

even if the example is bullshit, which it more than like is, big=strong, but based on training methodology bodybuilders will probably have better muscular development than, say, a powerlifter with similar lifts.

[quote]Cron391 wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

Right. The relationship is definitely there. But i see that for some people doubling their strength will double their muscle and in some it may be an increase of 10% or so on the same strength increase.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

[/quote]

its different for everybody

[quote]Therizza wrote:
even if the example is bullshit, which it more than like is, big=strong, but based on training methodology bodybuilders will probably have better muscular development than, say, a powerlifter with similar lifts.[/quote]

anabolic vs androgenic

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

Kid, genetics is more complex than ‘a 1:1 relationship’. This is biology, not a fucking math problem.[/quote]

So what, biology does not deal with numerical representations? I know it’s biology and not Math. No need to call me Kid and be condescending because i said you have a bad attitude. I asked a question. You came in and attacked. Your air of superiority is honestly not necessary. Be a real alpha and be secure in yourself. No need to prove your might.

How can you say a 6 footer, who is lean at 230lbs, has no size? That’s just dumb. On the other hand, I do know that size does not always increase at the same rate as strength. I know I sure as hell don’t look like I can bench what I bench.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

Kid, genetics is more complex than ‘a 1:1 relationship’. This is biology, not a fucking math problem.

So what, biology does not deal with numerical representations? I know it’s biology and not Math. No need to call me Kid and be condescending because i said you have a bad attitude. I asked a question. You came in and attacked. Your air of superiority is honestly not necessary. Be a real alpha and be secure in yourself. No need to prove your might. [/quote]

Prove my might? You LIED. No one who is 230lbs LEAN at 6 feet tall who can bench 400lbs for 10 fucking reps has “NO SIZE AT ALL”. You didn’t fix that little blunder until you got called on it.

If you see a guy with 30" quads and 20" biceps, it would make sense to assume he is NOT weaker than the average gym goer. It takes heavy weight to build muscles that big and while training strategies may also aid in muscles size (like increasing volume or simply having a better mind/muscle connection by squeezing a muscle) few people on the planet (short of genetic freaks) are going to be moving really big weights FOR SEVERAL REPS at a time without the muscle to support it.

Quit throwing tantrums when you get called on your own bullshit.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

Kid, genetics is more complex than ‘a 1:1 relationship’. This is biology, not a fucking math problem.

So what, biology does not deal with numerical representations? I know it’s biology and not Math. No need to call me Kid and be condescending because i said you have a bad attitude. I asked a question. You came in and attacked. Your air of superiority is honestly not necessary. Be a real alpha and be secure in yourself. No need to prove your might. [/quote]

Save yourself and take a pic of the dude, then everyone will be able to see this genetic freak.

[quote]Hyena wrote:
How can you say a 6 footer, who is lean at 230lbs, has no size? That’s just dumb. On the other hand, I do know that size does not always increase at the same rate as strength. I know I sure as hell don’t look like I can bench what I bench.[/quote]

Because he was more big because of his frame. By size i was referring to muscularity. Prof X has about quadruple the muscles this guy had. He was muscular but in the way id imagine at that strength level.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
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.

Why, that’s nothing. I’ve seen guys come in the gym and bench 945 cold, with no chest size.

I just found this picture of some guy (Desmond Miller) who has no leg size at all.

Ok lets make it simple, is the correlation in strength and size a 1:1 relationship?

Kid, genetics is more complex than ‘a 1:1 relationship’. This is biology, not a fucking math problem.

So what, biology does not deal with numerical representations? I know it’s biology and not Math. No need to call me Kid and be condescending because i said you have a bad attitude. I asked a question. You came in and attacked. Your air of superiority is honestly not necessary. Be a real alpha and be secure in yourself. No need to prove your might.

Prove my might? You LIED. No one who is 230lbs LEAN at 6 feet tall who can bench 400lbs for 10 fucking reps has “NO SIZE AT ALL”. You didn’t fix that little blunder until you got called on it.

If you see a guy with 30" quads and 20" biceps, it would make sense to assume he is NOT weaker than the average gym goer. It takes heavy weight to build muscles that big and while training strategies may also aid in muscles size (like increasing volume or simply having a better mind/muscle connection by squeezing a muscle) few people on the planet (short of genetic freaks) are going to be moving really big weights FOR SEVERAL REPS at a time without the muscle to support it.

Quit throwing tantrums when you get called on your own bullshit.[/quote]

I didn’t called out on bullshit. By size i was referring to strictly muscle size. He was more large because of his frame. He was a larger framed individual. Thats why he could be 6ft @ 230 and not look the way you look at whatever weight you are.

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Some people just don’t develop “pretty” muscles. But a chest that bench presses 405 x 10-12 COLD is a very large chest. [/quote]

Im seeing this is true. Some people just don’t grow from heavier weights. His chest is large but more because of the wide frame. Like when he does cables and squeezes the pecs together, some guys much weaker can hold a playing card between the squeezed pecs, his don’t pop at all. Just different genetics i guess.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This poor woman has NO BREASTS AT ALL.[/quote]

FTW