it's as direct as it can be. adjusted for genetic factors which determine specific tension and assuming good technique/recruitment, strength is proportional to physiological cross sectional area.
You can't generate force without force generation units. Strength is a skill but that only extends so far. Some of the best tests for strength are predicated by measuring diameter of muscle.
this is hilariously untrue, lifters reach diminishing returns in terms of neural adaptation within 2-5 months of doing an exercise. and it accounts for little variability even then.
yea, i dont have to spoon-feed you a line. 10 seconds to find the full text on google and it's entirely concerned with the timeline of neuromuscular adaptation and the extent to which it impacts strength.
All that is demonstrated by the pic is the worker has better technique, and only the muscles required for moving 4 bags of cement are developed (back and forearms).
Bodybuilders muscles are more developed everywhere else and have no technique for this movement.
Technique. For the carry, notice how the worker has his hands on opposite corners whereas the other guys are grabbing the outer corners and making the stack unstable. For the overhead, the big guy has no issues with the strength to hold it up but he can't get it balanced.
It's not completely wrong that there is a neuromuscular component to any activity, that's part of what's being demonstrated here. But maximum potential force output is strongly and directly correlated with muscle cross sectional area, which is what we typically think of as "strength".
But their fingers and hands can support their bodyweight, even with their low body weight the strenght is pretty incredible. I get it though, a lot of the "stength" will be endurance, holding on for long periods of time, not "peak" instantaneous lifting of heavy weights.
152
u/drmarting25102 Feb 25 '25
Muscle strength doesn't equal muscle mass