Why it is better to be STRONG rather than BIG?

Firstly, what is strength? One definition is… “The ability of the neuromuscular system to produce force against an external resistance”

We can take this further and investigate Absolute and Relative strength:

• Absolute Strength: The amount of force an individual can generate regardless of body mass

• Relative Strength: The amount of force an individual can generate relative to body mass

Example:

A 100Kg individual can back squat 150Kg and an 80Kg individual can back squat 130Kg. The 100KG individual has a greater absolute strength. However, they are weaker relatively. They are only lifting 1.5x their bodyweight whereas the 80Kg individual is squatting 1.625x their bodyweight.

There are many factors that contribute to how strong an individual is including:

Physiological factors:

• Muscle Fibre type
• Muscle Hypertrophy
• Muscle Architecture

Neural Factors:

• ↑ Motor Unit Recruitment:
• ↑ Motor Unit Rate Coding
• ↑ Motor Unit Synchronisation
• ↑ Stretch Shortening Cycle
• ↓ Neuromuscular Inhibition

Increases in muscle mass can account for 40% of changes in force production after strength training. Neural and architectural changes can account for 60% of the changes in force.

So, putting muscle mass on is an important part of increasing an individuals strength, but not as important as training the neuromuscular system to use the current muscle mass more efficiently to generate force.

Therefore, when you compare bodybuilders and strength athletes, a bodybuilder may “look better” (depending what you’re into) or more muscular, but almost all of the time they are weaker in comparison.

Although, all of this is goal dependant. If you want to move faster, be more explosive, be a better athlete, then working on strength is going to be more beneficial. If you want to have bigger muscles then train like a bodybuilder.