[quote]ThePerfectDrug wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
http://bretcontreras.com/2010/12/female-strength-levels/
FYI, here is chart from Bret Contreras regarding his opinion on female strength levels.[/quote]
this has to be bullshit …or he just has a relatively ‘low’?? standard for what advanced/elite means…[/quote]
The guy is a vegetarian, what do you expect.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
While Brett’s numbers might seem low, he’s obviously talking about raw lifters not with any regards to competition. My take on things is you average gym rat with some training was around a class three lifter in the men’s. Class two would be noticed as a strong guy. Master and elite would be qualifying for most nationals . The old mens nationals in the uspf would require around an elite total to slightly lower. Junior nationals would be around masters. Teenage and collegiates would be class one to masters range.
I’m talking three federation days , uspf, adfpa, apf. One collegiate meet I entered, the region collegiate nationals at PSU had over 20 entrants in the 148s. I think I finished 8/23 . And I was happy with my day.
So google the old class standards and use them for what you think Is elite to average . Average for a lifter might seem strong for a regular gal or guy just lifting . [/quote]
Just out of curiosity, are you talking about these classifications, or is there an older version?
My opinion about Bret’s Strength Standards is based on current raw elite totals and where I personally rank in both. As far as I can tell, most feds have adopted the same raw elite classifications for women(SPF and 100% Raw both use it and are two very different types of feds).
I’m currently in the middle between 132s and 148s (140). My best total at that weight is 675. Raw elite for 132 is 703 and 148 is 773. So I think its reasonable to say that I’m not elite yet, but getting close. Based on Bret list, I am elite in all of the exercises I perform on that list, and have been for some time in many cases. I don’t think that’s right.
I agree that strong in the typical gym is probably only average for a powerlifter, but you can’t set strength standards off of what is strong in the typical gym. If they’re supposed to be “standards” you can’t ignore an entire population of competitive lifters. Elite should only be attainable for a percentage of highly trained lifters(competitive athletes or not) rather than highly trained gym rats.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
And here’s some crossfit hotness to make up for all my walls of text.[/quote]
Now THATS a jugular!
I think you can look at it both ways. Elite for general population . Elite for athletes . If you’re training for health or other reasons I don’t think you out of line saying you’re doing well. But that’s just Brett’s standards for the regular compared to everyone . If you say you’re an elite powerlifter it’s a whole different thing.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
While Brett’s numbers might seem low, he’s obviously talking about raw lifters not with any regards to competition. My take on things is you average gym rat with some training was around a class three lifter in the men’s. Class two would be noticed as a strong guy. Master and elite would be qualifying for most nationals . The old mens nationals in the uspf would require around an elite total to slightly lower. Junior nationals would be around masters. Teenage and collegiates would be class one to masters range.
I’m talking three federation days , uspf, adfpa, apf. One collegiate meet I entered, the region collegiate nationals at PSU had over 20 entrants in the 148s. I think I finished 8/23 . And I was happy with my day.
So google the old class standards and use them for what you think Is elite to average . Average for a lifter might seem strong for a regular gal or guy just lifting . [/quote]
Just out of curiosity, are you talking about these classifications, or is there an older version?
My opinion about Bret’s Strength Standards is based on current raw elite totals and where I personally rank in both. As far as I can tell, most feds have adopted the same raw elite classifications for women(SPF and 100% Raw both use it and are two very different types of feds).
I’m currently in the middle between 132s and 148s (140). My best total at that weight is 675. Raw elite for 132 is 703 and 148 is 773. So I think its reasonable to say that I’m not elite yet, but getting close. Based on Bret list, I am elite in all of the exercises I perform on that list, and have been for some time in many cases. I don’t think that’s right.
I agree that strong in the typical gym is probably only average for a powerlifter, but you can’t set strength standards off of what is strong in the typical gym. If they’re supposed to be “standards” you can’t ignore an entire population of competitive lifters. Elite should only be attainable for a percentage of highly trained lifters(competitive athletes or not) rather than highly trained gym rats.[/quote]
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
To add to this. Cbear did 225 off of a 2 or 3 board within the last week or so. That’s not offically a 225 raw bench, but still relevant. Gbench (who was like a 132) was also closing in on 225 at one point, she may or may not have hit it, I’m not sure.
I can think of 6 other women that I know or have come across in competition that bench 225+. They all compete in untested feds and with the exception of 2, all are in the 181+ weight classes. I can think of at least 3 others that probably have, judging what they’ve done shirted and how they’ve performed on other bench variations.
BUT just because I know of 9 or more that have attained that strength level, I STILL wouldn’t claim that a 225 bench is not rare for women.
[/quote]
But you didn’t cite nine. You cited six, all of whom compete in untested feds. Benching to boards is not benching to the chest with a pause. And shirted benching doesn’t necessarily translate to a strong raw bench.
Oh shit…wrong thread 
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
To add to this. Cbear did 225 off of a 2 or 3 board within the last week or so. That’s not offically a 225 raw bench, but still relevant. Gbench (who was like a 132) was also closing in on 225 at one point, she may or may not have hit it, I’m not sure.
I can think of 6 other women that I know or have come across in competition that bench 225+. They all compete in untested feds and with the exception of 2, all are in the 181+ weight classes. I can think of at least 3 others that probably have, judging what they’ve done shirted and how they’ve performed on other bench variations.
BUT just because I know of 9 or more that have attained that strength level, I STILL wouldn’t claim that a 225 bench is not rare for women.
[/quote]
But you didn’t cite nine. You cited six, all of whom compete in untested feds. Benching to boards is not benching to the chest with a pause. And shirted benching doesn’t necessarily translate to a strong raw bench.[/quote]
You’re missing my point. Which is that I know of a number of women that can bench 225 raw (and in some cases they’re putting up over 300), and yet I’m still not stupid enough to think that just because I can name a half dozen women or more that can do it, its not rare. The fact that someone would claim that it’s reasonably common for a NATURAL LIFTER IS EVEN MORE RETARDED.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
I thought what you stated was fairly clear .
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
To add to this. Cbear did 225 off of a 2 or 3 board within the last week or so. That’s not offically a 225 raw bench, but still relevant. Gbench (who was like a 132) was also closing in on 225 at one point, she may or may not have hit it, I’m not sure.
I can think of 6 other women that I know or have come across in competition that bench 225+. They all compete in untested feds and with the exception of 2, all are in the 181+ weight classes. I can think of at least 3 others that probably have, judging what they’ve done shirted and how they’ve performed on other bench variations.
BUT just because I know of 9 or more that have attained that strength level, I STILL wouldn’t claim that a 225 bench is not rare for women.
[/quote]
But you didn’t cite nine. You cited six, all of whom compete in untested feds. Benching to boards is not benching to the chest with a pause. And shirted benching doesn’t necessarily translate to a strong raw bench.[/quote]
You’re missing my point. Which is that I know of a number of women that can bench 225 raw (and in some cases they’re putting up over 300), and yet I’m still not stupid enough to think that just because I can name a half dozen women or more that can do it, its not rare. The fact that someone would claim that it’s reasonably common for a NATURAL LIFTER IS EVEN MORE RETARDED.
[/quote]
[quote]inkcreep wrote:
Oh shit…wrong thread :)[/quote]
Inkcreep… please report to Threadkiller.
Pretty sure its your spot.
[quote]alexus wrote:
[quote]SKWATKING wrote:
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
[quote]bob_sander87 wrote:
All the people saying they could believe she’s natural, take a look at her face. You can see the masculine side effects of AAS taking place. Even though not significantly, she does look a little less feminine.
That said though, huge props. She’s jacked and she’s winning, good for her. I have no problem with what she’s doing.[/quote]
I think you’re wrong. How can you look at someone and determine juice? In your own post you state that the change isn’t significant. I’ve seen plenty of women with similar builds (broad back and thick neck) doesn’t mean they were on the juice.[/quote]
You can look at a female and determine if anabolics are involved by a protruding orbital ridge (where the eyebrows are) and/or a broadened mandible (lower jaw) and/or a protruding Larynx (Adam’s Apple). Educate yourself you crossfit sympathizer.[/quote]
mmm hmm. you really should think of letting your thoughts be known to sports authorities. just think of all the money you could save them since you have found the litmus test for anabolics!!
[/quote]
Just going off my pre-med anatomy & physiology lectures. But to dumb it down a little bit more for you: The reason men have protruding orbital ridges, broadened mandibles and a protruding Larynx is because of the testosterone release at puberty. Women who are on AAS are essentially going through male puberty, albeit in a much shorter time period. The longer a woman is on sauce, the more the signs of male puberty show. Look at any female bodybuilder to verify. Sports authorities, especially Olympic anti-doping agencies, use the facial comparisons of current and past photographs of athletes to determine if more “random” drug testing is necessary. It is controversial, but it happens.
who needs blood tests to check for anabolic use? Lets just look for big foreheads and broadened jaw lines. Its science… and way cheaper
