I didn’t even look at the article. I think I’ve seen it before and I’m one of the people who get mad at these things.
It seems to me that these types of things aren’t all encompassing. A strong, muscular guy is going to “suck” at the movements that are body weight dependent and the guys who are awesome at body weight stuff probably “suck” at squat and deadlift (I’m talking averages, not the outliers).
Perhaps someone needs to come up with some standards that are cut in half. If you weigh this, then here’s what you should be able to do. But then we’d see the problem of the 5’6" 190 lb guy who is built like a tree stump (@isdatnutty) who destroys all the standards.
I’ll add that even at 6’3 with long arms, my best recent body weight dips was 33 and that was an amrap set after weighted dips, so I’m sure I could get 40, and I’ve gotten 20 strict pull-ups plenty of times, plus a 3:00 plank. I can definitely meet many of the intermediate BW strength standards, but I’m only at decent on pretty much all the strength stuff. Which makes a lot of sense, because my strength outside of certain stuff is definitely only “decent”, if that.
The 275 lb rows as “good” seems out of place. But all in all, a good list, I think.
Seriously though, discussing shit about training is never cluttering up a training log.
I think one of the reasons that it is not possible to get everyone to agree these kind of standards is simply because we will never all agree on absolute numbers for bodyweight exercises, nor on the idea of relative strength. This chart mixes the concepts of absolute strength (e.g. squatting 405, relative strength (2 x BW), and then in some cases number of reps or doing something for time (ignoring both absolute and relative strength).
I actually think it would be kind of interesting to take them one at a time and try to come to a consensus. In @flappinit ‘s thread, just because that woud be extra funny.
I read it as “squat 405 or 2x BW, whichever is higher” which makes a little more sense. I’m knocking on the door of a four-plate squat, but double bodyweight for me would be nearer 5.
The bodyweight exercises are impossible to judge for everyone, though. If Eddie Hall knocked out 10 strict pull-ups that would be a lot more impressive than some 150lb dude doing 30.
Yeah, that’s kinda how I see it. Super skinny dudes doing pull-ups are to be expected. Bigger dudes should get credit for the extra weight they have to pull. Using a BW factor is the only way to make it fair across the board. Anyway, new thread on the subject has been made.
I’m taking whichever is lower. As a tall guy, body weight ratios destroy me. I was a string bean at 185. I think I barely reached the status of “do you even lift” at 200 lbs. And now I’m a stretched out, athletic 220 lbs. I’m not going to squat 440… or 405. I’d like to build up my squat but I don’t care about it like I do deadlifts, so I’m not expecting anything great. I’m not expecting great things with half assed effort.
I view it as more of any either/or situation. 220 pound guy presses, let’s say, 180. Impressive in absolute terms? Sure. Impressive in relation to his BW? Not so much.
160 pound guy presses 160 pounds. Impressive in absolute terms? Not so much. Compared to BW? For sure.
Discounting either view doesn’t make sense to me. I think both should be on the table. @Frank_C is doing deadlifts around, what, 470 pounds? I would call that pretty strong. Compared to his bodyweight? Maybe not. But I will look at the absolute number in that case.
That’s where height comes into play. Forget the leverages part, but being taller results in more weight. It does nothing, however, for your ability to lift weights.
If you want to consider leverages then you get into the part about moving the bar further and doing more work per rep.
Is a deadlift where the bar moves 5 inches (short guy doing sump) the same as one that moves 18 inches?
I know. We’ve had that conversation. Being taller doesn’t guarantee that you’ll carry more mass. Strength still has its own special characteristics.
In the above scenario, I was picturing scaled versions of the same guy. One short, one tall (and heavier). Because, how else could you view such a discussion rationally?
For sure: just allows for greater potential for it. I just bring it up in regards to it doing nothing. It can be under appreciated.
For scaled guys, it can depend. If the discussion turns to loading exercises or throwing, height has significant advantages. I think one of the biggest issues is we have moved away from athleticism with metrics.
As I saw this discussion come back to life, I couldn’t help but think of strongman and wrestling. Strongman is about absolute strength regardless of size. There’s a clear cut winner. Wrestling is about beating another human.
You’re strong if you can manhandle another grown man at will, right?
