In fairness he looks like he is probably stronger but we don’t actually know. Being “ripped” doesn’t make one strong, in fact is usually makes you weaker than someone who has more fat.
It’s complicated but visible fat tends to sit on top of muscles. Almost everyone has a “6 pack” or at least a “4 pack” but you can’t usually see it unless body fat drops towards single digits. This is a simplified example.
Say we have two people and both of them have skeletons and internal organs that weight the same, same amount of water weight etc. the average person is about 40-50% muscle weight. So let’s say that our trained athletes are 50% lean muscle. If you weight 170lbs and half is muscle, you have 85lbs of muscle and if you have 10% body fat you will likely look somewhat like the guy on the left with your muscles visible.
Now, if you weighted 220lbs and half was muscle you’d have 110lbs of muscle. If your body fat percentage is higher, let’s say 25% or so you might look “big” or “chunky” to some and “normal” to others but asides your mass you wouldn’t likely look very muscular. If you were to drop down to 10% body fat without losing any muscle however, your 110lbs of muscle would likely be noticeably more than mr. 85lbs. Of course size and strength aren’t directly correlated. They relate, at some point a muscle group is operating at maximum efficiency without adding mass, but there are also different types of muscle and a weight liften that weighted 160lbs vs. an endurance cyclist weighing 160lbs would look and perform differently.
It gets complex but generally the “strongest” people don’t look like Arnold when it comes to functional strength. The “strongest people” tend to look a bit “fat” because they have higher body fat. It cushions organs and muscles and fat is a source of potential fuel. It is also the case that adding mass and strength optimally and having the energy to use it require proper nutrition and the body is either at a surplus to gain or a deficit to lose fat. When you try to train “lean” you either need the right genetics and laboratory perfect nutrition (and/or drugs) to gain muscle without gaining fat or you need to use adjustment periods of gaining and cutting to keep yourself in the body fat range you want to be at.
If you are wanting muscles for “show” you usually cut your food and water intake leading up to the display to achieve a certain lean look. Endurance type athletes can be very lean and perform well but strength and endurance are linked but not the same. So strength wise someone who has all their muscles showing and looks “ripped” isn’t necessarily stronger than someone who has little or no visible musculature. Bigger muscles also aren’t inherently stronger as variables in training and central nervous response as well as mental conditioning and hormonal levels at the time of the performance help dictate strength.
Put simply, if you look at power strength athletes and professions which require and prioritize power, the physiques you will see most do not look like the guy on the left. The guy on the left is likely strong and likely fit- though not necessarily (more in a moment..) but he is what most people THINK strength (power) looks like, not the demonstrable reality of what optimum power performance tends to look like in a physique.
We also have to factor in “show muscles.” There is no bro science here. It is simple established fact. You have muscles like biceps that perform important functions but also tend to be muscles many people prize and focus on as signs of power or attractiveness or to provide strength etc. your body has lots of smaller muscles, some you’d only ever see externally on the most jacked and cut body builders. Many tiny “stabilizer muscles” and muscles that are less glamorous and generally harder to train and get notica ke results than abs or biceps.
Big biceps can lift a heavy weight right? But- your whole arm through the shoulders, your core- back, abs etc; your chest and legs and lots of tiny muscles are being used. If you had giant biceps and tiny shoulder muscles and went to carry a heavy weight you’d likely not be able to or your year your arm out.
Many workouts either are cosmetic and focus on “show muscles” that will make one look muscular or large but they ignore the small stabilizer muscles that don’t add much size and generally aren’t considered impressive or noticed. Other work outs focus on developing functional performance at a specific task and neglect muscles that aren’t used as much for that task.
So the real world performance, the ability to use strength will in part depend on the type of workouts and training.
In short- you can’t always judge a book by its cover.
It’s complicated but visible fat tends to sit on top of muscles. Almost everyone has a “6 pack” or at least a “4 pack” but you can’t usually see it unless body fat drops towards single digits. This is a simplified example.
Say we have two people and both of them have skeletons and internal organs that weight the same, same amount of water weight etc. the average person is about 40-50% muscle weight. So let’s say that our trained athletes are 50% lean muscle. If you weight 170lbs and half is muscle, you have 85lbs of muscle and if you have 10% body fat you will likely look somewhat like the guy on the left with your muscles visible.
Big biceps can lift a heavy weight right? But- your whole arm through the shoulders, your core- back, abs etc; your chest and legs and lots of tiny muscles are being used. If you had giant biceps and tiny shoulder muscles and went to carry a heavy weight you’d likely not be able to or your year your arm out.
So the real world performance, the ability to use strength will in part depend on the type of workouts and training.
In short- you can’t always judge a book by its cover.