[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
MEYMZ wrote:
I don’t really like threads about relative strength on a bodybuilding forum. The guys that usually start them are skinny and lost the battle of gaining muscle some time ago. Maybe I’m just going too far, but it could be an escape from previous losses.
Me neither. It usually turns out to it being “easier” for me. But people forget things like… the fact it’s harder for me to even hold on to a dumbell because my hand is half the size of yours… etc.
Some dumbells are almost as big as me … as far as weight… and size goes… lol…
I feel funny shrugging or rowing with the larger dumbells becuase I look at them and I’m like… “This literally weighs as much as I do”[/quote]
Wow I didn’t look at your stats… If you ever get to 200 in offseason you’re gonna look like a monster, not saying it’ll be easier for you.
[quote]MEYMZ wrote:
I don’t really like threads about relative strength on a bodybuilding forum. The guys that usually start them are skinny and lost the battle of gaining muscle some time ago. Maybe I’m just going too far, but it could be an escape from previous losses.[/quote]
its funny how you think your right when your really wrong. You guys make a big deal because i used the word relative. Also im not complaining that im not tall at all. The was a basic im curious question, all you guys in this thread take it so personally my god. Prof x for one always has to turn eveything into an argument about big vs small when ideally my goals are the same as his. This question doesnt like make up my mind when it comes to bodybuilding or anything so why dont you guys chill.
Maybe it’s more about frame (bone thickness) than height (bone length) anyway. Anyone?
Did anyone ever prove that a 6’6 man is inherently superior at gaining muscular width than a 5’6 man? Height is supposed to correlate with ability to grow muscle to some extent but perhaps only a moderate extent.
There was a study about male weightlifters which ‘proved’ that getting taller after six feet (183cm rounded up) is a point of diminishing returns in terms of moving more weight. The strongest lifters hover around that height,take or add an inch or two. For women it was 175cm (a weak 5’9).
But (and I sort of have a thread up related to this) most guys fall within a certain height considered average,and presumably they train no less (and maybe more) than shorter or taller than average guys,so you get a lot of greats of average height just because there’s so many guys that height around.
And maybe it’s true unusually tall people can put on more muscle relative to shorter folks but perhaps them having to work more to put up weight as well as coordination difficulties (especially in a technical sport like oly.WL) is too much of an obstacle for them to clearly dominate shorter folks. As well as that what I just said; more average people walking around.
And I may be wrong but technically,I think the term ‘leverage’ may not really apply to weightlifting or powerlifting. Leverage as a concept applies to certain strongman events,discus throw etc. where torque of the body is involved,and that’s where the tall are in their glory. So shorter folks don’t lift easier because of better leverages,precisely speaking,but because of simply having to do less work.
Longer moment arm=more leverage
Shorter moment arm=less leverage.
I guess it could depend on how you define leverage. I’m not a physicist.
[quote]crod266 wrote:
MEYMZ wrote:
I don’t really like threads about relative strength on a bodybuilding forum. The guys that usually start them are skinny and lost the battle of gaining muscle some time ago. Maybe I’m just going too far, but it could be an escape from previous losses.
its funny how you think your right when your really wrong. You guys make a big deal because i used the word relative. Also im not complaining that im not tall at all. The was a basic im curious question, all you guys in this thread take it so personally my god. Prof x for one always has to turn eveything into an argument about big vs small when ideally my goals are the same as his. This question doesnt like make up my mind when it comes to bodybuilding or anything so why dont you guys chill.[/quote]
You asked why more people haven’t jumped into this discussion. That is because, as another poster stated, this is pretty obvious to most people who actually lift seriously.
If you have two guys of the exact same height…yet one weighs 145lbs and the other weighs a relatively lean 230lbs, 99% of the time, the guy carrying more muscle mass wins as far as strength.
What other way is there to put that? It IS about “big vs small”.
Like some others have said, while there are some freaks out there, in general, if two people (one short and one tall) are equally as muscular the taller person will have a greater strength potential than the shorter one.
If you look at the world of BB’ing, powerlifting, olympic lifting, strongman or really any strength based sport the absolute world records are almost always held by people in the largest weight class.
Savickas, Reza, Bolton/Mendelson, Coleman, etc…
This is not to say that the shorter guys can’t also be impressively strong, but the big guys are usually going to take the absolute strength crown.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
crod266 wrote:
MEYMZ wrote:
I don’t really like threads about relative strength on a bodybuilding forum. The guys that usually start them are skinny and lost the battle of gaining muscle some time ago. Maybe I’m just going too far, but it could be an escape from previous losses.
its funny how you think your right when your really wrong. You guys make a big deal because i used the word relative. Also im not complaining that im not tall at all. The was a basic im curious question, all you guys in this thread take it so personally my god. Prof x for one always has to turn eveything into an argument about big vs small when ideally my goals are the same as his. This question doesnt like make up my mind when it comes to bodybuilding or anything so why dont you guys chill.
You asked why more people haven’t jumped into this discussion. That is because, as another poster stated, this is pretty obvious to most people who actually lift seriously.
If you have two guys of the exact same height…yet one weighs 145lbs and the other weighs a relatively lean 230lbs, 99% of the time, the guy carrying more muscle mass wins as far as strength.
What other way is there to put that? It IS about “big vs small”.[/quote]
when did i ever mention a guy that skinny being as strong as someone thats ways like 90 pounds more. This thread was about 2 guys for example that are both very large at there height. Ok so 2 big guys not one guy thats huge and one guy that looks like pee wee herman. If you want me to put it this way could lee priest move as much weight as ronnie. Obviously these 2 guys are carrying alot of muscle. Im talking about being as large as possible for your height compared to someone else much taller. Belive me you dont need to tell me that you need to be big in order to lift heavy shit.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Like some others have said, while there are some freaks out there, in general, if two people (one short and one tall) are equally as muscular the taller person will have a greater strength potential than the shorter one.
If you look at the world of BB’ing, powerlifting, olympic lifting, strongman or really any strength based sport the absolute world records are almost always held by people in the largest weight class.
Savickas, Reza, Bolton/Mendelson, Coleman, etc…
This is not to say that the shorter guys can’t also be impressively strong, but the big guys are usually going to take the absolute strength crown.[/quote]
see that was the type of asnwer i was hoping to get
[quote]crod266 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Like some others have said, while there are some freaks out there, in general, if two people (one short and one tall) are equally as muscular the taller person will have a greater strength potential than the shorter one.
If you look at the world of BB’ing, powerlifting, olympic lifting, strongman or really any strength based sport the absolute world records are almost always held by people in the largest weight class.
Savickas, Reza, Bolton/Mendelson, Coleman, etc…
This is not to say that the shorter guys can’t also be impressively strong, but the big guys are usually going to take the absolute strength crown.
see that was the type of asnwer i was hoping to get[/quote]
I wants must at the at odds with the majority here, while I believe, that the shorter people have cider potential, that is at the largest for the relative power. This is due to effects of impressive lever of the midget and its superpowers of the muscular dwarf. Nevertheless this is of preserve that that the potential that one, that to carry mass of more of muscle of that meant, than it can the power more obtain
Be to but honest, why this the question on the advice of body construct is? Advice constructing the body is, to discuss the building, accumulating of muscular piles, not midget power.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
crod266 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Like some others have said, while there are some freaks out there, in general, if two people (one short and one tall) are equally as muscular the taller person will have a greater strength potential than the shorter one.
If you look at the world of BB’ing, powerlifting, olympic lifting, strongman or really any strength based sport the absolute world records are almost always held by people in the largest weight class.
Savickas, Reza, Bolton/Mendelson, Coleman, etc…
This is not to say that the shorter guys can’t also be impressively strong, but the big guys are usually going to take the absolute strength crown.
see that was the type of asnwer i was hoping to get
…It’s a pretty obvious answer though[/quote]
well it sort of was but im sure there are people that dont feel this way and thats why its a discussion
[quote]tmcg86 wrote:
shorter people have better leverages, but larger people sometimes have the frame and genetic potential to put on more muscle mass to overcome their bad leverages. [/quote]
Actually it depends on the joint and when the person stopped growing. If all attachements, and bone lengths etc. are proportional, then the taller person should lift more in proportion to their weight.
Work has nothing to do with it because larger muscles can do more work.
Taller people however tend to add bone length at the distal end of long bones, so tend to have better advantage in muscles that insert low on the bone and high in the origin. Vice versa for short.
[quote]crod266 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Like some others have said, while there are some freaks out there, in general, if two people (one short and one tall) are equally as muscular the taller person will have a greater strength potential than the shorter one.
If you look at the world of BB’ing, powerlifting, olympic lifting, strongman or really any strength based sport the absolute world records are almost always held by people in the largest weight class.
Savickas, Reza, Bolton/Mendelson, Coleman, etc…
This is not to say that the shorter guys can’t also be impressively strong, but the big guys are usually going to take the absolute strength crown.
see that was the type of asnwer i was hoping to get[/quote]
See, the shorter person tends however to be shorter because they have shorter legs (and arms) but not shorter in the torso. A long torso with short arms and legs is an advantage in powerlifting, but 2 guys, same proportional bone structure, just different size, taller has more strength potential.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
…
There was a study about male weightlifters which ‘proved’ that getting taller after six feet (183cm rounded up) is a point of diminishing returns in terms of moving more weight. The strongest lifters hover around that height,take or add an inch or two. For women it was 175cm (a weak 5’9).
…[/quote]
Here’s a link to the article for anyone else who’s interested:
I liked that formulae that they got from the elite lifters numbers:
(Olympic total in kgs)/((height in m)^2.16) = 120 (for men)
(Olympic total in kgs)/((height in m)^2.16) = 77.5 (for women)
[quote]crod266 wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
crod266 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Like some others have said, while there are some freaks out there, in general, if two people (one short and one tall) are equally as muscular the taller person will have a greater strength potential than the shorter one.
If you look at the world of BB’ing, powerlifting, olympic lifting, strongman or really any strength based sport the absolute world records are almost always held by people in the largest weight class.
Savickas, Reza, Bolton/Mendelson, Coleman, etc…
This is not to say that the shorter guys can’t also be impressively strong, but the big guys are usually going to take the absolute strength crown.
see that was the type of asnwer i was hoping to get
…It’s a pretty obvious answer though
well it sort of was but im sure there are people that dont feel this way and thats why its a discussion [/quote]
Most of the people who don’t feel that way are not “absolutely stronger” than most people. They are often smaller guys who play up their “relative strength” so that they seem more impressive than they would be talking numbers lifted alone.
I don’t see too many really big and strong guys worrying about how “relatively strong” they are.
[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Alffi wrote:
…
There was a study about male weightlifters which ‘proved’ that getting taller after six feet (183cm rounded up) is a point of diminishing returns in terms of moving more weight. The strongest lifters hover around that height,take or add an inch or two. For women it was 175cm (a weak 5’9).
…
Here’s a link to the article for anyone else who’s interested:
I liked that formulae that they got from the elite lifters numbers:
(Olympic total in kgs)/((height in m)^2.16) = 120 (for men)
(Olympic total in kgs)/((height in m)^2.16) = 77.5 (for women)
[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Alffi wrote:
…
There was a study about male weightlifters which ‘proved’ that getting taller after six feet (183cm rounded up) is a point of diminishing returns in terms of moving more weight. The strongest lifters hover around that height,take or add an inch or two. For women it was 175cm (a weak 5’9).
…
Here’s a link to the article for anyone else who’s interested:
I liked that formulae that they got from the elite lifters numbers:
(Olympic total in kgs)/((height in m)^2.16) = 120 (for men)
(Olympic total in kgs)/((height in m)^2.16) = 77.5 (for women)
Again, since they didn’t separate height from limb length, the study is not meaningful. Well, OK it shows that taller people tend to have disproportionately longer arms and legs, which is a medical fact.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
^I suspect this is because it’s pretty clear from looking at the world around you…
Bingo. That is why the larger lifters here don’t give a shit about “relative strength”. If I am absolutely stronger than the other guy, his “relative” numbers are insignificant to me.
The biggest guys, on average, are usually the strongest when it comes to muscular body weight.
I don’t know how the hell this got confused over the last few years.[/quote]
it’s like ricers claiming that their motor has a higher HP per cubic inch argument, when a Chevy SB 350 can dwarf it in the total HP department. I’ll stick with the Chevy 350 thanks
