Strength vs. mass clarifications please:
Several times now I have read posts that claim steroid A is best for strength, but not mass per se. And, steroid B is best for mass, but not strength. This is a bit confusing to me because increases in strength mean that there is more tension placed on the myofibril (muscle fibers). Generally, more tension = more white fast twitch fiber stimulus = more/faster growth. Therefore, my question is: wouldn’t a strength-steroid be even better for mass gains than a mass-steroid??!!
Furthermore, if a muscle were to get stronger without increasing in size significantly (unusual), wouldn’t it have to come from a more efficient neuro-muscular connection (motor units are recruited at a faster rate and greater in number)?? In that case, how can a steroid have this effect when they are usually known to increase muscle mass AND strength through anabolic properties not neurologic properties???