According to the only source I know (Supertraining), male-female strength discrepancies tend to be different for different muscle groups. E.g., females fall most behind men in abdominal and arm strength, if memory serves.
But I’m not sure how Siff’s study obtained those standards–whether they were observations of athletes on the same training regimen, or whether they reflected differences in untrained subjects, or whether training was not monitored at all.
As far as I can gather the two formulae are established, I’m just not certain that the Malone formula has been produced with the intention of being compatable with the Schwartz for the purpose of direct comparison.
If not, there must be a fairly accurate method already developed to allow this comparison?
I realise Wilks is better, but I was uder the opinion that Schwartz and Malone can be used to directly compare male & female lifters.
i.e. male lifter Schwatz = 500points, female’s Malone = 510 points, therefore female is best lifter?
Quite honestly, I have not given that much thought…I have been away from the Schwartz for years and have not much experience with Malone (basically none).
I will drop an email to someone who might have a different angle. Will let you know the outcome. Could take a day or two.
[quote]Old Dax wrote:
I realise Wilks is better, but I was uder the opinion that Schwartz and Malone can be used to directly compare male & female lifters.
i.e. male lifter Schwatz = 500points, female’s Malone = 510 points, therefore female is best lifter?
[quote]Old Dax wrote:
I realise Wilks is better, but I was uder the opinion that Schwartz and Malone can be used to directly compare male & female lifters.
i.e. male lifter Schwatz = 500points, female’s Malone = 510 points, therefore female is best lifter?