For example, a 170 lb (70 kg) person with defined muscles versus a less muscular person.
In: 166
Definition is a product of body fat and being lean.
However the larger the muscle, the more fat that can be spread across it without significantly softening. So larger muscles have more definition.
The world’s strongest humans are pretty soft looking.
Muscle definition is far more directly correlated to body fat percentage than to strength. Men at 5% body fat tend to have very defined musculature, but lots of professional strongmen are just big everywhere (and a LOT stronger than even most high-level athletes). Compare an NFL lineman with 15%-20% bodyfat versus a cornerback or receiver with 5%-10% bodyfat. The linemen are typically far stronger, but the receivers and cornerbacks have far more defined musculature.
Like, almost zero correlation.
Strength is strongly correlated with muscle *size* (but not 100%), definition is literally just how much fat you have.
So if you have huge muscles and have a lot of fat, you’ll be very strong but not very defined. If you have small muscles and very little fat, you’ll be well defined but comparatively weak.
From a biological perspective, muscle mass (actually cross-sectional area) is the only real factor that affects strength, so definition (probably over 90% due just to proportion of fat) is effectively unrelated.
That said, if you look at living humans those with enough muscle mass (CSA) to show through whatever amount of fat *are* probably stronger than similar height/massed comparables. And someone who is that combination of fat with relatively little muscle is probably weaker.
But the presence or absence or proportion of fat has nothing to do with strength.
Look at [strongman competitions and see almost no muscle definition](https://yt3.googleusercontent.com/pSF9Umuv9Uc4z1yMOe9PcLAp6nwt9JfEXRvdziFY_OpqcUqSr93TPEqywouRaFt66I0Xk0r8tw=s900-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj). Look at body-building competitions with extreme muscle definition, and note a LOT less overall strength.
Muscle definition comes from lowering body fat to reveal the muscles underneath.
They’re not necessarily correlated at all. A person who is really defined like a bodybuilder is likely stronger than an average person of the same weight, but definition and strength don’t necessarily have a correlation.
Bodybuilders, guys like prime [Arnold Schwarzenegger](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Arnold_Schwarzenegger_1974.jpg) have a lot of muscle mixed with really low body fat. That’s why they are so defined, there isn’t any fat between their muscles and their skin. Body builders are really strong, but there’s a trick here called cutting.
The way a body builder gets that look, or a guy like Hugh Jackman gets super defined for a movie like Wolverine, is through a cycle of bulking and cutting. You need energy if you are going to build muscle, so you have to consume a lot of calories (and protein), combined with exercise of course, so your body can bulk up. If you don’t have enough calories then your body will just eat the muscle for energy and you won’t get any bigger. So you enter a calorie surplus to bulk up, then you enter a calorie deficit so your body will eat the fat you’ve built along with the muscle, which gets you really defined. You cannot be in a cut period for too long or you will start to lose muscle mass.
Now Arnold was really strong when he won Mr. Olympia, much stronger than the average person, but that’s not what the strongest people on the earth look like. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3RutarA50Y) is a video of Eddie Hall’s highlights from the 2017 World’s Strongest Man competition. As you can see he’s got a big belly and plenty of fat. Hall is not nearly as defined as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he is much stronger.
TL;DR: a defined person is almost certainly stronger than the average person of their height and weight, but the kinds of people who compete in strongman competitions and stuff like that are generally not super defined
Definition is visible with really low body fat and is not correlated directly with strength.
You could be really strong but 40% body fat and you’ll mostly just look fat. You’d still have wide shoulders and look wide but you will lack definition.
You could be really weak and be 7% body fat and you will look cut, albeit small.
It’s very difficult to be big and lean. It takes a huge amount of dedication and perseverance.
Being cut is all about diet and low body fat it’s nothing to do with how strong you are. You can be cut at any size. Obviously the bigger you are the more impressive it is and it will stand out more.
I feel there is a weak correlation. I worked construction when younger and so did my dad. He was a carpenter for all of his adult life. I remember seeing much younger men with “gym bodies” struggle to move objects that my seemingly overweight father just tossed around with ease.
Muscle isolation yields tons of definition, but not as much strength (and certainly not functional strength). It’s the same reason that many winners of the strength competitions look pudgy by comparison.
Part of this discrepancy is body fat. But for me, I’ll always feel that real strength comes from functional movements using a very wide array of muscle groups. You get this by working on a farm, by doing construction work, or other such work-like activities. Isolating your pectorals, targeting your delts, focusing exclusively on triceps, etc yields tons of great definition but so little real world strength.
Look at Worlds Strongest Men.
Strong af, not very defined.
Look at skinny men / boys.
Often defined, abs on show, but not strong. Just skinny enough you see muscles.
Same way you’ll see a 10 year with a six pack, not because he works out and is ripped, just lean. We all have abs, just a lot can’t be seen.
I think the correlation is non existent or even possibly negative
The amount of fat you have has 0 effect on your muscle strength (actually more fat usually means more muscle since you have to carry extra weight around)
Not to mention at a certain point you actually have to sacrifice strength for definition, to get a very low body fat you have to starve your body slightly, which canabalizes your muscle. (Again just slightly)
In other words, you cannot judge somones strength by their muscle definition alone. Nor can you judge it by size. The only way to judge someone’s strength is by seeing how heavy an object they can lift.
Latest Answers