Strength Gain vs Muscle Mass Gain

Mr_Knight

I think most here understand that, especially when starting out, gaining strength on lifts does not necessarily mean an increase in actual muscle mass. My question is this - what level of strength improvement do you have to achieve before you can be confident that you have actually added muscle mass?

For example, let's take a 6'1", 210 pound male. One strength standard progression for (eg) bench press is...

Untrained: 135
Novice: 175
Intermediate: 215
Advanced: 290
Elite: 360

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html

I'm guessing that Untrained -> Novice can be covered completely by neural adaptation etc. Is that equally true of the progression from Novice -> Intermediate, or does that level of improvement typically also require addition of new muscle? If not, is the inflection point between Intermediate -> Advanced?

I realize there probably isn't a one size fits all answer, I'm just looking for a general purpose understanding.

Escape_Artist

Bump for later! :flowerforyou:

explosivedonut

FWIW: I have gone from untrained to novice (and getting decently close to intermediate, but I usually don't try to 1RM, so I have to use the calculator), and I have added mass, not only strength. That of course isn't proof or anything, but I would be doubtful if you could "jump" one level only because of neural adaptation, unless you already had the muscular foundation beforehand. For example, you were able to do hundreds of pushups but never did a bench press, you could seemingly jump one level due to neural adaptation. However, that isn't the case for most people.

TL;DR: It probably varies from person to person, but you probably will build muscle mass.

KatrinaWilke

Good question! I really have no answer and would like to see what other's have to say.

I get stronger everytime I go to the gym. For example, I went from deadlifting the bar to deadlifting 200lbs in a matter of months. But I am not sure if I am adding muscle mass. My measurements are getting smaller and smaller and I have more definitions because I am lowering my BF%. But like you said can I be confident that I've added muscle mass?

Mr_Knight

The guideline I've been given from another source is...

Untrained -> Novice is 100% neural adaptation
Novice -> intermediate 50/50 neural/mass gain
Intermediate upwards -> basically all mass gain

Obviously these are rough approximations. I don't really have a way of independently corroborating this, other than I've passed the "Novice" stage on all my major lifts, am half to to Intermediate on 3 of the four, and have started seeing an uptick in my LBM. So that's consistent, anyway.

ninerbuff

The guideline I've been given from another source is...

Untrained -> Novice is 100% neural adaptation
Novice -> intermediate 50/50 neural/mass gain
Intermediate upwards -> basically all mass gain

Obviously these are rough approximations. I don't really have a way of independently corroborating this, other than I've passed the "Novice" stage on all my major lifts, am half to to Intermediate on 3 of the four, and have started seeing an uptick in my LBM. So that's consistent, anyway.

Sounds about right. Strength gains are fast as a novice or long long lay off. I believe mass gains are happening as weight resistance SLOWLY (like maybe 5lbs every 3-6 weeks or on bench for example) increases while on a calorie surplus, even if it's low. Of course tighter clothing would also help with indication.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

astronomicals

What about advanced power lifters in teh 132# class?

Those dude deadlift 500+ pounds at 132# body weight...

Taking that into account, I'd say a professional can still be mostly neural if they choose to be. Maybe thats poorly worded. I'd say neural adaption can take you pretty far.

jwdieter

Pretty tough to nail this down. Especially with one lift. So many variables. Pretty sure training to "advanced" is doable while training at a deficit, for people who have some athletic development.

People who haven't ever been active, with no physical development.. dunno.

TiberiusClaudis

I can only add my personal experience.

When I was 17%BF, at 205, I was working out with 320 lbs on BP. Notice I said working out, not max. As in 5 sets of 5.
When I went down to 12%BF at 176, I found it difficult to work out with 265.

So for me, it boils down to how much weight I'm packing. Saying that, at the higher weight, my abs went AWOL.

So there are ALWAYS trade offs.

Just my 2 cents.

Mr_Knight

205 @ 17% -> 170 lbs LBM
176 @ 12% -> 155 lbs LBM

That's quite a change, I can see why you would have found a performance difference!

astronomicals

205 @ 17% -> 170 lbs LBM
176 @ 12% -> 155 lbs LBM

That's quite a change, I can see why you would have found a performance difference!

thats just confusing... sounds like a really terribly implemented cut... no offense, but, 1:1 on a cut is horrendous.. this isnt eally a standard to base anything off of

cafeaulait7

The guideline I've been given from another source is...

Untrained -> Novice is 100% neural adaptation
Novice -> intermediate 50/50 neural/mass gain
Intermediate upwards -> basically all mass gain

Obviously these are rough approximations. I don't really have a way of independently corroborating this, other than I've passed the "Novice" stage on all my major lifts, am half to to Intermediate on 3 of the four, and have started seeing an uptick in my LBM. So that's consistent, anyway.

If you know your LBM, don't you know whether you've added muscle mass? Or are you wondering if that could be bone density, etc?

Or are you trying to see a correlation for advice for folks in general? I'd love to know how to tell outside of body composition testing. I don't want to spend the $$ on that, lol. I use a trusty tape measure to see if I'm heading the way I like, but I wish I knew what on earth my scale readings meant for sure

TiberiusClaudis

205 @ 17% -> 170 lbs LBM
176 @ 12% -> 155 lbs LBM

That's quite a change, I can see why you would have found a performance difference!

thats just confusing... sounds like a really terribly implemented cut... no offense, but, 1:1 on a cut is horrendous.. this isnt eally a standard to base anything off of

Absolutely true. Worst cut of my life. But the point is, my strenght took a major dive as well. There may very well be people that can cut and not lose size or strenght. But so far, I'm not in that group.

mustgetmuscles1

Neat question. I really have no idea especially at newbie levels.

Im sure once someone reaches an advanced level and they are getting near 100% muscle activation any strength gain would need to come from hypertrophy.

cdahl383

This is a really great question, I've often wondered this myself. I know that I'm definitely much stronger now than I was two months ago when I first started back on the weights after slacking for 6 months. I've been lifting off and on over the past 10 years, never overly serious, but I did put on some mass over the years since I used to be a skinny guy in high school. But I'm on a deficit to reduce bodyfat so I know I'm not gaining any mass, so I'm assuming it's just neural adaptations at this point. Once I get to a lower weight I'll start eating more and hopefully be able to add some more mass at that point.

I know years back when I first started weight lifting and put on some mass I was definitely eating a surplus (by that I mean eating whatever/whenever I wanted through most of my 20's, not great nutrition, but a surplus nonetheless).

I also know that while on a deficit for a prolonged period of time (i.e. 3-6 months) to lose weight my lifts will inevitably start to go down a little near the end. I think you prevent that from happening to a certain degree, but at some point it's probably inevitable to lose some strength.

cats847

What about advanced power lifters in teh 132# class?

Those dude deadlift 500+ pounds at 132# body weight...

Taking that into account, I'd say a professional can still be mostly neural if they choose to be. Maybe thats poorly worded. I'd say neural adaption can take you pretty far.

I have to agree with this, there are some really tiny powerlifters out there that have some huge numbers on their lifts...I think neural adaptation and greater muscle efficiency can keep happening even at more advanced levels. I can't give a cut-and-dry answer, but I suspect it depend the complex factors of diet, genetics, and training style...

Maybe in the end it all boils down to genetics -- hence there are great lifters (who can out-class everyone else in their weight category) and mediocre lifters who are not as strong for their size. Just my thoughts though, I could be totally wrong..

james6998

Its so funny you came up with this for a topic. Today i was a bit bummed out over the reality of me gaining any further size would be few and far between. I am the type of person that has to have strong goals to achieve in order to push myself to the max. I was thinking today. How far really do i have left? I gained muscle all my life and well it has to stop somewhere. Combined with my age at 42 and the level of fitness i have reached. Can't help wondering whats left for me besides cutting. Sure i won't let it stop me pushing myself but really how do you know when you have reached your end?

DopeItUp

What about advanced power lifters in teh 132# class?

Those dude deadlift 500+ pounds at 132# body weight...

Taking that into account, I'd say a professional can still be mostly neural if they choose to be. Maybe thats poorly worded. I'd say neural adaption can take you pretty far.

Yes, exactly. Look at the lighter weight classes in the olympics and see what those guys are lifting. It's insane. Neuromuscular adaptations will take you very, very far.

In fact, for a random anecdote there's an average-looking guy at my gym who deadlifts 635 at 168lb body weight. That's approaching 4x bodyweight.

As for myself, I have gone from less than untrained, to halfway between intermediate and advanced (on all my lifts), all on a deficit and with no additional LBM. In fact, according to my calculations, I have lost a small amount of LBM along the way. I'm still continuing to make gains, albeit very slowly.

Don't forget, beyond neuromuscular adaptations there are gains purely from form/technique/practice too. Plus, equipment (belts, wrist wraps, knee wraps, etc). Each step gets you a little more.

Cherimoose

What about advanced power lifters in teh 132# class?

Those dude deadlift 500+ pounds at 132# body weight...

Taking that into account, I'd say a professional can still be mostly neural if they choose to be. Maybe thats poorly worded. I'd say neural adaption can take you pretty far.

Maybe they HAVE increased muscle mass, it's just not enough to be noticeable to us. We've been assuming muscle gains look "bulky", but maybe a tiny increase in muscle in a small powerlifter creates lots of extra strength.

astronomicals

but maybe a tiny increase in muscle in a small powerlifter creates lots of extra strength.

Yeah. Thats neural adaption.

of course they have some increase in mass. The point was that they have an amazing amount of strength in relation to their volume of muscle.

I'd imagine it genetics for most of these powerlifters. Either that or some other abnormal physiological trait they have somehow developed.

astronomicals

As for myself, I have gone from less than untrained, to halfway between intermediate and advanced (on all my lifts), all on a deficit and with no additional LBM. In fact, according to my calculations, I have lost a small amount of LBM along the way. I'm still continuing to make gains, albeit very slowly.

You mean you can do more than twice your bodyweight (free weight squat) for 1RM, correct? How long did it take you to develop that in a deficit?

Lifts? numbers? weight? bodyweight? weight lost? etc...

Throw some details out here.

DopeItUp

As for myself, I have gone from less than untrained, to halfway between intermediate and advanced (on all my lifts), all on a deficit and with no additional LBM. In fact, according to my calculations, I have lost a small amount of LBM along the way. I'm still continuing to make gains, albeit very slowly.

You mean you can do more than twice your bodyweight (free weight squat) for 1RM, correct? How long did it take you to develop that in a deficit?

Lifts? numbers? weight? bodyweight? weight lost? etc...

Throw some details out here.

Nope, my squat sucks. I haven't tested my 1RM on anything in a while but my calculated maxes are:

Squat 300, DL 405, OHP 160, BP 240. I will be testing my DL @ 405 next week as well and possibly testing some others (BP and maybe OHP). Squat is out for me right now, hurt my hip flexor about a month or two ago (one of the many reasons why it sucks).

I'm 200lbs, 6'3". Mid-high teens bf%. Lean body mass somewhere between 165-180lbs (depending on what estimation/calculation you want to believe) Down almost 100lbs since 2.5 years ago. Am losing at around .4-.5lbs/week still and making very slight and slow gains. Started training sorta half-a$$ed 1.5 years ago, seriously about 9 months ago.

Hope that answers your questions

PS - you have good taste in beer

astronomicals

Lol.. those miller lite's weren't mine, but, they were beer, so, I drank them.

ereck44

Bump.for later

DopeItUp

Lol.. those miller lite's weren't mine, but, they were beer, so, I drank them.

I meant the stuff from the last week or two Yum!

TheEffort

BUMP.

LiftAllThePizzas

I think most here understand that, especially when starting out, gaining strength on lifts does not necessarily mean an increase in actual muscle mass. My question is this - what level of strength improvement do you have to achieve before you can be confident that you have actually added muscle mass?

For example, let's take a 6'1", 210 pound male. One strength standard progression for (eg) bench press is...

Untrained: 135
Novice: 175
Intermediate: 215
Advanced: 290
Elite: 360

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html

I'm guessing that Untrained -> Novice can be covered completely by neural adaptation etc. Is that equally true of the progression from Novice -> Intermediate, or does that level of improvement typically also require addition of new muscle? If not, is the inflection point between Intermediate -> Advanced?

I realize there probably isn't a one size fits all answer, I'm just looking for a general purpose understanding.

I went from untrained to either advanced or close to it ((280 X 5) squats and (309 X 8) deadlifts, at 175-180 lbs) with zero gain in lean mass.

But those are about my limits (based on the how much harder it was getting to progress) and I suspect I'd need to add lean mass to be able to go any further.

Meanwhile I barely got to Novice with the upper body stuff (still haven't benched my own weight) so it not only varies between individuals, but within individuals.

Mr_Knight

Ok, so I pulled up the Olympic lifting records:

56kg class -> 305kg total, snatch + c&j
105kg class -> 436kg total, snatch + c&j

Lifted weight increased by 44%, body weight increased by 88%. I chose 105kg class because it is the heaviest not-unlimited class, so it's probably a reasonable assumption that body composition is still a very important consideration.

Doing some approximate math....

Muscle mass 50% @ 56kb -> 28kg -> 305/28 = 11kg lifted per kg of skeletal muscle
Muscle mass 50% @ 105kg -> 52kg -> 436/52 = 8kg lifted per kg of skeletal muscle

I'm wondering if the explosive nature of olympic lifting gives a per-pound advantage to smaller bodies...? Looking at powerlifting, using results from recent Canadian championships:

74kg class -> 640kg total
105kg class -> 727kg total

40% bodyweight increase results in 14% lift increase. Wow, that's not at all what I expected, that's an even stronger pound-for-pound advantage to the smaller frames.

I have to chew on this for a while. It's clear that even if I never gain another ounce of lean mass, I will never reach those strength levels, so in practical terms there is no end to room for improvement at my current LBM. I'm also thinking...from seeing folks (including myself!) in the weight room...it would seem a lot of us amateurs are substituting muscle gains for better technique, adaption, etc.

That is, we're adding more of what we have, before we've optimized the use of what we already have.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion, there's a lot here to think about...

DopeItUp

Ok, so I pulled up the Olympic lifting records:

56kg class -> 305kg total, snatch + c&j
105kg class -> 436kg total, snatch + c&j

Lifted weight increased by 44%, body weight increased by 88%. I chose 105kg class because it is the heaviest not-unlimited class, so it's probably a reasonable assumption that body composition is still a very important consideration.

Doing some approximate math....

Muscle mass 50% @ 56kb -> 28kg -> 305/28 = 11kg lifted per kg of skeletal muscle
Muscle mass 50% @ 105kg -> 52kg -> 436/52 = 8kg lifted per kg of skeletal muscle

I'm wondering if the explosive nature of olympic lifting gives a per-pound advantage to smaller bodies...? Looking at powerlifting, using results from recent Canadian championships:

74kg class -> 640kg total
105kg class -> 727kg total

40% bodyweight increase results in 14% lift increase. Wow, that's not at all what I expected, that's an even stronger pound-for-pound advantage to the smaller frames.

I have to chew on this for a while. It's clear that even if I never gain another ounce of lean mass, I will never reach those strength levels, so in practical terms there is no end to room for improvement at my current LBM. I'm also thinking...from seeing folks (including myself!) in the weight room...it would seem a lot of us amateurs are substituting muscle gains for better technique, adaption, etc.

That is, we're adding more of what we have, before we've optimized the use of what we already have.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion, there's a lot here to think about...

Good questions and thoughts. Keep in mind, olympic lifts are very technical/skill-based so a lot of those gains could be from practice versus brute strength.

As far as the smaller folks getting more bang for their buck, that's pretty much true of anything (a 300lb guy isn't 2x as strong as a 150lb guy assuming similar training/eating routines). Why, I'm not sure either. I've always assumed that having smaller levers increases leverage on lifts, while decreasing ROM at the same time. One of the reasons you'll find a lot of powerlifters tend to be shorter dudes. Again, just my opinion/assumption.

mustgetmuscles1

Could there be other factors involved other than muscle mass and neural adaptation? Like adrenaline, energy storage or delivery, or cardiovascular systems?

astronomicals

I've always assumed that having smaller levers increases leverage on lifts, while decreasing ROM at the same time.

this was what I was thinking.....