It's been known for quite some time that initial strength increases from training occur in the absence of increased muscle mass. Studies have demonstrated this with EMG data showing that new lifters improve force output by increasing the neural drive to the agonistic muscles and decreasing the neural drive to the antagonistic muscles. This occurs fairly quickly. I'm a high school strength coach. When I test my athletes 1RMs I typically have them re-test a few days later and see them add 5-10 lbs. I do this because I know that their nervous systems are developing and they are learning how to "turn on" all of the muscle they have. I don't think improvements in neuromuscular efficiency last long. After that it seems that additional contractile tissue (muscle) is necessary. When we observe improvement in strength without increased muscle in well-trained athletes I suspect they might be caused by structural adaptations that improve biomechanical efficiency.
It's a bit context dependent, because you have to be sufficiently advanced as a lifter. If you're a total newbie, you're going to gain muscle size along with strength regardless of what strength training regimen you're on. Once you get to be an intermediate lifter, you can effectively gain strength without appreciable increases in muscle mass if you're focused on lifting heavy for low reps, and not getting close to muscular failure.
Strength and size are correlated across the population, but large individual variances exist. If you want to get a lot bigger than you are now, you need to get a lot stronger. Mass moves mass, and guys who are big are damn strong.
Super interesting. What are the implications for longevity? Should strength be the focus over muscle mass? Does the accumulation of enough strength counter/neutralize the negative effects of the natural decline in muscle mass as we age?
Mass is required to move mass. So you can get stronger without putting on mass but only to a certain point. That's what weight classes are all about. Human strength to weight is maybe 2:1 or 3:1 depending on the movement.
I'm certain I heard Menno Henselmans talk about this. In the short term, you can get strength without size. But in the long term, you can accurately predict the outcome of a power lifting competition by giving all the competitors an MRI and ranking them by muscle mass.
I wonder, if size is not is not a large factor in strength, what purpose hypertrophy serves in adaptation? Perhaps larger glycogen storage and increased blood flow for oxygen delivery when it comes to higher volume demands? No idea. Would be interested to see potential explanations of that.
Agree. I’ve been wondering whether a cyclist for example would be - beyond a basic level of strength - better off increasing glycogen stores for repeated effort than increasing strength. It sounds counterintuitive given a cyclist cares about power to weight ratio but they really don’t need that much strength (relative to some sports) but they do need sustained high power output over 5 minutes say.
So Dr. Attia.... how does this knowledge that you can have strength without size relate to your work on longevity in regard to loss of muscle as we age. Will we lose less or less quickly with a muscle that is strong but not large? Or will the loss be the same regardless of strength or size?
Would really appreciate some analysis of the benefits of hypertrophy for increasing glycogen storage particularly for athletes that need to produce sustained power for periods of say 2-10 minutes, like cyclists. The hypertrophy will add weight but that might be a small cost if you can add more watts to your power. (Eg a rider with weight 75kg adds 2.25kg of muscle mass, increasing weight by 3% but power for 10 mins was 350watts but has increased to 370watts, around 6% increase). If so, is there a case for cyclists to focus on higher reps - say 15-30 - until failure?
Having grappled with both bodybuilders and powerlifters, in terms of general applicable strength I consider the bodybuilders to be stronger. Something is off when it's not just about lifting the 3 with powerlifters. Strongmen practitioners tend to outshine both.
Even the suggestion that muscle growth only very slightly contributes to strength seems absurd. Otherwise, very skinny people would be capable of competing with larger people for world records in maximum strength. There are people like Clarence Kenedy who are very strong at being lean, but he's still quite built and has done PEDs. I'm sus of this guy's claims.
Would this suggest that steroids make you stronger only coincidentally to making you more muscular or perhaps they change the effect of muscular size on strength contrary to the finding above?
No it is not possible beyond a point. You might notice some newbie strength gains. Even if you are genetically gifted you absolutely need to gain muscle mass to keep the PRs getting better. Calisthenics athletes always do the 3-5 rep range but often intersperse it with 6-8 and 12-15 rep ranges in regressed movements to help make progress and also allow the body to recover. If you are training the 3-5 rep range you are also training your CNS along with the muscle/body. Beyond 6-8 reps, your CNS is well adapted. CNS fatigue needs more time to recover and doing 3-5 reps over and over again will just tire you mentally if not physically.
Genetic response anybody? Size, strength, ability, roughly 80% genetic according to Basmajian in his book muscles alive. Once upon a time I lightly heckled a guy for being skinny, he promptly loaded the bar with 315 and knocked out 5 reps on the bench with ease. Open mouth, insert foot. Likewise I've seen some big dudes barely push 200lbs. All about the gene pool and the response to the stimulus.
Way too much over thinking going on here. Lift heavy 1-3 reps of dead lifts squats etc you will get stronger and you will be stronger than the bodybuilder type training. Simplified yes but true. Easy statement is if you want to become strong, lift heavy sh1t and put it over your head.
It's been known for quite some time that initial strength increases from training occur in the absence of increased muscle mass. Studies have demonstrated this with EMG data showing that new lifters improve force output by increasing the neural drive to the agonistic muscles and decreasing the neural drive to the antagonistic muscles. This occurs fairly quickly. I'm a high school strength coach. When I test my athletes 1RMs I typically have them re-test a few days later and see them add 5-10 lbs. I do this because I know that their nervous systems are developing and they are learning how to "turn on" all of the muscle they have. I don't think improvements in neuromuscular efficiency last long. After that it seems that additional contractile tissue (muscle) is necessary. When we observe improvement in strength without increased muscle in well-trained athletes I suspect they might be caused by structural adaptations that improve biomechanical efficiency.
I'll answer the question. YES you absolutely can increase strength without increasing muscle size. You're welcome
It's a bit context dependent, because you have to be sufficiently advanced as a lifter. If you're a total newbie, you're going to gain muscle size along with strength regardless of what strength training regimen you're on. Once you get to be an intermediate lifter, you can effectively gain strength without appreciable increases in muscle mass if you're focused on lifting heavy for low reps, and not getting close to muscular failure.
Lol
Thank you it was so fucking long to get to the point.
It's a no brainer!
Too bad that’s super lame lol
Strength and size are correlated across the population, but large individual variances exist. If you want to get a lot bigger than you are now, you need to get a lot stronger. Mass moves mass, and guys who are big are damn strong.
Super interesting. What are the implications for longevity? Should strength be the focus over muscle mass? Does the accumulation of enough strength counter/neutralize the negative effects of the natural decline in muscle mass as we age?
Mass is required to move mass. So you can get stronger without putting on mass but only to a certain point. That's what weight classes are all about.
Human strength to weight is maybe 2:1 or 3:1 depending on the movement.
One word! ANATOLY!
Add Jesse to that mix.
Was going to say the same thing about Anatoly!
underneath his janitor outfit he's ripped af
Efficient as, mega strong for sure.
The strength increase comes from increased CNS neuroplasticity and BDNF - this can occur without adding muscle size.
I'm certain I heard Menno Henselmans talk about this. In the short term, you can get strength without size. But in the long term, you can accurately predict the outcome of a power lifting competition by giving all the competitors an MRI and ranking them by muscle mass.
I wonder, if size is not is not a large factor in strength, what purpose hypertrophy serves in adaptation? Perhaps larger glycogen storage and increased blood flow for oxygen delivery when it comes to higher volume demands? No idea. Would be interested to see potential explanations of that.
That's actually a great point!
Agree. I’ve been wondering whether a cyclist for example would be - beyond a basic level of strength - better off increasing glycogen stores for repeated effort than increasing strength. It sounds counterintuitive given a cyclist cares about power to weight ratio but they really don’t need that much strength (relative to some sports) but they do need sustained high power output over 5 minutes say.
Yes, and we have known this for decades
So Dr. Attia.... how does this knowledge that you can have strength without size relate to your work on longevity in regard to loss of muscle as we age. Will we lose less or less quickly with a muscle that is strong but not large? Or will the loss be the same regardless of strength or size?
If we define size as circumference than yes. If we definite size as density than no.
Would really appreciate some analysis of the benefits of hypertrophy for increasing glycogen storage particularly for athletes that need to produce sustained power for periods of say 2-10 minutes, like cyclists. The hypertrophy will add weight but that might be a small cost if you can add more watts to your power. (Eg a rider with weight 75kg adds 2.25kg of muscle mass, increasing weight by 3% but power for 10 mins was 350watts but has increased to 370watts, around 6% increase). If so, is there a case for cyclists to focus on higher reps - say 15-30 - until failure?
Clearly, compare BB and powerlifters; volume has no linear correlation to power.
Having grappled with both bodybuilders and powerlifters, in terms of general applicable strength I consider the bodybuilders to be stronger. Something is off when it's not just about lifting the 3 with powerlifters. Strongmen practitioners tend to outshine both.
I have been increasing my strength but noticed increased muscle 😢
Even the suggestion that muscle growth only very slightly contributes to strength seems absurd. Otherwise, very skinny people would be capable of competing with larger people for world records in maximum strength. There are people like Clarence Kenedy who are very strong at being lean, but he's still quite built and has done PEDs.
I'm sus of this guy's claims.
Perhaps you can’t strength train without also developing some size. That doesn’t mean the development of size was what caused the strength increase.
Would this suggest that steroids make you stronger only coincidentally to making you more muscular or perhaps they change the effect of muscular size on strength contrary to the finding above?
Depends on what you’re taking, some preferentially increase one over the other
Meanwhile in the real world😂......Alice in wonderland was drug free
Overanalyzing and going down unnecessary rabbit holes here.
Obviously. 🏋♂
Bruce Lee wondered this
There’s a viral clip of a regular looking guy who beats a huge bodybuilder in arm wrestling and does it with ease.
I bet you there is also clips of a much bigger looking arm wrestler beating the regular looking guy with ease.
This video comes to mind: ua-cam.com/users/shortsKDct005St1M
Anatoly
No it is not possible beyond a point. You might notice some newbie strength gains. Even if you are genetically gifted you absolutely need to gain muscle mass to keep the PRs getting better. Calisthenics athletes always do the 3-5 rep range but often intersperse it with 6-8 and 12-15 rep ranges in regressed movements to help make progress and also allow the body to recover. If you are training the 3-5 rep range you are also training your CNS along with the muscle/body. Beyond 6-8 reps, your CNS is well adapted. CNS fatigue needs more time to recover and doing 3-5 reps over and over again will just tire you mentally if not physically.
Genetic response anybody? Size, strength, ability, roughly 80% genetic according to Basmajian in his book muscles alive. Once upon a time I lightly heckled a guy for being skinny, he promptly loaded the bar with 315 and knocked out 5 reps on the bench with ease. Open mouth, insert foot. Likewise I've seen some big dudes barely push 200lbs. All about the gene pool and the response to the stimulus.
Nobody wants that lol
Rock climbers and road cyclists want that.
@ gross
Ever heard of the Sherpas of Nepal? These dudes are so yawn worthy
Why would you wana be a twig and strong? Being jacked is more difficult
Women would... I would!
I’m assuming this is sarcasm? Any athletic discipline that prioritizes strength to weight. Runners, Cyclists, Climbers, etc
Who cares that being jacked is more difficult? Functional strength over aesthetics any day.
Way too much over thinking going on here. Lift heavy 1-3 reps of dead lifts squats etc you will get stronger and you will be stronger than the bodybuilder type training. Simplified yes but true. Easy statement is if you want to become strong, lift heavy sh1t and put it over your head.