However,
since this debate is over whether or not there can be a neurological increase in strength without a concurrent increase in hypertrophy any study which shows this to occur would disprove your contention and confirm your ignorance in this area.
Remember it was YOU who said that strength increases could not occur without an increase in muscular size.
So here we are, you have placed it upon me to prove that strength and hypertrophy are not synonymous terms. I would say that any situation which results in an improvement in strength without even training the muscle would show this. Remember, my contention is that the terms strength and hypertrophy are not synonymous.
Here I present to you the study showing exactly that:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96....full.pdf+html
Furthermore, this information is also used in clinical practice to preserve strength in an injured limb following injury. Therefore wouldn't you agree that thse terms are not synonymous?
Furthermore it doesn't matter what has the greatest impact on increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy or neurological factors. As I have said previously muscle size will ultimately represent the ceiling for strength. I was just showing that the two terms are not synonymous. Therefore your remark about "training the
injured limb having the greatest impact is irrelevant, regardless of how absolutely fucking stupid such a statement is.
But please, feel free to continue to redefine the argument during the conversation.