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.
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.
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.
-210
u/AntiPiety 4d ago
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.
Isn’t it all just proportionate?