For example, a 170 lb (70 kg) person with defined muscles versus a less muscular person.
In: 166
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
Latest Answers