I'm a bit confused with strength in relation to muscle mass.

[Messarger]

So i was browsing through the vault and decided to re-read EFFORT's article on squatting for big arms. From what i can understand by it, he's suggesting that for anyone who wants to build mass, he needs to first increase his strength, especially on the big 3 (squats, deadlifts, bench press).

His argument is further supported by A-Unit's post "Nutrition + the "right" stimulus = growth."

If I add just 5lbs to my workout in squats over a year at 50x per year, I'd go up 150lbs!!! In 1 year. Don't think you wouldn't be big??? If you add 2.5lbs to deads or bench, going when you've full recuperated and are ready to go balls out AGAIN, you've added 75lbs to your deads or bench. That's huge, even for the guy starting at 125 on bench, he'd be at 200 by year end. A tremendous feat. And the Deads if he was at 200, would be 275. However, squats and deads would go up MORE and QUICKEr, because they're larger muscle groups, but you have to give them TIME.

That's longevity planning. Granted, you might not be rock solid muscle at 225lbs, but what if you were 150lbs more on squats and 75lbs more on deads/bench? How would you feel? How would you look? Do you think you'd be strong? Would it matter if you NEVER did calves, or hamstrings, or biceps? And you ate like a mofo? THEN you might "consider" adding in supplementary exercises. And then, you're curls, though you never did any, would go up 10-20lbs without even LIFTING on curls, just b/c your MAJOR weights went up. How would that feel?

In short, A-Unit and Effort advocate working your ass out on the big 3, and then the mass increase in arms, chest would come naturally.

However, Drum&Brass "The Myth of Weight vs. Muscle and strength" thread contradicts with A-Unit and Effort.

An extract from the post:

you also believe that being a certain weight is a direct measure of strength and aesthetic. Not everyone has genetic potential to be over 200 of lean muscle some even less than that. I'm not saying don't try to reach a certain goal, but don't be disappointed if you step on the scale and it says 173, yet you can squat, bench and deadlift more than any of the bigger guys at your gym.

Going with Effort and A-Unit's logic, shouldnt a guy that can squat, bench and deadlift more than any of the bigger guys be as big as them or even bigger? (since to increase mass you need to increase weight)

I've been thinking about this for awhile but these two concepts are mutually exclusive no matter how i look at it.

It'll be great if you guys could explain this in greater detail.

 

[Throttle]

well if you've been reading through the vault you shouldn't be too surprised to see d&b disagreeing, frequently with effort & A-unit (who mostly agree about the big picture).

it's essentially a chicken-and-egg thing, as far as i'm concerned, as to whether you should work on size or strength. most guys need both to reach their goals.

but what all three of them (and I) agree on is that most guys are way too tangled up in specific bodyweight & bodyfat goals. height & frame size have such a strong influence on 'potential' that I think a lot of generalizations that all three of these guys make are pretty sloppy.

of course there are think-boned, compact guys under 200 pounds who can lift monstrous weights -- long limbs are mechanical DIS-advantage (one reason successful collegiate-level wrestlers are so mind-blowingly compact).

the question is what do YOU want? do you really have any good reason to weigh more or less than 200 pounds, or any other artificial bodyweight or bodyfat percentage goal?

real goals look like this:

- I want to be happy with how i look in street clothes.

- I want to get wolf-whistles with my shirt off.

- I want to be the biggest muther****er I can be, and I don't care how big that is.

- I want to take about X inches off my waist, b/c I have an idea what sort of hip:waist ratio is healthy/attractive.

the point is that so many guys wander in here with only a vague notion of their goals. i believe goals like this are infinitely more useful than most quantitative goals pulled out of the air.

suppose a guy says 'i want to be 50% stronger in a year' -- well, for a newbie, that's a pretty lazy goal. for a guy who's been lifting more than a couple years, and not juicing, that's pretty ambitious. the point? all these numerical goals are useless w/o context, and often devolve into debates about whether gaining/losing X pounds of muscle/fat per week/month/year is realistic. truth is -- stop talking about it and go do the ****ing work.

 

[I-tallionStallion]

Its true, they do contradict. But what i think is that there are limitations of weights you are at. I don't think many 150 lbs dudes could rep 800 lbs like ronnie coleman did. There are limitations to your build.

I think it comes down to how you eat. If you don't eat enough food and protein, you'll never get bigger. Just stronger most likely. You really have to push the envolope to get bigger.

In the end, i really think it comes to genetics and diet.

 

[guayaballer]

I for one want to hear wolf whistles when I take off my shirt, preferably from girls.

 

[Mad Manic]

In short, A-Unit and Effort advocate working your ass out on the big 3, and then the mass increase in arms, chest would come naturally.

That's just BS, a muscle has to be stimulated sufficiently in order for it to grow. Doing Deads won't give you big biceps and Bench will work chest and triceps but not nearly enough. Squats work neither chest or arms, it's a thigh exercise. Although strength and size do correlate and both are needed no matter what your goal is, there are a lot of variations between people. Genetics, height, limb lengths/proportions, metabolism etc all play a role. Some people are big and not all that strong, some are strong and not all that big. For BBing purposes relying on the big 3 is a bad idea.

MM

 

[Throttle]

we're talking about guys who can't even begin to contemplate bodybuilding because they have 12-24 solid months of work to do first.

most guys have an unrealistic sense both of what's possible (in the near term) and what's needed. beyond 2 years almost anything IS possible for most people, but they give up in discouragement long before that b/c their training gets tripped up in the details, when training is really about the big picture.

worse, athletes of all stripes should have an advantage, b/c unless they're distance runners, they've laid down a base of (at least minimal) strength. but they've also probably had their heads filled with all sorts of nonsense about lifting. effort, a-unit and others are offering a mental enema for all that bull****

 

[Mad Manic]

we're talking about guys who can't even begin to contemplate bodybuilding because they have 12-24 solid months of work to do first.

most guys have an unrealistic sense both of what's possible (in the near term) and what's needed. beyond 2 years almost anything IS possible for most people, but they give up in discouragement long before that b/c their training gets tripped up in the details, when training is really about the big picture.

worse, athletes of all stripes should have an advantage, b/c unless they're distance runners, they've laid down a base of (at least minimal) strength. but they've also probably had their heads filled with all sorts of nonsense about lifting. effort, a-unit and others are offering a mental enema for all that bull****

Yes I agree with this, a strength base does need to be layed down but I think if one aspires to be a BBer to any level from the start then they should also do the necessary training to look like one. Nothing wrong with isolating the smaller groups and doing a split or whatever ... but you do need a strength base.

I see people repping out 8-12 reps on exercises all the time and they don't get stronger that much quickly. So a year down the road and their numbers on both compounds and isolations aren't high enough. For me it has to be a challenge, whatever I do, I don't wanna just go in the gym and rep out on a list of exercises. Weight increases even if it means dipping into sub 5 reps for a while are great, for strength and mass.

MM