We don’t usually see bodybuilders compete in the strongman or powerlifting competitions, but we immediately assume that a jacked-up guy on Instagram must be incredibly strong. Looking at lifting videos of the 8 times Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman makes me think: Does size and strength really go hand in hand? For you to be strong, must you also have to look that way? What about the other way around — Does a muscular, lean body translate to tremendous strength? This has been a topic of discussion going back a few decades. Today we’re a lot closer to answering the above questions.
Let us quickly get through the basics. Hypertrophy is an increase in size of, in this case muscle tissue. This can be of various types, since muscle is made up of protein and fluid. There can be an increase in protein mass, or volume (which includes fluid). Technically speaking, myofibrillar hypertrophy, or connective tissue and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
Strength on the other hand is the functional nature, which depends on the way of measurements, and has various types. Isometric (seen in holding), dynamic strength, are the more common ways in which strength can be talked about.
Certain things may throw off the correlation between strength and hypertrophy. The more obvious one being the method of measuring strength and hypertrophy both. You can appreciate this view now that we know about their various types. Theoretically, changes in the myofibrillar hypertrophy (expressed as cross-sectional area) should be directly proportional to strength.
Human error is another obvious culprit, as assessment of strength can be subjective and changes depending on the method used. More importantly, the population used for the study is relevant. It has been shown that untrained individuals take some time to get used to the hypertrophied muscle and learn to fire the muscle fibres appropriately. This is called the delayed training effect. Motor unit recruitment pattern (order of stimulation of large and small muscle fibres) is also a significant contributor to performance in strength measurements.
To understand the significance of training age on the relation between strength and hypertrophy, we must realise that as a novice, strength gains are observed through neural control and motor learning to a great extent. It might also happen that a beginner might gain strength without any significant changes in muscle size. Conversely, as the training age increases, strength is highly influenced by muscle hypertrophy. Trained athletes have greater neuro-muscular control and are better candidates for such a study.
To sum it up, strength and hypertrophy do not share a linear relationship. Hypertrophy is a contributor to strength gains, but it might not always be so. It heavily depends on the method of resistance training used. It is crucial to know that bodybuilders and athletes have very different programs of resistance training, which might not be obvious to a lot of people. What can be appreciated by most though, is that for size, greater volume (number of sets) is efficient, while strength gain is dictated more profoundly by the intensity of exercise.
So the next time you see a buffed up guy at the bar, don’t underestimate yourself. Pick the fight. You never know what he’s been up to!
Let us quickly get through the basics. Hypertrophy is an increase in size of, in this case muscle tissue. This can be of various types, since muscle is made up of protein and fluid. There can be an increase in protein mass, or volume (which includes fluid). Technically speaking, myofibrillar hypertrophy, or connective tissue and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
Strength on the other hand is the functional nature, which depends on the way of measurements, and has various types. Isometric (seen in holding), dynamic strength, are the more common ways in which strength can be talked about.
Certain things may throw off the correlation between strength and hypertrophy. The more obvious one being the method of measuring strength and hypertrophy both. You can appreciate this view now that we know about their various types. Theoretically, changes in the myofibrillar hypertrophy (expressed as cross-sectional area) should be directly proportional to strength.
Human error is another obvious culprit, as assessment of strength can be subjective and changes depending on the method used. More importantly, the population used for the study is relevant. It has been shown that untrained individuals take some time to get used to the hypertrophied muscle and learn to fire the muscle fibres appropriately. This is called the delayed training effect. Motor unit recruitment pattern (order of stimulation of large and small muscle fibres) is also a significant contributor to performance in strength measurements.
To understand the significance of training age on the relation between strength and hypertrophy, we must realise that as a novice, strength gains are observed through neural control and motor learning to a great extent. It might also happen that a beginner might gain strength without any significant changes in muscle size. Conversely, as the training age increases, strength is highly influenced by muscle hypertrophy. Trained athletes have greater neuro-muscular control and are better candidates for such a study.
To sum it up, strength and hypertrophy do not share a linear relationship. Hypertrophy is a contributor to strength gains, but it might not always be so. It heavily depends on the method of resistance training used. It is crucial to know that bodybuilders and athletes have very different programs of resistance training, which might not be obvious to a lot of people. What can be appreciated by most though, is that for size, greater volume (number of sets) is efficient, while strength gain is dictated more profoundly by the intensity of exercise.
So the next time you see a buffed up guy at the bar, don’t underestimate yourself. Pick the fight. You never know what he’s been up to!
Comments
Post a Comment