Can you gain strength without gaining muscle mass?

Thanks for all the replies!

Honestly, I'm not looking to increase strength without increasing muscle mass, it just seemed like the only solution to two seemingly conflicting pieces of information I see on the boards a lot.

My goal is to decrease my body fat percentage by maintaining or increasing muscle mass and reducing body fat. Since I'm at a healthy weight and relatively high body fat percentage, logic tells me that I need to gain some muscle mass. I've started Power90 with my husband and we're 3 weeks in. I'm eating slightly under maintenance calories, although I don't track every day (I spot check and I've been around long enough to feel comfortable with what I'm eating - although I know it leaves room for error). Right now I'm up a few pounds, but I believe it's a combination of monthly cycle and water weight from my muscles repairing.

I've seen definite strength gains, measurable in the number of pushups, dips, etc that I can do.

If I can't increase muscle mass while eating at a moderate deficit or close to maintenance calories, then I'll settle for increasing strength and maintaining the muscle I have and losing some fat. I'm not comfortable going into a bulk phase right now when I already have too much fat. What I really want the answer to be (as does anyone else, I'm sure) is that I could increase muscle mass (moderately) and reduce body fat.

I'm still conflicted, only because my clear strength gains while eating at a surplus are amazing. Never had this before in years of eating at a deficit. So, it's difficult for someone to disprove that to me since it is very salient to me right now.

You're probably not getting stronger because you're not actually strength training. Strength training involves heavy weight, low reps, and long rest periods.

Anyway, there are three ways to increase strength without necessarily putting on mass.

1. Increase the number of motor units recruited during a contraction
2. Increase the firing rate of those motor units
3. Improve coordination between the muscle groups

I'm generally confused by all of the conflicting information I've read on these forums over the last couple of years.

Some people will say that in order to achieve body recomposition, you need to go through bulking and cutting cycles and that you absolutely cannot increase muscle mass unless you're eating a surplus of calories. Others say that eating at a moderate deficit (~20% below TDEE) and incorporating strength training is the way to go.

So my question is as in my title - can you increase strength without increasing muscle mass?

Thanks. I am strength training. Strength sort of goes up really slow in a deficit. In a surplus, bam. Like nobody's business. So, that's why I'm having trouble. Even with research in front of me telling my otherwise, I'm going to have trouble believing, all things being equal.

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that in my own uneducated opinion, it's limited. And, to get big gains, you need to eat. Fat is strong. That is really not disputable.

Powerlifiters and Olympic lifters get stonger while staying in the same weight class.

How?

Yes, you can. If you lift in the range for 1-6 reps with as heavy as you can go, you'll have neurological changes that increase strength and power, but not as much plasma changes that change muscle size. For muscle size changes, the 8-12 rep range seems to work best because it increase plasma in the muscle cells making them bigger. This is why body builders concentrate on these ranges, and power lifters do more of the 1-6 range. For endurance changes, the > 12 range seems to work best.

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/truth-rep-ranges-muscle-growth

Thanks. I am strength training. Strength sort of goes up really slow in a deficit. In a surplus, bam. Like nobody's business. So, that's why I'm having trouble. Even with research in front of me telling my otherwise, I'm going to have trouble believing, all things being equal.

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that in my own uneducated opinion, it's limited. And, to get big gains, you need to eat. Fat is strong. That is really not disputable.

You're probably not getting stronger because you're not actually strength training. Strength training involves heavy weight, low reps, and long rest periods.

Anyway, there are three ways to increase strength without necessarily putting on mass.

1. Increase the number of motor units recruited during a contraction
2. Increase the firing rate of those motor units
3. Improve coordination between the muscle groups

I am getting stronger, although I'm not claiming anything miraculous. Power90 has you aim for 8-15 reps in a certain amount of time, generally 30-60 seconds, although I don't pay close attention. It is fast paced, but switches muscle groups. After three weeks, I'm able to do sets of 15 pushups (up from 7, I think). I can do 8 dips with correct form where I could barely do 1 before. I'm ready to go up on my weights as I'm able to do 15 reps on almost all of the exercises.

Is Power90 not considered strength training in some capacity?

I'm not familiar with it but based on what you describe, no, not really.

I fundamentally disagree with the belief that increasing your >6RM doesn't constitute an increase in strength. If you could do 7 pushups before and now you can do 15...you got stronger.

Most of your post did not make sense,

But to argue that strength training does not involve long rest period is wrong. You will not cause neurological adaptions when you're still fatigued from a prior set.

Thanks for all the replies!

Honestly, I'm not looking to increase strength without increasing muscle mass, it just seemed like the only solution to two seemingly conflicting pieces of information I see on the boards a lot.

My goal is to decrease my body fat percentage by maintaining or increasing muscle mass and reducing body fat. Since I'm at a healthy weight and relatively high body fat percentage, logic tells me that I need to gain some muscle mass. I've started Power90 with my husband and we're 3 weeks in. I'm eating slightly under maintenance calories, although I don't track every day (I spot check and I've been around long enough to feel comfortable with what I'm eating - although I know it leaves room for error). Right now I'm up a few pounds, but I believe it's a combination of monthly cycle and water weight from my muscles repairing.

I've seen definite strength gains, measurable in the number of pushups, dips, etc that I can do.

If I can't increase muscle mass while eating at a moderate deficit or close to maintenance calories, then I'll settle for increasing strength and maintaining the muscle I have and losing some fat. I'm not comfortable going into a bulk phase right now when I already have too much fat. What I really want the answer to be (as does anyone else, I'm sure) is that I could increase muscle mass (moderately) and reduce body fat.

We're assuming two things within this post. One, this person is in a calorie deficit and will not increase lean tissue. Two, they have a training age of at least 1-3 years.

With that being said, this person will not increase their strength without very high stress on their CNS. If the body is fatigued from a prior set it will not place the desired/required amount of stress on the CNS which will not cause adaption.

Could you increase your 1RM 1-5% over a course of a year with only 1:00 rest between your sets? I'm sure you could but this really isn't practical.

There is no reason to argue/disagree with someone that is obviously very educated on the subject over the most trivial details.

Your proof is 'don't argue with me cause I'm smart'?

Also why isn't it practical? Increasing your capacity for work isn't a bad thing.

Once again, I'm not arguing efficiency, because that varies based on circumstance, I'm arguing the fact that you're claiming limited rest periods on higher rep sets don't constitute strength training. You just admitted you could increase your strength with 1 minute rest periods (although the 1%-5% cap is bogus, depending on circumstance) which means it would count as, by definition, strength training.

There is no reason to argue/disagree with someone that is obviously better than you at constructing arguments using claimed facts you have yet to validate.

Your proof is 'don't argue with me cause I'm smart'?

Also why isn't it practical? Increasing your capacity for work isn't a bad thing.

Once again, I'm not arguing efficiency, because that varies based on circumstance, I'm arguing the fact that you're claiming limited rest periods on higher rep sets don't constitute strength training. You just admitted you could increase your strength with 1 minute rest periods (although the 1%-5% cap is bogus, depending on circumstance) which means it would count as, by definition, strength training.

There is no reason to argue/disagree with someone that is obviously better than you at constructing arguments using claimed facts you have yet to validate.

There were no differences in strength increases. These results show that in healthy, recently untrained males, strength training with 1 minute of rest between sets elicits a greater hormonal response than 2.5-minute rest intervals in the first week of training, but these differences diminish by week 5 and disappear by week 10 of training.

The present study indicated that, within typical hypertrophic strength-training protocols used in the present study, the length of the recovery times between the sets (2 vs. 5 minutes) did not have an influence on the magnitude of acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses or long-term training adaptations in muscle strength and mass in previously strength-trained men.