Muscle Sizes

>>42538577
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/non-responders/

File: a cut.jpg (172KB, 890x842px)

172KB, 890x842px

>>42538577

It's mostly because they don't diet correctly to get bigger. Strength can increase without looking bigger.(obviously there comes a point where muscle size gain is necessary to get stronger)

Also there is the fact that a lot of people who train for strength have higher bodyfat, which can make them look "smaller" than someone who is low bodyfat even if they weigh 20lbs less. Pic related. This is me before and after my last cut, during which I gained no muscle size.

File: rib-cage-comparison1.jpg (144KB, 900x360px)

144KB, 900x360px

>>42538577
>not eating enough
>bad genetic (small muscle bellies)
>small frame
>small intestine
The fact is, twink will almost always remain twinks and there is very little to do about that.

>>42538619
Fucking goals.
Stats?

>>42538668
No. There is not this much deviation in size, even with Pettis excavatum/caritanum

Also, -morph body types are from almost a century ago made by a psychologist who said that skinny people are nervous and fat are stupid and lazy. A throughly disproven psychologist from the past century. This is who you are basing your fitness knowledge off.

I've been outlifted by dyel looking Asian guys multiple times. Some skinny kid was doing 1 pl8 OHP for reps while I was struggling with 105lbs. How do you get to that point without at least achieving ottermode?

>>42538619
Did you have any visible veins in the Before pic?

because their routine is shit and they're most likely not eating enough

if you are doing 1-5 reps you will grow shit for size

>>42538619
>Also there is the fact that a lot of people who train for strength have higher bodyfat, which can make them look "smaller" than someone who is low bodyfat even if they weigh 20lbs less. Pic related. This is me before and after my last cut, during which I gained no muscle size.
is this part a pasta? I see this fucking almost every week with the same pic

>>42539370
Always love the unique snowflake posting of somatotypes don't exist. Take your group of friends and you can literally assign every single one of them
kek

>>42539663
>if you are doing 1-5 reps you will grow shit for size
Nice arbitrary number, dipshit. Yea I'm sure you won't notice any gains at 5 reps but 6 reps makes you blow up like a balloon. Your muscles are always keeping count!

>>42538577
They're natties. If you don't use steroids, it will also happen to you

>>42539699
kill yourself

File: 1487207309477.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>42539720
>haha you will get strongman mode at 4 reps without increasing your muscles size...somehow!

>>42539738
kill yourself

Genetics and also their way of training. Either they don't eat enough or their volume is too low, or both.

After a while, you need to hit your muscles with more sets and exercises or you'll stay fairly the same size.

>>42539699
>deliberately misinterpreting what hes saying
why are you here? he obviously means lower rep ranges are better for growing strength while higher rep ranges are better for mass.

>>42539776
>lower rep ranges are better for growing strength while higher rep ranges are better for mass.

You should incorporate both as a natty if you want to grow.

Start the workout with a strength building exercise that will spill over into your strength for the hypertrophy part, to ensure progressive overload. Either that or have hypertrophy and strength specific workouts or periods.

>>42539776
So if you are doing five reps "you will grow shit for size" just like he said? This is a fixed number for every single person? How big is the difference between five and six?

Btw, after noob gains how exactly do you gain an appreciable amount of strength without larger muscles?

>>42539715
Unironically this

strength-to-size correlation only holds at elite levels of strength. While below elite levels of strength, someone can train his CNS alone if he doesn't eat enough/doesn't get enough volume while training high intensity. As a result, he can get to a decent but sub elite lift number (e.g. 5pl8+ deadlift) without much muscle development, while a brochad that does high volume low intensity work while eating enough can have good development despite only repping 2pl8 every now and then, but still to muscular fialure

>>42539651
Yes, on my cock

>>42539370
Yes, there is a gigantic range, and small intestines range from ~3m to ~10m.

Somatotypes are also still used as a taxonomic classificiation in anthropology, medicine and sports science, what is discredited is CONSTITUTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, a method derived from the initial taxonomic system.