relative strength

[Q.]

I was just wondering if there was an "official" means for determining relative strength versus absolute strength. Just saying that you can lift X lbs doesn't tell the whole story. It matters a lot how much you weigh and, I would guess, how tall you are since longer people have to move the bar further to complete lifts.

Anybody heard of such a thing?

Also, without starting a totally new thread, which lift works the most muscles, deadlift? Gotta be!

[Kam]

As far as your first question...no clue.
I would think that full snatches would be right up there among the most groups hit.

[jwjsurf]

I agree with deadlifts for sure and full snatches. Along those same lines if I am short on time I like to do clean and presses.

[DKing]

You have relative strength right that its the amount of weight lifted compared to bodyweight but I have never heard anything take height into account. I think its just one of those things that if you are taller you need to gain more weight.

Absolute strength is just that, who can lift more regardless of outside influences like weight or arm length.

Danny

[gruckiii]

Well.. useing weight vs what you can lift gives midgets a definite advantage [img]smile.gif[/img]

People with long limbs I think are at a disadvantage when comparing. Taller people in general are going to weigh more and need to move the weight farther.

What does weight have to do with your strength? You can either lift the weight or you can't. If your talking about wrestling then weight matters very much.. but what does it mater to lifters?

[DKing]

It matters because seeing a 150 lb guy bench press 300 lbs (2x his bodyweight) is much more impressive than seeing a 250 lb guy do it (no idea what percent of bodyweight) do to the fact that the bigger guy should have much more muscle therefor more cross-sectional area so he should be stronger. The 150 lb guy is much better at motor recruitment and is probably much more explosive.

Overall its simply a means to qualify lifts between people.

Danny

[gruckiii]

Actualy.. i'm not sure if long limbs is an advantage or a disadvantage.. you have a longer distance to move the weight.. but you also gain a mechanical advantage in many situations.

The bigger guy, I assume is taller too.. If you look at the recomended weights for people (just as an example). The taller you are the more they expect you to weigh relitvely. It reflects that taller people have more bone more and other non muscle tissue also. It still dosn't seem to be an acurate way to compare to me.

Also it favors people with a lowr bf%
There are just so many factors.

[Q.]

Originally posted by gruckiii:
Actualy.. i'm not sure if long limbs is an advantage or a disadvantage.. you have a longer distance to move the weight.. but you also gain a mechanical advantage in many situations.

I can't picture that at all... please explain. To me, in every situation, the shorter person will have the advantage all other things being relatively equal.

[DKing]

Long limbs can help on certain lifts like a deadlift or pullup, but they will cripple you on a squat or bench press.

I don't understand why you wouldn't use weight to compare lifts. Look at every major lifting competition (powerlifting, Oly lifting, strongman) they all use weight for classes. True people with lower bodyfat will have an advantage, but in the process of lowering your bodyfat a lot of people lose strength, so its a trade-off, stay fat and strong or skinny and weak (thats an exageration). Its just about the only reliable way to compare and compete.

Danny

[DKing]

Originally posted by Q.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gruckiii:
Actualy.. i'm not sure if long limbs is an advantage or a disadvantage.. you have a longer distance to move the weight.. but you also gain a mechanical advantage in many situations.

I can't picture that at all... please explain. To me, in every situation, the shorter person will have the advantage all other things being relatively equal. [/quote]The weight moves much less distance in a deadlift if you have really long arms.

Danny

[Matthew]

It makes a difference if there is a large weight difference. If one person weighs only a few pounds more than the other, it doesn't mean anything because who's to say those extra pounds aren't all fat. They would still both have the same amount of muscle and theoretically the same strength. If there is a large difference, however, we assume that the heavier person would have more muscle mass and therefore be stronger, able to lift more, etc. What Danny said is right on, a 150 pound guy lifting 300 is way more impressive than a 250 pound guy lifting 300. That's what relative strength means, how much you can lift compared to your body weight. That, I think, is a much better representation of strength.

[Q.]

Originally posted by DKing:
Long limbs can help on certain lifts like a deadlift or pullup, but they will cripple you on a squat or bench press.

I don't understand why you wouldn't use weight to compare lifts. Look at every major lifting competition (powerlifting, Oly lifting, strongman) they all use weight for classes. True people with lower bodyfat will have an advantage, but in the process of lowering your bodyfat a lot of people lose strength, so its a trade-off, stay fat and strong or skinny and weak (thats an exageration). Its just about the only reliable way to compare and compete.

Danny

I can't see it! The arm length is fixed for both short and tall. You're not doing a deadlift with your arms. However, the length of your torso and legs determines how far the weight must travel, right?

I think the way it's structured now is just for simplicity... you don't want a
200 lb, under 6', under 15% BF class
AND
a 200 lb, over 6', under 15% BF class
AND... you get the idea.

[DKing]

Picture it this way, a really long armed guys arms will fall to his knees. A guy with shorter arms arms will fall to his waist. So the long armed guy has just cut a couple inches off his ROM before he is locked out.

Danny

[gruckiii]

It seems to me that you are trying to define amount of weight moved per pound of muscle as strength.

Wouldn't a guy with more muscle lifting more.. but has the same frame and height as another guy be stronger? In this method he can be considerd weaker.

One guy is 5'5" and weight 180lbs is a lot diferent than a guy who is 6' and 180lbs...

It dosn't flow logicaly IMO and so many complications arise trying to compare 2 people with diferent frames.

[Q.]

Originally posted by DKing:
Picture it this way, a really long armed guys arms will fall to his knees. A guy with shorter arms arms will fall to his waist. So the long armed guy has just cut a couple inches off his ROM before he is locked out.

Danny

You'll have to show me at the retreat... over a couple of adult beverages!

[Matthew]

"Wouldn't a guy with more muscle lifting more.. but has the same frame and height as another guy be stronger? In this method he can be considerd weaker."
He would be stronger when comparing absolute strength, not when comparing relative strength. He could be considered weaker relative to his weight, but if he can lift more he has more absolute strength.
It does make sense that the height would be a factor, not just because of range of motion but because a very tall person weighing the same as a very short person would have much less muscle than the very short person, assuming the shorter guy isn't at like 30% fat. Maybe relative strength should be measured using height, lean body mass and absolute strength. Lean body mass instead of just body weight because fat doesn't help you lift weight, unless if you consider the difference in size and then again the difference in ROM that the size would cause.

[duff beer]

I don't think moving the weight further makes a lot of difference. But I do think that a person with longer limbs will have a definate disadvantage with certain lifts (such as the bench press) because they have less leverage than someone with shorter arms.

[Q.]

Originally posted by duff beer:
I don't think moving the weight further makes a lot of difference.

Work is work... and, if recall my high school physics, work is moving matter. It requires force to move matter so, the more it has to be moved, the more total force required... right? I'm not an exercise physiologist or a physicist but that's my take.

However, in reality - relatively speaking - maybe you're right.

[Matthew]

Yes I can back that up, I'm taking physics right now.
Work = force x distance
therefore the farther something has to be moved, the more work you are doing. It applies to everything, exercise related or not. Good call Q.