I cannot believe I read past the first post, what a useless question with an obvious answer. I will never get the past five minutes back again… shit, why am I typing this?
Bet ya a $100 I can get you to post on this thread again. Care to take me up on that offer?
[quote]Mastermind wrote:
I cannot believe I read past the first post, what a useless question with an obvious answer. I will never get the past five minutes back again… shit, why am I typing this?[/quote]
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Bet ya a $100 I can get you to post on this thread again. Care to take me up on that offer?
Mastermind wrote:
I cannot believe I read past the first post, what a useless question with an obvious answer. I will never get the past five minutes back again… shit, why am I typing this?
[/quote]
you watch dumb and dumber a lot or something?
I have seen it many times, yes.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Bet ya a $100 I can get you to post on this thread again. Care to take me up on that offer?
Mastermind wrote:
I cannot believe I read past the first post, what a useless question with an obvious answer. I will never get the past five minutes back again… shit, why am I typing this?
you watch dumb and dumber a lot or something?
[/quote]
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
DPH wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Isn’t it really just common sense? I mean, lets say you compare two guys, both with the same training history and bodyfat %, except one is 5’8" and the other is 6’3". Would anyone be suprised to learn that the guy measuring 5’8" lifts more in comparison to his bodyweight than the guy measuring 6’3"? The added bone weight the taller guy has to lug around isn’t exactly “functional” is it?
the taller guy will still have the heavier lifts…just not in comparison to a percentage of bodyweight…
also…height serves more ‘function’ than just being able to lift bodyweight proportional strength…
it’s a hell of alot easier to dunk a basketball if you’re 7’ tall as opposed to being 5’8"…
also…studies show that tall guys get laid more on average than their shorter counter-parts…
DAMN TALL GUYS TO HELL!
haha
Damn tall guys?! DAMN SHORT GUYS!
[/quote]
LOL. Then I guess who you damn depends on whether you’d rather squat more per bodyweight or get laid more… 
Wait, somebody said that they have formulas for bodyweight to lift ratios? Does anyone have any of these formulas or a link?
[quote]Finalyear wrote:
Wait, somebody said that they have formulas for bodyweight to lift ratios? Does anyone have any of these formulas or a link? [/quote]
There are different formulas used - not sure which is the most standard though.
Here are the co-efficients for the Wilkes Forumlas:
http://www.uwpf.com/wilks.asp?section=tec&title=Wilks+Formula
Sorry, I don’t know how it was calculated initially though…
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
I have seen it many times, yes.
wufwugy wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Bet ya a $100 I can get you to post on this thread again. Care to take me up on that offer?
Mastermind wrote:
I cannot believe I read past the first post, what a useless question with an obvious answer. I will never get the past five minutes back again… shit, why am I typing this?
you watch dumb and dumber a lot or something?
[/quote]
aint nothing wrong with that.
in fact, there’s something very, very right with that.
if height is so detrimental to lifts why isnt there height classes in weightlifting.
[quote]superscience wrote:
if height is so detrimental to lifts why isnt there height classes in weightlifting.[/quote]
height is not detrimental to lifting…
the strongest guys in the world are big tall guys…
the point is that smaller guys will be able to lift a higher percentage of their bodyweight than a big tall guy will be able to do…
[quote]superscience wrote:
if height is so detrimental to lifts why isnt there height classes in weightlifting.[/quote]
Because weight classes allow for height differences while height classes aren’t controllable; a guy who’s 6’2" can gain a lot of muscle mass and move up to higher weight classes (thus being able to move greater absolute weight), but a guy who’s 6’2" can’t lose a lot of height and join a shorter lifting class.
Would you also suggest boxing have height classes due to differences in reach?
-Dan
I think this may have already been touched on by a couple of posters, but I’ll chime in anyway:
When comparing say, a small lifter with optimal biomechanics, with a larger lifter with equally optimal biomechanics, the small lifter may come out to be relatively stronger due ot the scaling already described.
However, if you are already small and skinny say, that does not necessarily mean you should stay that way, because YOU personally might be stronger per bodyweight at a slightly heavier weight, than you would be by staying light.
This is important if competing in an open competition with winners calculated by formula.
[quote]Spriggs wrote:
Sorry, I don’t know how it was calculated initially though…[/quote]
Wilk’s formula is a fifth-order fit against the top 3 totals in each weight class for each IPF worlds. I believe it is slated to be recalculated sometime soon.
I can’t find Wilk’s original article, but the formula is here:
http://www.isu.edu/~andesean/wform.htm
Siff’s discussion on this page and his link to scifit is interesting.
[quote]DPH wrote:
simple first year physics says that small guys are predisposed to being able to lift more weight in proportion to their body weight…
Scaling of Area and Volume:
A small insect such as an ant can carry many times its own weight when foraging for food for its colony. On the other hand, large animals, such as elephants, would have difficulty in carrying anything near their own weight, Would an elephant-sized ant be stronger than an elephant?
The answer is no. The ant’s thin legs would not be strong enough to hold even its own weight up, let alone anything else. Notice how thick the elephant’s legs are in relation to its body.
The concept which is relevant here is called scaling. The strength of a support, such as the elephant’s leg, depends on the cross-sectional area, so we say that strength scales with area. On the other hand, the mass of an object like the elephant depends on its volume, so weight scales with volume.
If we increase the volume without increasing the surface area, we are increasing the amount of force per unit area and eventually the support will fail. We define the term pressure to be this force per unit area:
Pressure = Force/Area
research ‘scaling of area and volume’ if you want a more detailed explanation…
[/quote]
a good point but the ant is not the best example you could’ve used due to the fact that the locomotion system in an ant has nothing in similar with that in an elephant. Hence why a flea can jump about 200 times its own height, They use chitin which they compress and then explosively release to give them such strength. Ants work and a similar method.