We know that if people have the right leverages they are better at certain exercises, just because they have less work to do. A person with shorter arms expends less energy to bench press a certain weight.
If someone has good leverages, would you say they ARE strong - because the good leverages simply make them strong? Taken to the extreme, dwarves can squat huge amount of weights with far less effort than normal, simply because they hardly have any distance to move their legs.
Is there a way to measure strength with leverages completely taken out of the equation? Like for biceps, a machine that attaches on your forearm a certain fixed distance from your elbow joint - thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter forearms, and thus their biceps does less work in flexing the forearm?
Or a hip extension machine that attaches at a certain point on your femur, thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter femurs and thus their glutes do less work in extending their hips?
Do you think that these machines would offer a truer test of raw strength than compound exercises dependent on leverages?
Simple question: Why does any of this matter? I’ll never understand why people go on the internet and start forums like this.
Talk about…
Programing? No
Building mass? No
Building Strength? No
Lets debate endlessly about what we consider to be a test of “strength”. Which obviously is open ended for all sorts of endless useless discussion about peak force, weight used, ROM, blah blah blah doesnt matter wont help your training, stop focusing on worthless shit and just lift
[quote]alternate wrote:
We know that if people have the right leverages they are better at certain exercises, just because they have less work to do. A person with shorter arms expends less energy to bench press a certain weight.
If someone has good leverages, would you say they ARE strong - because the good leverages simply make them strong? Taken to the extreme, dwarves can squat huge amount of weights with far less effort than normal, simply because they hardly have any distance to move their legs.
Is there a way to measure strength with leverages completely taken out of the equation? Like for biceps, a machine that attaches on your forearm a certain fixed distance from your elbow joint - thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter forearms, and thus their biceps does less work in flexing the forearm?
Or a hip extension machine that attaches at a certain point on your femur, thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter femurs and thus their glutes do less work in extending their hips?
Do you think that these machines would offer a truer test of raw strength than compound exercises dependent on leverages?[/quote]
what, and no and who cares haha?
WUT?
I don’t even know how to wrap my head around this post.
What about guys with longer limbs that are stronger than guys with shorter limbs despite having some mechanical advantage?
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I’ll never understand why people go on the Internet and respond to posts that they personally find useless, just to point out that they are useless.[/quote]
apparently tendon insertion points can vary despite bone length being held constant. something something about arnolds bicep attachment and some people having short bellied calves…
i wonder…
if we equalized everything…
so there were mathematical formula to compare lifters from different weight classes… then different genders… then different training programs… then differences in psychology… then genetic differences… then what everybody ate for breakfast… every day for their whole lives… and what their mothers ate while they were in the womb…
if there would be any point in sport at all or if everyone is just as good as everyone else. ALL things considered.
i guess one would need to strength train with the machine in order to develop maximal strength with the machine…
but, er, watching people pull weights on the machine doesn’t sound as entertaining to me as watching people throw weight over their (albeit short) little bodies. or pushing weights off their chests with their dwarven arms… and so on.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I’ll never understand why people go on the Internet and respond to posts that they personally find useless, just to point out that they are useless.[/quote]
You realize the irony of your post right? [/quote]
The cycle is never ending! But to answer his question, I post that, because I want people to snap out of it. I genuinely want people to get stronger, and it kills me to see so many kids focused on the wrong stuff. These forums take up space where real forums discussing various methods could be.
wah I was skinny before before lifting
wah I’m tall
wah I have bad muscle insertions
blah blah blah
Apart from the person doing the complaining, no one cares about how hard anyone has it. We just care how much weight gets lifted or how the person looks.
but you could, like, remove the muscles. then stimulate ALL the fibers with electrodes and see which muscle generates the most force. that way you equalize for psychological differences in the lifters…
or you could, like, grow muscles in petrie dishes. and make sure you feed them the same but vary up their training routines. tee hee.
i should have been a scientist, dammit.
even the ethical vegans shouldn’t have any trouble eating them, hey.
This is a fantastic device that one of my minions designed for me, see photo of me wearing it while assessing my opponent. I recommend you purchase one asap
[quote]alternate wrote:
We know that if people have the right leverages they are better at certain exercises, just because they have less work to do. A person with shorter arms expends less energy to bench press a certain weight.
If someone has good leverages, would you say they ARE strong - because the good leverages simply make them strong? Taken to the extreme, dwarves can squat huge amount of weights with far less effort than normal, simply because they hardly have any distance to move their legs.
Is there a way to measure strength with leverages completely taken out of the equation? Like for biceps, a machine that attaches on your forearm a certain fixed distance from your elbow joint - thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter forearms, and thus their biceps does less work in flexing the forearm?
Or a hip extension machine that attaches at a certain point on your femur, thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter femurs and thus their glutes do less work in extending their hips?
Do you think that these machines would offer a truer test of raw strength than compound exercises dependent on leverages?[/quote]
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I’ll never understand why people go on the Internet and respond to posts that they personally find useless, just to point out that they are useless.[/quote]
You realize the irony of your post right? [/quote]
The statement doesn’t apply to me, since I didn’t find any of the previous posts useless nor did I state that they were. But it comes close to being ironic I think.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
wah I was skinny before before lifting
wah I’m tall
wah I have bad muscle insertions
blah blah blah
Apart from the person doing the complaining, no one cares about how hard anyone has it. We just care how much weight gets lifted or how the person looks.[/quote]
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I’ll never understand why people go on the Internet and respond to posts that they personally find useless, just to point out that they are useless.[/quote]
You realize the irony of your post right? [/quote]
The cycle is never ending! But to answer his question, I post that, because I want people to snap out of it. I genuinely want people to get stronger, and it kills me to see so many kids focused on the wrong stuff. These forums take up space where real forums discussing various methods could be.[/quote]
Just because people are wondering about this sort of stuff doesn’t mean they’re not also training hard.
Everybody is so mean… maybe this thread should have been in GAL or something instead of bodybuilding, but if you don’t think it’s an interesting thing to think about then i wouldn’t want to hang out with you IRL, you dull boring jellyfish. So take THAT.
There is no way to “measure strength” because it is subjective… Look at the world’s strongest man competitors. Tall, long-limbed, and athletic, but they can’t match a powerlifter in the bench press or squat. Do you think most people would say the powerlifter is stronger because he benches more?
Or how about the wrestler vs. the football player. The football player is bigger, stronger, and faster, but the wrestler will easily dominate him in hand to hand test of strength due to his superior technique.
Trying to measure strength based on leverages is a silly idea because you are still measuring strength by weightlifting… which obviously is not the end all be all.
What you are describing is something called difference or being different. When people are different, various outcomes tend to follow. This is called life.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
What you are describing is something called difference or being different. When people are different, various outcomes tend to follow. This is called life.[/quote]
I just think it would be interesting to see how strong people are when we take leverages completely out of the equation.
Then the only factors affecting performance would be the number of muscle fibres an individual has to start with (not trainable), the ability to recruit the largest amount of those fibres (trainable), the hypertrophy of those muscle fibres (trainable), the percentage of fast twitch fibres (most think not trainable), and tendon insertions (not trainable).
