PDA

View Full Version : How many times can you bench your body weight?


Jag
September 12th 04, 04:38 PM
Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
your body weight?

~Jag

Will
September 12th 04, 04:45 PM
In article >,
"Jag" > wrote:

> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
> your body weight?

18 reps at the end of a workout (235 lbs)

Ben Gussey
September 13th 04, 06:05 AM
"Jag" > wrote in message
...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results.
I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you
bench
> your body weight?
>
> ~Jag

About 8 reps (180lbs).

Regards,
Ben.

ray miller
September 13th 04, 08:00 PM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote:

>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>your body weight?

Not quite there yet, but getting closer. I'm at about 90%.

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

Proton Soup
September 13th 04, 08:05 PM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote:

>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>your body weight?

I think it's about 15.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John Hanson
September 13th 04, 08:08 PM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>your body weight?
>
Never tried. I'd venture around 10-12.

Hugh Beyer
September 13th 04, 08:45 PM
"Jag" > wrote in
:

> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results.
> I am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you
> bench your body weight?

6 sets of 2 reps following 4 other bench sets and 10 squat sets (today's
workout).

Hugh

--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Larry Hodges
September 13th 04, 11:01 PM
Jag wrote:
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the
> results. I am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many
> times can you bench your body weight?
>
> ~Jag

8 at 190 lbs
--
-Larry

Lordy
September 14th 04, 12:08 AM
Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).

But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly. Without
looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier between body
weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower bodyweight end
of the scale.

I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not skinny),
trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this generally?

--
Lordy

Jim Ranieri
September 14th 04, 12:19 AM
"Jag" > wrote in message
...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results.
I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you
bench
> your body weight?
>

My gym did the same thing last year - I don't train in that rep range, but
figured 12 reps with 225 would translate to about 18-20 with bwt (190-ish).
When the results were posted, some mutant did 31 reps. I have no idea what
he weighed or how his form was, but geez - I wasn't even in the ballpark.

Jake
September 14th 04, 12:28 AM
"Jag" > wrote in message >...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
> your body weight?
>
> ~Jag


Well, I'm a weak **** (as a noun, not as a verb), I've been benching
for about a year and when I weighed 175 I could do that 5 times. Now
I weigh 160 and can do that about 7-8 times.

Bob Fusillo
September 14th 04, 01:49 AM
"Jag" > wrote in message
...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results.
I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you
bench
> your body weight?

Don't know and won't try. Many OL coaches consider it counter-productive.
I recently worked out at a high school gym -- it was large and full of many
many kinds of weights and equipment. All the kids were interested in was
bench-press. Why? What is the mystique? What good does it do?
rjf

gluemaster57
September 14th 04, 05:29 AM
about 20 times at 155

John Hanson
September 14th 04, 05:42 AM
On 13 Sep 2004 23:08:40 GMT, Lordy > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).
>
>But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly. Without
>looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier between body
>weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower bodyweight end
>of the scale.
>
>I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not skinny),
>trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this generally?

At the Haggenmiller beer/bench meet, Paul Wong, who is a 148 pounder
did about 32 reps if I remember correctly. Tony Scheldrup, a 114
pounder, did a lot more but I don't recall how many but I think it was
48. There was also a SHW who took part in that competition and I'm
not sure he got much more than 15. My point being that the lighter
you are, the easier it is to do reps with your bodyweight. Any
"carnival" bencher will tell you that.

Bluesman
September 14th 04, 03:39 PM
"Jag" > wrote in message >...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
> your body weight?
>
> ~Jag


Based on my HST workouts, I would say about 20-25 if it was early in a workout.
(175 lbs.)


Bluesman

Kirk Roy
September 14th 04, 04:22 PM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote:
>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>your body weight?

I do bodyweight bench for reps on my back off weeks (training for
powerlifting following a 3 weeks heavy, 1 week back off schedule).
Last back off week I managed to get 20 reps with my current bodyweight
(a superfat 195).

Kirk

The Voice of Reason
September 14th 04, 05:40 PM
"Jag" > wrote in message >...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
> your body weight?
>
> ~Jag

0 reps.

Top Sirloin
September 14th 04, 06:18 PM
Kirk Roy wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote:
>
>>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>>your body weight?
>
>
> I do bodyweight bench for reps on my back off weeks (training for
> powerlifting following a 3 weeks heavy, 1 week back off schedule).
> Last back off week I managed to get 20 reps with my current bodyweight
> (a superfat 195).

Wow, you're really up to 195? Are you going to
diet back down to 180 or what?

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Micky Snir
September 14th 04, 06:56 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Sep 2004 23:08:40 GMT, Lordy > wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).
> >
> >But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly. Without
> >looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier between
body
> >weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower
bodyweight end
> >of the scale.
> >
> >I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not skinny),
> >trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this generally?
>
> At the Haggenmiller beer/bench meet, Paul Wong, who is a 148 pounder
> did about 32 reps if I remember correctly. Tony Scheldrup, a 114
> pounder, did a lot more but I don't recall how many but I think it was
> 48. There was also a SHW who took part in that competition and I'm
> not sure he got much more than 15. My point being that the lighter
> you are, the easier it is to do reps with your bodyweight.

Probably true. Seems like the issue with such a lift besides having
enough strength to press your own weight is the work performed, which is
approximately the weight lifted times the distance travellled times the
number of reps.
Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones (ok, not all of them are
fatassed) *AND* they have a shorter stroke (shorter limbs), then their
advantage over the heavier lifters "multiplies".
Now the shorter stroke is actually not that trivial. The thing is that
the real fatasses have a huge barrel chest that reduces the stroke, but
then they are also real fatasses, and the smaller guys are usually much
more flaxible so they can arch better and reduce the stroke.

Mik.
> Any
> "carnival" bencher will tell you that.

Skipnkuf
September 14th 04, 07:26 PM
"Jag" > wrote in message >...
> Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
> am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
> your body weight?
>
> ~Jag

about 23x @ 235lbs after my chest workout is done (super slow reps,
very strict form). my bodyweight really teeters between 225~235
depending on what time of day it is.

the curious thing I always wonder about is my one rep max, over 2 1/2
years and i've never maxed once

Kirk Roy
September 14th 04, 08:46 PM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:18:54 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:
>Kirk Roy wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote:
>>
>>>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>>>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>>>your body weight?
>>
>>
>> I do bodyweight bench for reps on my back off weeks (training for
>> powerlifting following a 3 weeks heavy, 1 week back off schedule).
>> Last back off week I managed to get 20 reps with my current bodyweight
>> (a superfat 195).
>
>Wow, you're really up to 195? Are you going to
>diet back down to 180 or what?

Yeah, I'm really about 195 (guesstimate bodyfat around 12-13%). Once I
find a meet I'll bring my weight back down to 186 or so until the week
of the meet at which point I'll dump the water weight.

Kirk

Proton Soup
September 14th 04, 09:53 PM
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:05:36 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:38:04 -0400, "Jag" > wrote:
>
>>Our local Gold's had this competition recently and I missed the results. I
>>am curious, for those that work out regularly, how many times can you bench
>>your body weight?
>
>I think it's about 15.

OK, at my morning body weight yesterday + 2lbs (176lbs) I got 17 reps.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Proton Soup
September 14th 04, 10:06 PM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:12:12 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:56:43 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 13 Sep 2004 23:08:40 GMT, Lordy > wrote in
>>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>> >Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).
>>> >
>>> >But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly. Without
>>> >looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier between
>>body
>>> >weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower
>>bodyweight end
>>> >of the scale.
>>> >
>>> >I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not skinny),
>>> >trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this generally?
>>>
>>> At the Haggenmiller beer/bench meet, Paul Wong, who is a 148 pounder
>>> did about 32 reps if I remember correctly. Tony Scheldrup, a 114
>>> pounder, did a lot more but I don't recall how many but I think it was
>>> 48. There was also a SHW who took part in that competition and I'm
>>> not sure he got much more than 15. My point being that the lighter
>>> you are, the easier it is to do reps with your bodyweight.
>>
>>Probably true. Seems like the issue with such a lift besides having
>>enough strength to press your own weight is the work performed, which is
>>approximately the weight lifted times the distance travellled times the
>>number of reps.
>>Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
>>body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones (ok, not all of them are
>>fatassed) *AND* they have a shorter stroke (shorter limbs), then their
>>advantage over the heavier lifters "multiplies".
>>Now the shorter stroke is actually not that trivial. The thing is that
>>the real fatasses have a huge barrel chest that reduces the stroke, but
>>then they are also real fatasses, and the smaller guys are usually much
>>more flaxible so they can arch better and reduce the stroke.
>>
>Except bodyfat wise, Paul and Tony are about equal and Paul (400 pound
>bench) is a better bencher than Tony (240 pounds). I think it's that
>whole ant thing.

The ant with high apple pie in the sky hopes?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John Hanson
September 14th 04, 10:12 PM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:56:43 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On 13 Sep 2004 23:08:40 GMT, Lordy > wrote in
>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).
>> >
>> >But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly. Without
>> >looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier between
>body
>> >weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower
>bodyweight end
>> >of the scale.
>> >
>> >I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not skinny),
>> >trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this generally?
>>
>> At the Haggenmiller beer/bench meet, Paul Wong, who is a 148 pounder
>> did about 32 reps if I remember correctly. Tony Scheldrup, a 114
>> pounder, did a lot more but I don't recall how many but I think it was
>> 48. There was also a SHW who took part in that competition and I'm
>> not sure he got much more than 15. My point being that the lighter
>> you are, the easier it is to do reps with your bodyweight.
>
>Probably true. Seems like the issue with such a lift besides having
>enough strength to press your own weight is the work performed, which is
>approximately the weight lifted times the distance travellled times the
>number of reps.
>Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
>body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones (ok, not all of them are
>fatassed) *AND* they have a shorter stroke (shorter limbs), then their
>advantage over the heavier lifters "multiplies".
>Now the shorter stroke is actually not that trivial. The thing is that
>the real fatasses have a huge barrel chest that reduces the stroke, but
>then they are also real fatasses, and the smaller guys are usually much
>more flaxible so they can arch better and reduce the stroke.
>
Except bodyfat wise, Paul and Tony are about equal and Paul (400 pound
bench) is a better bencher than Tony (240 pounds). I think it's that
whole ant thing.

Micky Snir
September 14th 04, 10:56 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:56:43 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 13 Sep 2004 23:08:40 GMT, Lordy > wrote in
> >> misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).
> >> >
> >> >But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly.
Without
> >> >looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier
between
> >body
> >> >weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower
> >bodyweight end
> >> >of the scale.
> >> >
> >> >I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not
skinny),
> >> >trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this
generally?
> >>
> >> At the Haggenmiller beer/bench meet, Paul Wong, who is a 148
pounder
> >> did about 32 reps if I remember correctly. Tony Scheldrup, a 114
> >> pounder, did a lot more but I don't recall how many but I think it
was
> >> 48. There was also a SHW who took part in that competition and I'm
> >> not sure he got much more than 15. My point being that the lighter
> >> you are, the easier it is to do reps with your bodyweight.
> >
> >Probably true. Seems like the issue with such a lift besides having
> >enough strength to press your own weight is the work performed, which
is
> >approximately the weight lifted times the distance travellled times
the
> >number of reps.
> >Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
> >body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones (ok, not all of them
are
> >fatassed) *AND* they have a shorter stroke (shorter limbs), then
their
> >advantage over the heavier lifters "multiplies".
> >Now the shorter stroke is actually not that trivial. The thing is
that
> >the real fatasses have a huge barrel chest that reduces the stroke,
but
> >then they are also real fatasses, and the smaller guys are usually
much
> >more flaxible so they can arch better and reduce the stroke.
> >
> Except bodyfat wise, Paul and Tony are about equal and Paul (400 pound
> bench) is a better bencher than Tony (240 pounds). I think it's that
> whole ant thing.
>

your example seems to be missing so many details that I can really
comment. The thread is about max rep bench with body-weigh on the bar.
Are you saying that Paul weighs 400 pounds and Tony weighs 240 pounds?
If so, you forgot to say how many reps each got.

Confused,
Micky.

Lordy
September 14th 04, 11:50 PM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:56:43 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:


>>Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
>>body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones


My gut feeling is the ratio is not that relevant. I suspect its more to do
with the way gravity works !?!?!


John Hanson > wrote in
:

> Except bodyfat wise, Paul and Tony are about equal and Paul (400 pound
> bench) is a better bencher than Tony (240 pounds). I think it's that
> whole ant thing.

I was going to mention ants in the OP (and fleas and elephants FWIW!)

But I guess sticking to humans is more relevant. I kinda figured a human
that was too *light* would be relatively weaker/underdeveloped and
chickened out thinking an optimal weight would be not too far below 150lbs
- but it looks like you can go further down.

--
Lordy

Micky Snir
September 15th 04, 12:10 AM
"Lordy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:56:43 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>
> >>Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
> >>body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones
>
>
> My gut feeling is the ratio is not that relevant. I suspect its more
to do
> with the way gravity works !?!?!
>

ok... I guess I was taking for granted the (wrong) "pound for pound"
assumption and working from there. A more precise assumption would be
the Wilks formula or the likes that indeed gives an empiric advantage to
lighter guys, though gravity alone does not account for that.

Mik.

> --
> Lordy

Lordy
September 15th 04, 12:19 AM
"Micky Snir" > wrote in :

>> My gut feeling is the ratio is not that relevant. I suspect its more
> to do
>> with the way gravity works !?!?!
>>
>
> ok... I guess I was taking for granted the (wrong) "pound for pound"
> assumption and working from there. A more precise assumption would be
> the Wilks formula or the likes that indeed gives an empiric advantage to
> lighter guys, though gravity alone does not account for that.

My use of "gut feeing" and "suspect" imply that I dont really know (or can
be bothered) to be sure what I'm talking about! Though I suspect Wilks
Formula (which I only knew about 30 seconds ago) is also bound by the way
gravity works :)

Note use of the word "suspect" again :)

--
Lordy

John Hanson
September 15th 04, 12:57 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:56:14 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:56:43 -0700, "Micky Snir" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 13 Sep 2004 23:08:40 GMT, Lordy > wrote in
>> >> misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >Probably about 10 at the moment (110Kg).
>> >> >
>> >> >But, I guess bodyweight accomplishments dont scale linearly.
>Without
>> >> >looking I'm guessing that the greater disparity or multiplier
>between
>> >body
>> >> >weight and moved weight for various records, is at the lower
>> >bodyweight end
>> >> >of the scale.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm guessing someone who is short in stature (ie stocky not
>skinny),
>> >> >trained and around or under 150-160 would be best at this
>generally?
>> >>
>> >> At the Haggenmiller beer/bench meet, Paul Wong, who is a 148
>pounder
>> >> did about 32 reps if I remember correctly. Tony Scheldrup, a 114
>> >> pounder, did a lot more but I don't recall how many but I think it
>was
>> >> 48. There was also a SHW who took part in that competition and I'm
>> >> not sure he got much more than 15. My point being that the lighter
>> >> you are, the easier it is to do reps with your bodyweight.
>> >
>> >Probably true. Seems like the issue with such a lift besides having
>> >enough strength to press your own weight is the work performed, which
>is
>> >approximately the weight lifted times the distance travellled times
>the
>> >number of reps.
>> >Since the lighter lifters usually have a much better muscle-mass to
>> >body-weight ratio than the fatass heavier ones (ok, not all of them
>are
>> >fatassed) *AND* they have a shorter stroke (shorter limbs), then
>their
>> >advantage over the heavier lifters "multiplies".
>> >Now the shorter stroke is actually not that trivial. The thing is
>that
>> >the real fatasses have a huge barrel chest that reduces the stroke,
>but
>> >then they are also real fatasses, and the smaller guys are usually
>much
>> >more flaxible so they can arch better and reduce the stroke.
>> >
>> Except bodyfat wise, Paul and Tony are about equal and Paul (400 pound
>> bench) is a better bencher than Tony (240 pounds). I think it's that
>> whole ant thing.
>>
>
>your example seems to be missing so many details that I can really
>comment. The thread is about max rep bench with body-weigh on the bar.
>Are you saying that Paul weighs 400 pounds and Tony weighs 240 pounds?
>If so, you forgot to say how many reps each got.
>
The numbers are at the top of this post. Paul competes at 148 and has
benched 402. Tony competes at 114 and has benched 240. In a fun meet
a couple of months ago, Paul benched his weight about 32 times and
Tony benched his weight 38 or 48 times. I don't remember which but
Tony won that contest.

Mike Edey
September 15th 04, 12:59 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:19:53 +0000, Lordy wrote:

> "Micky Snir" > wrote in :
>
>>> My gut feeling is the ratio is not that relevant. I suspect its more
>> to do
>>> with the way gravity works !?!?!
>>>
>>>
>> ok... I guess I was taking for granted the (wrong) "pound for pound"
>> assumption and working from there. A more precise assumption would be
>> the Wilks formula or the likes that indeed gives an empiric advantage to
>> lighter guys, though gravity alone does not account for that.
>
> My use of "gut feeing" and "suspect" imply that I dont really know (or can
> be bothered) to be sure what I'm talking about! Though I suspect Wilks
> Formula (which I only knew about 30 seconds ago) is also bound by the way
> gravity works :)
>
> Note use of the word "suspect" again :)

Probably not much of a factor within the small range of sizes but the
cube/square law could be a factor as well

--Mike

Lyle McDonald
September 15th 04, 01:06 AM
Mike Edey wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:19:53 +0000, Lordy wrote:
>
>
>>"Micky Snir" > wrote in :
>>
>>
>>>>My gut feeling is the ratio is not that relevant. I suspect its more
>>>
>>>to do
>>>
>>>>with the way gravity works !?!?!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>ok... I guess I was taking for granted the (wrong) "pound for pound"
>>>assumption and working from there. A more precise assumption would be
>>>the Wilks formula or the likes that indeed gives an empiric advantage to
>>>lighter guys, though gravity alone does not account for that.
>>
>>My use of "gut feeing" and "suspect" imply that I dont really know (or can
>>be bothered) to be sure what I'm talking about! Though I suspect Wilks
>>Formula (which I only knew about 30 seconds ago) is also bound by the way
>>gravity works :)
>>
>>Note use of the word "suspect" again :)
>
>
> Probably not much of a factor within the small range of sizes but the
> cube/square law could be a factor as well

As I recall, depending on how you regress it, optimal strength levels
realtive to bodyweight aren't found at the highest or lowest weights.
The issue at extremely low weight classes is that stuff like organs,
bones, etc tend to take up a minimum amount of weight no matter how
little you are.

So at very low weight classes, there is a severe limitation to how much
muscle you can carry.

At the higher weight classes, bodyfat %age tends to go up again skewing
the relationship beteen bodyweight and muscle mass.

At some middle weight, you find an optima.

Lyle

Lordy
September 15th 04, 01:24 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in
:

> As I recall, depending on how you regress it, optimal strength levels
> realtive to bodyweight aren't found at the highest or lowest weights.
> The issue at extremely low weight classes is that stuff like organs,
> bones, etc tend to take up a minimum amount of weight no matter how
> little you are.
>
> So at very low weight classes, there is a severe limitation to how much
> muscle you can carry.
>
> At the higher weight classes, bodyfat %age tends to go up again skewing
> the relationship beteen bodyweight and muscle mass.
>
> At some middle weight, you find an optima.


Kewl, so I wasnt too far off when I speculated.....

> But I guess sticking to humans is more relevant. I kinda figured a human
> that was too *light* would be relatively weaker/underdeveloped and
> chickened out thinking an optimal weight would be not too far below
150lbs
> - but it looks like you can go further down.

Still surprised a trained 114 pounder beat a 148 pounder though.

--
Lordy

Lyle McDonald
September 15th 04, 02:48 AM
Lordy wrote:

>>But I guess sticking to humans is more relevant. I kinda figured a human
>>that was too *light* would be relatively weaker/underdeveloped and
>>chickened out thinking an optimal weight would be not too far below
>
> 150lbs
>
>>- but it looks like you can go further down.
>
>
> Still surprised a trained 114 pounder beat a 148 pounder though.

Well, when you start comparing individuals (instead of looking at
averages), you can find freak numbers like this, espeically single
lifts. The 114 lber might be a bench specialist or be biomechaically
built to have a monster bench or have an insane arch that decreases
range of motion or something like that.

There is a lifter right now (who I'm sure is very light) who is a midget
(is that PC?). Putting up monster lifts relative to bodywieght but his
range of motion on all the lifts is very small. So you get a real freak
data point exception.

When you look at averages, rather than the occasional exception to the
curve, you start to see more consistent relationships.

Would be somewhat illustrative to look at the totals for the lifters, if
the 114 lber is just a freak bencher, you'd expect sq/dl to be
proportionally lower, the 148lber might be stronger pound for pound in
the total.

Lyle

John Hanson
September 15th 04, 03:31 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:48:48 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>Lordy wrote:
>
>>>But I guess sticking to humans is more relevant. I kinda figured a human
>>>that was too *light* would be relatively weaker/underdeveloped and
>>>chickened out thinking an optimal weight would be not too far below
>>
>> 150lbs
>>
>>>- but it looks like you can go further down.
>>
>>
>> Still surprised a trained 114 pounder beat a 148 pounder though.
>
>Well, when you start comparing individuals (instead of looking at
>averages), you can find freak numbers like this, espeically single
>lifts. The 114 lber might be a bench specialist or be biomechaically
>built to have a monster bench or have an insane arch that decreases
>range of motion or something like that.
>
>There is a lifter right now (who I'm sure is very light) who is a midget
>(is that PC?). Putting up monster lifts relative to bodywieght but his
>range of motion on all the lifts is very small. So you get a real freak
>data point exception.
>
>When you look at averages, rather than the occasional exception to the
>curve, you start to see more consistent relationships.
>
>Would be somewhat illustrative to look at the totals for the lifters, if
>the 114 lber is just a freak bencher, you'd expect sq/dl to be
>proportionally lower, the 148lber might be stronger pound for pound in
>the total.
>
From another post in this thread:

Paul competes at 148 and has benched 402. Tony competes at 114 and
has benched 240. In a fun meet a couple of months ago, Paul benched
his weight about 32 times and Tony benched his weight 38 or 48 times.
I don't remember which but Tony won that contest.

August might remember the exact number of reps. I think he'll vouch
that Paul and Tony are carrying about the same amount of bodyfat (not
much) but Paul is way more muscular.