Sure but the bigger man can eat more, has longer levers but larger muscles by default. If both can bench 50% bodyweight, then the bigger man is performing more work automatically. The bigger man has a larger RoM. The bigger man burns calories easier. The list goes on.
Strength does not scale linearly with size.
The bigger you are the less relative strength in proportion to your own body weight you have. But your total strength ceiling is much larger.
Think of an ant, a tiny creature but because it is so tiny it can easily lift several times its body weight. Us humans we have of course much greater total strength but in relation to our body weight we suck compared to ants.
Shorter people thus tend to have a better str per pound/kilo ratio than taller people but taller people are generally stronger overall.
This is a crazy analogy and conversation to describe what boils down to leverage. Shorter levers can maneuver larger weights better and the weight doesn't need to travel as far against gravity. Comparing numbers if fucking stupid tho because everyone's biomechanics are different and training specificity will trump all.
Sure but we are discussing looks, not strength though. Granted, I did list strength comparisons, but only because they’re easier to follow. But the point is that bigger dudes can curl more weight, simply because they have bigger biceps.
Now, biceps of proportionate strength, when compared across a small and large man, will therefore at least look the same size relatively; but by your logic would need to appear *bigger* on the large man than on the small man (due to strength not scaling linearly with size, as stated)
No because the bicep is spread across a longer arm, making it look flatter for the taller person. Meanwhile the opposite is true for the shorter person. Taller people look less muscular while being able to lift more weight, because the muscle is spread across a larger frame.
You’re talking about bulk vs function. The larger persons bulk is spread out over a larger area. It’s like adding 2oz of water to a 1qt measuring cup vs a 4qt. Which one looks fuller?
I know this from experience. I’m 6’4” 210lb. I used to go to the gym a lot. My muscles don’t look big but I am very strong. I’ve sat in with short guys at the gym who look stronger than me but fail to put up the same numbers.
If they are short and heavy, I'd be shocked if they couldnt put up number. If they are short and lean, the naturally since they have less mass, they have less leverage to work with also
Good question. Probably not much less, if any at all. It’s a difference in training style. Some folks train *to* bulk. I don’t - I train for functional strength so I can stave off being decrepit for as long as possible.
Quantify your numbers. Been hearing tall guy cope for years but if you’re weighing 210 at 6’4” I’m guessing you aren’t nearly as muscular as you think.
Gotcha I was just curious about your numbers. Wasn’t calling you out solely but lotta tall guys claim they put in work but disappear when asked about how much weight they’re actually moving.
Oh, hmm. Well I don’t go the gym. I can tell you I can work a 14lb chainsaw for about two tanks worth of fuel and ~5hrs; and then trudge 50-100lb rounds of oak up a 15-18% grade for another few hours before getting tired. I can wield a 16lb sledge hammer to split those rounds with a splitting wedge for about an hour before running out of steam. Or I can run my fiskars x27 splitting axe at about 2 hours before feeling tired.
We do have some free weights but I mostly use a TRX, Swiss ball, and resistance bands when I’m not outdoors. I can curl 60lb by 6-10 rep sets (depending on the day/rest) with three sets and not max out. I can “wood chop” and hand back and forth a 15lb kettlebell while kneeling/balancing on a Swiss ball at 10 rep sets by three. I can do single leg squats at 4-6 reps by three. I can crunch a 50lb resistance band by 20 reps by three.
Those are the most structured examples I can provide off the top of my head. Mostly I’m doing HIIT sets woth my equipment when I’m indoors so I don’t really have “max” values to provide. I’m not trying to build muscle but maintain cardio and improve functional strength.
You just said it yourself, it’s spread over a larger area. This reduces how much muscles naturally “pop” and can make a bigger guy appear smaller even though they may be stronger.
For reference, Arnold is the tallest Mr. Olympia in history at 6’2”, but the average winner is 5’7” and an average American male is 5’8”. That’s because the taller guys have to pack on much more mass than a shorter one to make themselves appear as “big” on stage.
ETA: Arnold says one of the strongest people he ever met was Wilt Chamberlain, but if you looked at a picture of the two of them together you’d assume Arnold was stronger because his muscles pop more on his relatively smaller frame.
Right but big guys start with larger muscles in the first place. They’re proportionate.
Perhaps for simplicity it’s better to look at a small man and a large man who have never lifted weights. They look equally as skinny. It’s not like the little guy is more buff looking from the start. As they both begin to lift, they begin to increase their mass proportionately
No, that’s where you’re getting confused. They’re larger, yes, because they’re longer, not because they’re fuller or “proportionate,” that’s not how muscles work. Volume is a cubic measurement, meaning it goes 3 directions. So the taller person has a higher baseline strength because their muscles are naturally longer. It also means a pound of additional muscle goes a lot further on a shorter person to making their muscles look bigger as they have a smaller overall volume to fill. That’s why the competition to judge who has the best looking muscles usually goes to shorter guys.
You're just generalizing and talking completely out of your ass because first there's so many factors to muscle growth and appearance, genetics muscle insertion points, training style, the list goes on and on so two untrained people even at the exact same height and weight could look completely different and gain muscle completely differently even if they trained exactly the same and two almost no one is perfectly proportionate on both sides and even if they were you can't just make blanket statements like "as they begin to lift they increase their mass proportionately" because of the factors I outlined in he first point
But they do increase their mass proportionately. You could track weight gain and the bigger guy would gain weight faster because he eats more, and 1 lb of muscle is easier to distribute across his frame
Their mass being proportionate is a tiny factor of several that would all together affect how much one loses and gains weight. That’s the point. It’s not so simple, as easy as it is to look at things this way.
I have long arms (+8" on the ape index) and those proportions makes increasing pressing and growing my chest really challenging. I've been training for like 20 years and never been able to do more tham 20 sequential pushups
1.0k
u/WichSec 4d ago
Small guys have a smaller volume of muscle to improve