For example, a 170 lb (70 kg) person with defined muscles versus a less muscular person.
In: 166
Nonexistent. Look at professional strongpeople. Usually less / not all all “defined”, but herculean strength.
I’m a big beefy muscular beast.
There’s definitely a decent correlation, but it’s only indirectly causal. As others have said, definition is more about leanness than strength. However, big muscles are harder to cover uo with fat, so in practice, stronger muscles are usually more well defined. At 170 lbs, the correlation should be incredibly strong. Fat guys who have a bunch of muscle and fat are a pretty extreme and rare choice in physique. Most muscular guys choose to be a little bit cut and that strengthens the correlation.
On a pure physical level, going to high definition costs some strength because it’s very hard to lose just pure fat. Your body is quite content to reduce excess muscle if you are “starving.”
Also maximum size vs. maximum strength training is a little different.
Much bigger factor – technique. It’s common to see older or smaller experienced lifters handling weight more easily than bigger gym bros.
Very little.
Want to know how body builders get that insane definition? Very specific diets to boost muscle mass while losing body fat and, most importantly dehydration to emphasise the look.
Look at your strong men. Look at your people doing heavy manual labour every day. These guys will often look big. Strong men might look visible strong, but your average guy who’s got some strength behind him? He might look like he enjoys one too many burgers.
To put it simply, well defined muscles are often the product of gym training. The problem is that, unless you really work all your muscles, it doesn’t translate well into the real world. Many of these body builder types would struggle to get through a day of heavy lifting.
Strength is a combo of size and ability to activate. Muscle definition is muscle size and body fat percentage…
There may be a slight overlap but not nearly as much as most people think.
Strength is the ability to generate force and is loosely correlated with muscle size. Bigger muscles are usually stronger than smaller ones, but not always. Strength is also heavily dependent on the ability of the nervous system to properly trigger muscle groups to generate that force in sync with each other. That’s where you get the skinny guys on a construction site who can lift more with ease compared to the newbie who always goes to the gym and targets size over strength. There are also differences in types of muscle fibers, heavily genetically dependent that are stronger than others but more prone to fatigue, weaker but less prone, and a middle one.
I was an incredibly skinny guy and had small but visible abs because there was not enough fat to hide them. I was not strong. Strength is about muscle size, you don’t need to be defined to be strong.
for this answer I always use the same example. In two individuals who train the same sport. Look at the olympic weightlifters. You have different physiques in the same weight category and not always the more defined ones win.
First we have to define strength in this scenario, a more muscular person probably can lift more weight on a bar but the other might be able to do more pull ups or hold a human flag position while also looking skinnier, but the definition comes more from being lean (low body fat) than the muscles themselves that’s why power lifter are often “chubbier” than bodybuilders, it’s also worth noting that in competition bodybuilder are at their most defined state but also their weakest
Built for show vs. Built for work.
Muscles look great, but if I need someone to hold something for me at work, I’m asking the 67 years old dude with Elvis sideburns and lobster claws for hands.
In my experience, I truly think there is such thing as “farm strength” and “old man strength.”
Latest Answers