This was somewhat inspired by a recent article posted on A-M.
I think this author's basic answer is mostly right (a "No"), but I think there are some other issues here at play. One of course (which he may allude to but doesn't right out say) is how strength is a function of at least 3 factors: including muscular cross-sectional area, innervation, and leverage. I dont feel the need to go into detail there.
Another thing that I think may not be so straightforward is the measure of strength increases. What I mean is, lets say you double the size of your fast-twich muscle fibers. To me, there is no way that this does not mean a doubling of strength. But we don't see that happen. But at the same time, someone with very, very little muscle still has the ability to move objects of certain size, usually due to leverage and maybe some other factors. So what I think may be going on here is that everyone has a certain degree of "inherent strength" dependent on their size (bone density, amount of fluid in the surrounding area), and *maybe* fat and water retention (I think that's more relevant to the changing nature of leverage rather than the "inherent strength" I'm talking about here). Bottom line, perhaps in order to measure true strength increases we first have to subtract from the weight being lifted the inherent strength value. Ex:
A person with an arm cross-sectional area of A can do BB curls with 125lb for 6 reps vs. that same someone, let's say, with 2xA arm cross-sectional area, doing 165lb BB curls for 6 reps.
The math one may be inclined to do is:
32% increase in strength correlated to a 100% increase of the arm's muscle cross-sectional area. But perhaps the math should really be something like:
inherent strength taking into account starting muscle mass, bone length, bone density, mass of surrounding tissue = 85lb
100% increase in strength correlated to a 100% increase of the arm's muscle cross-sectional area.
This is just a B.S. example to illustrate my point. But even if the inherent strength was more like 75lb, the result would be a 80% increase in strength which is much closer than a 32% increase.
This is just a thought I've had in the past. What do you guys think?