|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Technique & Training:
Re: [maldaly] muscle strength versus muscle volume:
Edit Log
|
|
cchas
Nov 18, 2011, 10:23 AM
Views: 3065
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344
|
maldaly wrote: Any formula you may have about muscle strength vs muscle volume will go right out the window when you take a look at Heidataka Suzuki. He stood about 5' 10" and weight about 100 lbs and, as anyone who has ever climbed with him would attest, he's one strong MoFo. [image]www.climbing.com/photo-video/gallery/90s/index3.html[/image]
Not really,... if you consider the over-simplification of to double strength, you increase the volume by 4 times. And take a second oversimplification of volume=mass (which woukld assume equal density)... to double the strength you need to increase your mass by 4 times... a loosing proposition in climbing....maybe great for football but for gymnastics, running, climbing it doesn't do you much good.
Note for full disclosure: My PhD is in polymer chemistry and not physiology. Take the word of a human physiologist over mine.
Where it all goes wrong is that you are not taking into account nuero-muscluar adaptation, and fast versus slow twitch muscle contraction, and the fast twitch phenotype can further be broken down.
A friends PhD was on muscle phenotype adaptation to training. Her thesis made the proposal, (and is currently a subject among much debate among physiologists) that through training a phenotype can be switched. Who knows.
What I am saying is that someone can get significantly "stronger" then by purely mass gain. ie: why myself, a wimpy 148lbs/5'11" guy can do pullups with 140lb weights hanging off me (usually only 100lbs weights on a weekly basis) whereas I know weight trainers who look BIG, but have a hard time with their own weight.
(This post was edited by cchas on Nov 18, 2011, 10:30 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by cchas
() on Nov 18, 2011, 10:28 AM
|
|
Post edited by cchas
() on Nov 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
