You'll see it said a million different ways on countless fitness or strength programs: Build muscle! Get strong! But what if the size of your muscles didn't have as much to do with strength as previously thought? Could Arnold Schwarzenegger have been Mr. Olympia with less bulge and more beanpole? That might be hard to say. But researchers have recently authored a paper in the journal Muscle & Nerve that argues for re-examining the decades-old assumption that big muscles caused by exercise do not, in fact, increase strength. A bodybuilding trainer might want to pump you up, but it doesn't mean the bigger your muscles swell the stronger you are. And, in fact, that might not matter to you, if you're more after the look than the strength. The authors also point out that this has been shown in high- and low-load resistance training: While you might grow stronger from a higher resistance load, you're not necessarily going to bulk up more significantly. And after stopping training, your muscle mass decreases but you still maintain muscle strength. So don't get too caught up with having the biggest guns in the gym. If you're going for strength, bigger doesn't always mean better. Another interesting study done in 1988 suggested that muscular strength can be maintained for up to three months after training is reduced.

After age 30, your lean body mass begins to decrease at a more rapid pace than it did in your 20s, so it's a great time to take action to slow those losses. Building [alpha surge male muscle builder](https://jasminsideenreich.de/Blog/index.php/