The Relationship Between Size and Strength II

In this last post, I discussed the relationship between muscle strength and size.  First off, it is possible to lift heavy weights without gaining much size.  This is because the relationship between the two is mediated by two main factors:

• Total volume of resistance training
• Calorie intake

The volume of resistance training is crucial for increasing muscle size, because more volume leads to more muscle protein breakdown, which can lead to more muscle growth. 

But here's an easier way to put it: when I look around the gym, the people who have more muscle than I do are lifting heavier weights than me.  But the key is they are lifting these heavier weights for multiple reps and sets.  They are not coming in, doing a couple of heavy singles and then hitting the showers.

For example, I was doing some deadlifts at the gym this week, working in with this other guy.  He had a good amount of muscle for his size - I'm guessing he was 5'10" and weighed between 200 and 210 pounds.  I asked him how much he could deadlfit (max), and he said 375 lbs.  But compare this to the person from "Bearpowered" I showed in the previous post, who could deadllift 440 lbs but only weighed 144 lbs. 

We proceeded with the deadlifting workout, and he did a traditional pyramid type workout, doing 5 sets where he went up in weight and down in reps.  And this helps illustrate where there can be a disconnect between size and strength: a person may be able to get strong via infrequent, low-volume, low-repetition lifting, but this strength is mostly just neurological improvements, not any increase in the cross-sectional area of the muscle.

There are some technical parts to this idea, such as the "central governor" theory and such, that I won't get into at this point.  But a story might be a better example.  We've probably all heard a story like this: a person in a life-or-death situation lifts an incredible amount of weight in order to save someone's life.  Assuming such stories are true, where do these people who normally can't lift such weights get the "strength" to lift such massive amounts?  The answer is that the physical potential has always been inherently there, but there was never any reason for the central nervous system to "lower its defenses" and allow the person to lift the weight. 

In this sense, infrequent powerlifting-type regimens primarily train the central nervous system, and do not really lead to much muscle hypertrophy.  And this is where I think people need to be more specific when it comes to what they're after in regards to strength training.  Does a person want to be able to just lift heavy weights, or do they want to do it in such a way that they also end up with more muscle mass?

For example, I've seen it written many times where "3 sets of 8-10 repetitions are optimal for increasing strength".  Really?  Not if you are talking about a maximum lift (1 repetition max).  If I had one month to increase my 1-rep max in an exercise, one of the last things I would is 3 sets of 10 with a sub-maximal weight.  Instead, I would be doing heavy singles, partial reps with heavy weight, static holds and negatives with weights greater than my current 1-rep max, etc.  These are what would really boost the strength levels via neurological improvements, at least in the short term.

To be continued...