Bryan in ThinkMuscle: Hypertrophy=Strength

  • Thread starter imported_foozballking
  • Start date


I dont know if anyone mentioned this already, I remember reading recent article where Bryan mentions how powerlifters who had the most hypertrophy were also the strongest. I find this interesting, considering how we often hear about how powerlifters are much smaller but stronger than BBs.
I guess this means hypertrophy may have more effect on strength than all of us previosly thought. Any thoughts on this?
For those interested, here is the abstract:

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Feb;86(4):327-36.

The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle architecture in powerlifting performance.

Brechue WF, Abe T.

The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution and architectural characteristics of skeletal muscle in elite powerlifters, and to investigate their relationship to fat-free mat (FFM) accumulation and powerlifting performance. Twenty elite male powerlifters (including four world and three US national champions) volunteered for this study. FFM, skeletal muscle
distribution (muscle thickness at 13 anatomical sites), and isolated muscle thickness and fascicle pennation angle (PAN) of the triceps long-head (TL), vastus lateralis, and gastrocnemius medialis (MG) muscles were measured with B-mode ultrasound. Fascicle length (FAL) was calculated. Best lifting performance in the bench press (BP), squat lift (SQT), and dead lift (DL) was
recorded from competition performance. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.01) were observed between muscle distribution (individual muscle thickness from 13 sites) and performance of the SQT (r = 0.79 to r = 0.91), BP (r = 0.63 to r = 0.85) and DL (r = 0.70 to r = 0.90). Subscapular muscle thickness was the single best predictor of powerlifting performance in each lift. Performance of the SQT, BP, and DL was strongly correlated with FFM and FFM relative to standing height (r = 0.86 to 0.95, P < or = 0.001). FAL of the triceps long head and vastus
lateralis were significantly correlated with FFM (r = 0.59, P < or = 0.01; 0.63, P < or = 0.01, respectively) and performance of the SQT (r = 0.45; r = 0.50, respectively; P < or = 0.05), BP (r = 0.52; r = 0.56, respectively; P < or = 0.05), and DL (r = 0.56; r = 0.54, respectively; P < or = 0.01). A significant positive correlation was observed between isolated muscle thickness and PAN for triceps long-head (r = 0.64, P < or = 0.01) and gastrocnemius medialis (r = 0.48, P < or = 0.05) muscles, but not for vastus lateralis (r = 0.35). PAN was negatively correlated with powerlifting performance. Our results indicate that powerlifting performance is a function of FFM and, therefore, may be limited by the ability to accumulate FFM. Additionally, muscle architecture appears to play an important role in powerlifting performance in that greater fascicle lengths
are associated with greater FFM accumulation and powerlifting performance.
This study looks at elite powerlifters. When you get a bunch of equally well-trained people who can recruit the highest percentage of fibers of any people around, the most noticeable difference between the members of this particular group will be the number of fibers they have. This doesn't necessarily mean size=strength exactly, or that strength produces size. It just means size increases the _capacity_ for strength _if_ that extra muscle is well trained. This study does not debunk the idea that small powerlifters are often stronger than big bodybuilders.
To me HST is similar to my old competitive powerlifting days. My best gains in bodyweight, size and strength gains occured when i was powerlifting. Since I choose not to do singles anymore, I'll do the next best thing...HST
excellent article anoopbal !

A few points which I missed and should have written are the specificty of rep ranges and about muscle acting as leverages.

According to the theory of specificty, a bodybuilder who has been used to training at a higher rep range will definetly have a lower 1RM compared to a powerlifter with the same muscle mass who always work with low reps.

The tendon attachment alos plays a big role in strength performances. Someone with lesser muscle mass but with a longer mooment arm can be way stronger than someone with equal muscle mass but with poor leverages.

Also there is the case of how body fat is highly correeated with muscle mass. Anyway, the bottom line is looks can be  can be quite decpetive.

Form and coordination are the two main non-hypertrophic factors that alter people's strength in lifts. The CSA of a muscle itself has been found to be a reliable predictor of it's strength.
Also, tendon 'stiffness' can make a difference in "starting strength" which helps in power lifting type exercises. What happens with powerlifters, is they eventually maximize all the cooridination 'tricks', then hypertrophy is the sole or at least primary means of increased strength. In many many tests, trained subjects could voluntarilly and maximally recruit their muscles. This means as far as pure neural strength gains, for a particular muscle, there isn't much room.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Form and coordination are the two main non-hypertrophic factors that alter people's strength in lifts. The CSA of a muscle itself has been found to be a reliable predictor of it's strength.

True.Though there are a multitude of others, coordination is the most important neural adapation to influence strength gains. And how much can one expect to improve cordination for a simple movement like becnh press or squats after years of repaeting the same movement? Changing exercises from single joint to multijoint or vice versa for the same muscle can negatively affect strength performnace in those exercises.All in all, looks can be quite deceptive