Size and strength are not the same. The average size elite gymnasts are much stronger than the oversized/overweight bodybuilders. Size is correlated with number and size of muscle cells, strength is correlated to number of nerve connections firing simultaneously in the muscles. Of course you need muscles, but excess muscles are like excess fat. No contradictions, Mr. V, only ignorance.
Several years ago (~10?), when I was doing a fairly high volume of exercise to MMF, I had my annual physical the next day. When the blood work results came back, I was called back to my doctor's office. Although all of the other values were normal, he advised that my creatinine kinase level was elevated and he therefore wanted the test redone. During the discussion it came out that I worked out the day before the blood test, and so he expected that the new test would be normal, provided I don't work out the day prior. Indeed, the new test came back normal. I don't recall what the abnormal reading was, but I'd be curious to know how it compares presently the day after a workout, since I have reduced the volume considerably while upping the intensity a bit. Interestingly, I (still) drink a lot of fluids during the course of the day, not because I go out of my way to do so, but because it just feels right. I never made that connection, so thanks for that. I always figured it was the high dietary fiber content along with a good (but not ungodly) amount of protein intake that contributed to my thirst, but I suppose that temporarily elevated CK levels from time to time may have contributed.
I suggest reading NASA's research on physiology and exercise, where all the 5 different basic training programs are discussed in depth: Training for mass, for endurance, for strength, and for performance. And how to adjust for individual physiologies. It pays to read the people that have invested a lot in money and lives, and have big stakes in something, instead of following some trainer/guru/free forum. After all, the purpose of all work is production/results. It's not my racket, so I really do not have a horse in this race. Consider it philanthropy on my part, something I rarely do.
I remember reading the papers online free from NASA published papers. I guess google can help you. I can print the following summary from memory, but the research is very detailed, and the adaptations for every individual are the real juice. Basically you first train for mass, by doing a lot of damage (going to concentric and eccentric failure), and feeding the repair/scar tissue with proper diet, and the increased levels of T, HGH, and INSULIN. You can do all the damage in less than 30 minutes or less per session. I remember suggestions of maximum 3 training sessions per week, as long as the damage was confined to only one main muscle group per session (legs, back, chest/shoulders, abs are the 4 main muscle groups). A week or more should pass before you damage again a muscle group. There are no benefits to damaging a recovering muscle group. Mass training lasts 8-12 weeks maximum. Now, to keep the mass, you must feed and exercise the new scar tissue, so next step is endurance, where you don't go for damage, but for high numbers of reps and done at speed. This training develops vascularity, and allows new scar tissue to get oxygen and nutrients, by developing blood vessels. This training lasts about 8-12 weeks, depending on individual a lot. Then you train for strength, to develop nerve connections that trigger simultaneously. This training involves doing very few reps with very high load, but not to damage the muscles. Imagine 3 minutes training session pushing a ton. This training can last a long time, more than 12 weeks. Also depends a lot on individual, and most lose motivation after a few sessions. Last comes training for performance. If you are a boxer, you want flash speed in a knockout punch. If you are a sprinter... If you are a climber... If you are a tennis player... etc, etc, etc. Most important of all is the adaptation to individual. You don't want to train for the 100 m dash, if you are a natural swimmer, or if you are Usain Bolt, you can avoid the swimming pool training where you'd probably sink to the bottom of the pool. Rarely one needs to go back to building for mass, except if injured. That's off the top of my head. Run with it. Your mileage will vary.
Some interesting points, thanks for your reply. I don't agree with a few points. First, I don't think that training for mass reaches its peak or even ideal level following only 8-12 weeks. And although you wrote that you don't like "big muscled men," I think most people overestimate the amount of muscle that a normal person can add to his frame without resorting to chemistry. Regardless, natural genetic potential, which bears little resemblance to the comic book steroid look, is not achieved so quickly. And there is nothing off-putting about natural genetic potential. Second, I don't like the idea of reps done at speed, at least not if done with weights. That's an accident just waiting to happen. There is no upside. Finally, you differentiate between hypertrophy, endurance and strength training. At least as it relates to resistance training performed correctly, these distinctions are likely not very meaningful. Here are two articles you might find interesting: http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm http://www.cbass.com/IntensityResistanceTraining.htm
If you are interested in the effects on a man's ego when faced with a woman with superior intelligence/info/wisdom/performance, then research the recent tweets by Aly Raisman (sp?), in a recent incident with a redneck at an airport. I'm not interested in fruitless discussions. I guess my ego still needs training.