Concerning Measurements and Strength

[MM]

What is the degree of correlation between muscle measurement and muscle strength (i.e. the ability of the measured muscle to perform a relatively isolated exercise)?

For instance, would you generally be very comfortable saying that someone with 23" quads would be less likely to squat as much as someone with 25" quads? What are the other important variables; or, that is, what are the most important variables that would deviate from such an assumption. Height, years training, BF%?


-- MM

[Unholy]

BF% definatly , i can find peoplee with 40" quads that cant squat there bodyweight. And then you have lean mofos like my brother with skinny legs doing 330lbs at a weight of 180lbs ( he is 180 lbs 6' 3" )

[MixmasterNash]

What is the degree of correlation between muscle measurement and muscle strength (i.e. the ability of the measured muscle to perform a relatively isolated exercise)?

For instance, would you generally be very comfortable saying that someone with 23" quads would be less likely to squat as much as someone with 25" quads? What are the other important variables; or, that is, what are the most important variables that would deviate from such an assumption. Height, years training, BF%?

You contradict your own questions:
The degree of correlation between muscle measurement and strength is relatively high for "the ability of the measured muscle to perform a relatively isolated exercise."

However, then you ask about an extremely complex, very technique dependent exercise, the squat, where there is far lower correlation.

People of similar weight and body composition who train movements will probably be stronger than those who train muscle groups, in general.

[MM]

You disagree that the squat "relatively isolates" the quad? I'm not talking full isolation exercises, just guaging exercise strength upon the measurement of the muscle which does the most work on a given exercise.

[Unholy]

Squats excersize a whole lot more than your quads. As of late im getting more DOMS in my freakin Glutes and hams .

[MixmasterNash]

You disagree that the squat "relatively isolates" the quad? I'm not talking full isolation exercises, just guaging exercise strength upon the measurement of the muscle which does the most work on a given exercise.

First of all, the quads do not do most, or even half of the work in many variations of the squat. Even in a narrow stance, partial squat, the hamstrings and glutes are heavily activated.

So, yes, I totally disagree that the squat relatively isolates anything, and is a bad test for the strength of a particular muscle.

[MM]

Okay, so you feel quad measurements mean virtually nothing when trying to guage squat strength?

[MixmasterNash]

Okay, so you feel quad measurements mean virtually nothing when trying to guage squat strength?

That's correct. To take a slightly extreme example, look at Chris Rodger's measurements vs squat strength compared to your average gym goer with much larger quads.

To take a more personal example, I squat more than most people at my gym, period, regardless of weight (which, I'm the first to admit, isn't saying much), but I have much skinnier legs than most people.

I'm sure having big legs (let alone quads) is a good base from which to build a strong squat, but it's hardly the only factor and certainly not the most important one.

[MM]

Okay, thanks for the input. Helps me out a little bit, but I'd like to see what others say.

How about other muscles/exercises, though. For instance, biceps and curls.

[ddegroff]

your question has so many possible answers. I would say BF% is a big one as far as size. But it also has to do with the way you train. Bodybuilders are looking to get big and look good, most don't care how much they lift just the way they look so they train in a lower rep range. If you work out in a higher rep range i would say your strength would grow. So a relatively small guy could squat or curl more than you but you could look a lot bigger. Granted your diet has a lot to do with your size.

[Unholy]

I wish my fat ass could squat what some powerlifters with smaller legs can. Unfornutatly I would have to be in a gravity free environment to acomplish that feat.

[MM]

If you're lifting for strength, you're lifting in the lower rep range.

[WBBIRL]

I would say that there is a correlation, but not a major one. I would expect someone with 30+" legs to outsquat someone whos just over 20" (same BF percentage or close to it of course). There is a misconception however that people have, just beause someones big doesnt mean that their strong.

[Guido]

Dude you got the rep range thing backwards.

I would say, all other things being equal, that there is probably a weak correlation between muscle size and strength. I would venture to say that there would be a high correlation between CNS efficiency and strength.

[KevinStarke]

I think there is some correlation between the two but its not always the case, obviously my chest measurement is not the same or probably even close to the chest measurement of most of the 5'10" 200 lb guys around here but i can still bench in the same range as some of you.

[Guido]

Hence my previous post.

[MM]

Dude you got the rep range thing backwards.

I would say, all other things being equal, that there is probably a weak correlation between muscle size and strength. I would venture to say that there would be a high correlation between CNS efficiency and strength.

Which one of us?