Weight/Strength ratio
Posted: 05 January 2011 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  230
Joined  2009-03-08

My question/topic pertains to the strength you gain in the weight room in your lifts versus actual weight gain on the scale. When using strength to determine the “quality” of your gains (muscle vs fat), how much strength should you be gaining in lifts per lb of weight gain for your gains to be close to optimal?

I’m looking for a ratio here, and i know this varies from person to person, but does anyone of any guidelines as far as this goes?

Martin put this up: http://www.leangains.com/2010/01/how-to-look-awesome-every-day.html
and suggested strength ratios for weight gain.
I am slightly concerned because in my past bulk, I have gained in strength only half of what he puts out per lb of body weight, and I was gaining at a pace of about a lb per week.

Comments?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  205
Joined  2010-10-19

adding to this i donĀ“t understand why someone who is heavier is also supposed to be stronger.
You for sure all know the guidelines regarding your lift and in relation to your bodyweight. but why is someone stronger if he is heavier IF the weight is not muscle mass but simply FAT?

I experienced it myself,when i was heavier and fatter i was stronger than now.
why is that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2011 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  223
Joined  2010-04-11

Fat can help with range of motion, like on the bench press, or maybe in the squat if you squat until your hams hit your calves. Other than stuff like that, fat shouldn’t help, but you probably did have a bit more muscle mass and if you were fatter you were probably eating pretty good.

As for the ratio. A lot of people use weight lifted divided by body weight, but that’s pretty absurd. When it comes to size, the weight you can lift is proportional to the cross section of your muscles, not the volume (body mass can be considered volume, so to speak, as it has 3 dimensions). Strength is proportional to body mass^(2/3). Of course it’s hard to find an exact exponent to body mass, and it will vary if it is fat mass or muscle mass, but it’s the best we got and 2/3 works pretty well to explain the effect of body mass on strength.


Try to search for allometric scaling to find more about how to scale things against body weight.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2011 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  230
Joined  2009-03-08
Karky - 06 January 2011 04:28 PM

Fat can help with range of motion, like on the bench press, or maybe in the squat if you squat until your hams hit your calves. Other than stuff like that, fat shouldn’t help, but you probably did have a bit more muscle mass and if you were fatter you were probably eating pretty good.

As for the ratio. A lot of people use weight lifted divided by body weight, but that’s pretty absurd. When it comes to size, the weight you can lift is proportional to the cross section of your muscles, not the volume (body mass can be considered volume, so to speak, as it has 3 dimensions). Strength is proportional to body mass^(2/3). Of course it’s hard to find an exact exponent to body mass, and it will vary if it is fat mass or muscle mass, but it’s the best we got and 2/3 works pretty well to explain the effect of body mass on strength.


Try to search for allometric scaling to find more about how to scale things against body weight.

hm, actually what i was asking is, during a bulk, to asses that you’re gaining MUSCLE instead of FAT at the optimal rate, what strength to body weight ratio should you be seeing?

Profile