Strength Gains vs. Size Gains

AS stated by a previous poster, initial gains come mostly neuromuscular adaptation. Really strong people have the ability to recruit many more muscle fibers per contraction than a normal person. And as stated you get to a point where you have to get bigger to get stronger but you can gain lots of strength initially without mass gains.

What about increased muscle definition- is that from mass gains? Or can you get increased muscle definition w/o mass gain?

I find this interesting. I just started lifting in January and I'm seeing huge increases in how much I can lift- but no muscle definition yet. (I'm also overweight sooo..... that affects being able to see muscle definition I guess).

Muscle definition is attributable to shedding the fat that is covering up the muscle. There are huge power lifters who have little to know actual definition because, while they have a lot of muscle, they are not lean and have a lot of fat also. Definition comes from reduction of BF.

It's more than just fat reduction. If you don't have the muscles in the first place, they won't show. For example, I've never had abs, but am just starting to get them now, due to compound lifts and a bulking diet. And if anything I've gained fat in that area.

Just wanted to point this out.

(Figure of speech, btw...of course I had abs before...just not developed enough to be visible.)

Everybody's different.

AS stated by a previous poster, initial gains come mostly neuromuscular adaptation. Really strong people have the ability to recruit many more muscle fibers per contraction than a normal person. And as stated you get to a point where you have to get bigger to get stronger but you can gain lots of strength initially without mass gains.

What about increased muscle definition- is that from mass gains? Or can you get increased muscle definition w/o mass gain?

I find this interesting. I just started lifting in January and I'm seeing huge increases in how much I can lift- but no muscle definition yet. (I'm also overweight sooo..... that affects being able to see muscle definition I guess).

Muscle definition is attributable to shedding the fat that is covering up the muscle. There are huge power lifters who have little to know actual definition because, while they have a lot of muscle, they are not lean and have a lot of fat also. Definition comes from reduction of BF.

It's more than just fat reduction. If you don't have the muscles in the first place, they won't show. For example, I've never had abs, but am just starting to get them now, due to compound lifts and a bulking diet. And if anything I've gained fat in that area.

Just wanted to point this out.

(Figure of speech, btw...of course I had abs before...just not developed enough to be visible.)

I guess that explains why anorexics don't have six packs.

Nothing like seeing someone with 12-inch-upper-arms bench over 300lbs or someone at a bodyweight of 160lbs squat nearly 800 pounds. I've seen many small guys out lift huge bodybuilders.

It really is a perplexing subject. Maybe some people gain muscle easier than gaining strength, and others gain strength much easier than muscle. I would say genetics, hormones, and the type of training have the most impact.

What type of training leads to gaining strength and what type to size gains? I wonder which one I'm doing. I'm just lifting dumbbells. And doing planks.

1-6 reps is considered strength

8-12 is for muscle growth …

I have no idea what seven will do …

my numbers on this may be slightly off...

Biology doesn't work in absolutes anyway,

1-6 reps = strength gains over hypertrophy - you would find hypertrophy increasing until at somewhere around 8 reps it is predominant although strength gains will still be occuring...both will continue to decrease towards 12 reps where endurance will take over, but they will still happen. I wish I could draw a graph on here, would kind of make it easier to understand

Progressive overload (strength gains over time, or increases in intensity and/or voume/work done) + CALORIC SURPLUS + a strong hormonal base = mass gains.


It's the change over time that dictates mass gains. A guy that benches 290 his first year and 10 years later is benching 350 will make some size gains. The guy benching 125 his first year and 300 10 years later will likely grow more. Many guys are naturally strong for various reasons, independent of muscle mass.

You can also gain strength pretty easily while eating at maintenance or a deficit, with a good workout routine and intelligent diet, supplementation, etc. Not many size gains under this scenario though.

Regarding workout routines for strength vs size. For size gains, pretty much ANY workout routine (under like 30-50 reps per set) will increase size over time as long as total work done increases and the calories and hormones are there. Strength is MUCH more specific. There's a few ways to train for strength, usually using low reps and/or power work.

I feel like I've gained strength and not mass but changed shape...

I actually try to mix up and do both ..for few months I will work in 4-6 rep range and then change to 8-10 rep range...

Good thinking.

are you stronger in the sense you can do more reps or in the sense you can do a heavier weight?


because those aren't the same thing- doing more of a thing past a certain rep range doesn't make you 'stronger' in the traditional sense of the word. Doing more of a thing just means you can do it longer.

Actually it does in a way.. It's still a form of progressive overload...If you increase the volume, more sets, more reps... If you do 4x5 on the bench press for example, and the following week you pull off 5x5 with the same weight, it means you got stronger..