How Do You Measure Triceps Strength?

Training Powerlifting
21

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:

[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:

[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
I would venture a guess that triceps should be 33 % stronger since they have three heads versus 2 of the bicep.[/quote]
Yea and your quads should be 33% stronger than your triceps[/quote]

Very intelligent response ha ha when did quads become the antagonist muscle of the tricep?[/quote]
Lol I was just making about your stupid comment, nice vocabulary there with “antagonist muscle” would almost make someone think you passed a physiology class [/quote]

i have a major in biology so yes I have passed many physiology classes. The problem with most every answer on this thread is powerlifters only care about performance of three lifts. So someone asks ratios of triceps to biceps strength and he is basically called a idiot for using his brain. No one one stops to even consider, is there a ratio would understanding weaknesses or my strengths leverages help me be a better powerlifter? [/quote]

Apparently you didn’t take enough math classes if you couldn’t figure out it should have been 50% and not 33%.

But the bigger problem is that this is a gross over-simplification of anatomy. When it comes to the real world of strength, other muscles will always come into play, include forearm and shoulder strength, even under the strictest conditions for training arms. So reaching a particular ratio, or even striving for one, is really not worthwhile, nor is consideration of the issue since there is no real-world application.

In my opinion, the correct answer to how strong your triceps need to be is task-dependent. The fact is that some athletes are better served by having stronger biceps than triceps, an vice versa. It is also my opinion that these sorts of things tend to work themselves out if one simply trains hard, and trains all muscle groups regularly.

Edit: As a side note, I’ve never heard a college grad describe themselves as having ‘a major in X’. You would say ‘I have a degree in X’. Only a current student would describe it as a major. Which means you’re probably bullshitting, or are still in school studying Biology at the age of 35. I suppose that’s possible, though unlikely.

22

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:

[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:

[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
I would venture a guess that triceps should be 33 % stronger since they have three heads versus 2 of the bicep.[/quote]
Yea and your quads should be 33% stronger than your triceps[/quote]

Very intelligent response ha ha when did quads become the antagonist muscle of the tricep?[/quote]
Lol I was just making about your stupid comment, nice vocabulary there with “antagonist muscle” would almost make someone think you passed a physiology class [/quote]

i have a major in biology so yes I have passed many physiology classes. The problem with most every answer on this thread is powerlifters only care about performance of three lifts. So someone asks ratios of triceps to biceps strength and he is basically called a idiot for using his brain. No one one stops to even consider, is there a ratio would understanding weaknesses or my strengths leverages help me be a better powerlifter? [/quote]

Apparently you didn’t take enough math classes if you couldn’t figure out it should have been 50% and not 33%.

But the bigger problem is that this is a gross over-simplification of anatomy. When it comes to the real world of strength, other muscles will always come into play, include forearm and shoulder strength, even under the strictest conditions for training arms. So reaching a particular ratio, or even striving for one, is really not worthwhile, nor is consideration of the issue since there is no real-world application.

In my opinion, the correct answer to how strong your triceps need to be is task-dependent. The fact is that some athletes are better served by having stronger biceps than triceps, an vice versa. It is also my opinion that these sorts of things tend to work themselves out if one simply trains hard, and trains all muscle groups regularly.

Edit: As a side note, I’ve never heard a college grad describe themselves as having ‘a major in X’. You would say ‘I have a degree in X’. Only a current student would describe it as a major. Which means you’re probably bullshitting, or are still in school studying Biology at the age of 35. I suppose that’s possible, though unlikely.[/quote]

lol im a dentist but doesnt matter. I didnt finish my major as i got into post grad school after 3 years of undergrad. So thats what i call it my major. Wait what are we even talking about? I found the question interesting others didnt ill move on. The 33% was a total random guess but 50% why do you think 50% more curious than anything? So if i can curl say 50 lb dumbells i should be able to extend like 75 ish dumbells. ha ha j/k i assume you were joking about it. nevermind also Flip do you respond to every post on the site, just curious again?

23

The joke was that you made it sound like a muscle’s strength should be directly proportional to the number of heads in said muscle.

You didn’t help by saying 33% more strength in a three headed muscle vs a two headed muscle. Yeah the maths is wrong (it should be 50%, that’s where Flip got that from), but it’s the kinda maths mistake someone who believes strength levels are that reliant on a single factor would make.

So apparently you don’t believe that, but you can hardly blame others for thinking you did.

Then cue funny banter which has apparently gone over your head.

As a separate comment on your first post since you seemed unsure, yes, shirted benchers have very strong triceps strength, generally more so than a raw lifter. The shirt helps more at the bottom of the range of motion, which basically means they need to be stronger at the lockout, which tends to involve the triceps more. Tons of other factors involved and I’m not a geared lifter so I won’t try to speak with authority on the subject any further, that that’s a good general rule.

24

I assume no one really cares but I did some research on strength ratios of biceps to triceps and ideally it is 1 to 1. Quads to hamstrings 3 to 2. And a whole other bunch of ratios. The idea being to have balanced ratios to reduce risk of injury.

25

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
I assume no one really cares but I did some research on strength ratios of biceps to triceps and ideally it is 1 to 1. Quads to hamstrings 3 to 2. And a whole other bunch of ratios. The idea being to have balanced ratios to reduce risk of injury.

[/quote]

You really do have a way with words. Apparently reading an article on the first page of a google search qualifies as research.

I also have a feeling this article suggested 1:1 as ‘ideal’ because it’s a simple way to address the topic, and encourages the reader to work both biceps and triceps equally hard. I seriously doubt it’s based on any real research.

Maazer explained my line of reasoning adequately. That was why I said 50%. I obviously misunderstood the point you were making.

And yes, I respond to every single post in every single thread on this site. Seriously. All of them. I majored in internetting.

26

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
im a dentist[/quote]

Well that explains it…

27

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
I assume no one really cares but I did some research on strength ratios of biceps to triceps and ideally it is 1 to 1. Quads to hamstrings 3 to 2. And a whole other bunch of ratios. The idea being to have balanced ratios to reduce risk of injury.

[/quote]

You really do have a way with words. Apparently reading an article on the first page of a google search qualifies as research.

I also have a feeling this article suggested 1:1 as ‘ideal’ because it’s a simple way to address the topic, and encourages the reader to work both biceps and triceps equally hard. I seriously doubt it’s based on any real research.

Maazer explained my line of reasoning adequately. That was why I said 50%. I obviously misunderstood the point you were making.

And yes, I respond to every single post in every single thread on this site. Seriously. All of them. I majored in internetting.
[/quote]

I have a belly button