[quote author="star61" date="1259049356"][quote author="Derrick Brito" date="1259049114"][quote author="Patrick_Bateman" date="1258982472"]
[quote author="Derrick Brito" date="1258962845"]I’m pretty sure that pound for pound comparisons are related to muscle cross sectional area vs. muscle volume.
Cross-sectional area IS muscle volume.
Unless you’re doing high rep work and getting non-contractile hypertrophy like Davan. lol.[/quote]
No it’s not. Cross sectional area is measured in cm squared while volume is measured in cm cubed. That’s why strength theoretically goes up at a rate of mass^2/3. The real value is closer to mass^.6 because of leverage and body composition factors, but those aren’t primary.[/quote]Muscles don’t elongate, so there is a direct correlation between cross sectional area and muscle volume.[/quote]
Of course there is a correlation. But they are not the same thing and don’t increase at the same rate.[/quote]Actually, they do increase in an exactly colinear manner, because they are connected mathmatically. Volume = length x cross sectional area. When two variables are exactly related in a perfectly colinear manner, they can be substituted in any equation/comparison. Its moot, anyway, because weightclasses are not computed using either.