More accurate way to measure strength?

[Inferno0032]

I lift 3 times a week every week and do my other workouts on tues/thurs. What I've been wondering about is a more accurate way of measuring how much one lifts.

I see short fat guys come in and they'll be benching 235 and naturally you'd think that they must be hella strong. But i look at they're arm angles while they are lifting. They have short arms and a "tall" chest. They lift the weight 8 inches at max and they're upper/lower arm angle is at 90 degrees.

Now, when i lift, I'm tall and lean and i dont have a "tall" chest at all. For me to go all the way to my chest takes my arms to the limit of my shoulder flexibility where it can even hurt me, so i go within an inch of my chest. I lift sets of 165 right now, and my arm angle is less than 45 degrees. Due to my longer arms and shorter chest, I have to lift the weight probably at least twice as far as these other guys, my arms are almost at 90 degrees when i lift it off the bar.

Im just curious as would it be fair to say that the more "work" in the physics meaning is the one with the most overall muscle strength. Seems to make sense to me and wanted to pass that by all you smart guys here. Also, im sure that there's alot of other variables such as leverage and torque and things like that which also make lifting with a wider wingspan more difficult. Im i totally fvcked in the mind or am i getting somehwere?

 

[Inferno0032]

Just one TTT due to forum issues.

 

[tfinch2]

I know where you're coming from. My arm span is 6'8". I can max out at ~230 lbs right now and I don't think it'll go much higher.

 

[Deeko]

Obviously the tall and lanky are at a disadvantage to the short and stocky....but that's life in a sport, just like you won't find too many sub-250 pounders playing offensive line in the NFL, or too many sub 6-footers playing basketball, etc.

However, if you want to measure the output of the muscle...even if they have less distance to go, the short and stocky still put up the weight, and the tall and lanky don't....I would bet the actual amount of force exerted by their muscles is still higher than the taller one.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Obviously the tall and lanky are at a disadvantage to the short and stocky....but that's life in a sport, just like you won't find too many sub-250 pounders playing offensive line in the NFL, or too many sub 6-footers playing basketball, etc.

However, if you want to measure the output of the muscle...even if they have less distance to go, the short and stocky still put up the weight, and the tall and lanky don't....I would bet the actual amount of force exerted by their muscles is still higher than the taller one.

You don't think two muscles of identical mass stretched over arms of two different lengths would equate to two different lifting capacities for a given level of exertion? I think it would given the distadvantage of leverage in the longer arm.

 

[jersiq]

I'm one of those short, stocky guys.
And I grant, it is a benefit to have small arms to bench press, but it is a lot harder to get a good range of motion on back exercises that involve pulling.

I have to admit though, it is great to be able to do full squats when the tall lanky guys only do girlie half squats.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Obviously the tall and lanky are at a disadvantage to the short and stocky....but that's life in a sport, just like you won't find too many sub-250 pounders playing offensive line in the NFL, or too many sub 6-footers playing basketball, etc.

However, if you want to measure the output of the muscle...even if they have less distance to go, the short and stocky still put up the weight, and the tall and lanky don't....I would bet the actual amount of force exerted by their muscles is still higher than the taller one.

Well, Work is Force x Distance.

Just multiply the force the weights are exerting downward (mg) times the distance between the bar at the bottom and top end of travel, and there you go.

Going from chest level to full extension, the short and stocky guys aren't lifting the bar as far as the tall and lanky. But, all else being equal, they can do more reps of the same weight to do the same amount of Work.

 

[alkemyst]

Squats/deadlift/bench combination is a good indicator for overall strength.

Getting to a combined 1000 lbs is a good goal for many.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Deeko
Obviously the tall and lanky are at a disadvantage to the short and stocky....but that's life in a sport, just like you won't find too many sub-250 pounders playing offensive line in the NFL, or too many sub 6-footers playing basketball, etc.

However, if you want to measure the output of the muscle...even if they have less distance to go, the short and stocky still put up the weight, and the tall and lanky don't....I would bet the actual amount of force exerted by their muscles is still higher than the taller one.

Well, Work is Force x Distance.

Just multiply the force the weights are exerting downward (mg) times the distance between the bar at the bottom and top end of travel, and there you go.

Going from chest level to full extension, the short and stocky guys aren't lifting the bar as far as the tall and lanky. But, all else being equal, they can do more reps of the same weight to do the same amount of Work.

My opinion is that the instananeous force of the short and stocky weight lifter is higher than that of the tall and lanky weight lifter. It depends on your definition of "strength", total work or instantaneous force?

 

[Inferno0032]

At the same time, there are so many extra variables i think. Like for a person with long arms, when your arms are bent a long ways further, your muscle is stretched alot further which also can add to an extra force needed initially to get it going. Its hard to word what im talking about so correct me if it makes no sense

And as far as squats, the same thing applies to what i've noticed. My hips are barely flexible enough to do a full 90 degree squat, so i usually am at about 100-105 degrees if i were to guess. Also seems a bit unfair when people judge strength solely by how much can be lifted.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Obviously the tall and lanky are at a disadvantage to the short and stocky....but that's life in a sport, just like you won't find too many sub-250 pounders playing offensive line in the NFL, or too many sub 6-footers playing basketball, etc.

However, if you want to measure the output of the muscle...even if they have less distance to go, the short and stocky still put up the weight, and the tall and lanky don't....I would bet the actual amount of force exerted by their muscles is still higher than the taller one.

No, it isn't. The weight has much more leverage over the lanky lifter's muscles, so those muscles have to be stronger to lift the same weight.

Think about it: I'm 6'4". On a bench press, when the weight bar hits my chest, my arms are pretty long, so my elbows are below the bench I'm lying on. My upper arms are pointing down at a pretty steep angle.

Now take a short, stocky guy, maybe call him "barrel chested". Have him lie on the bench and lower the bar to his chest.
Chances are, his upper arms are barely pointing down, or maybe even are pointing almost straight out. Plus, he doesn't have as far to push to reach maximum extension.

So he's not only starting at a more advantageous point to press the weight up, he doesn't have as far to press it.

It's obvious he doesn't have to be as strong as I am to lift the same amount of weight.

Now, for a different point of view, let's take me vs. the short stocky guy who can bench the same amount and have us arm wrestle.
I'm going to take him down, hard, because that's where my longer arm had an advantage. My arm will be more upright than his to begin with, since he'll have to extend his out further away from his body to grasp my hand.

So that leverage works both ways, just depends on what you're doing with it.

 

[Deeko]

I know the total work is likely higher...see my other responses. I'm saying the "peak strength" or "instant force" is probably still higher on the shorter guy.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Deeko
Obviously the tall and lanky are at a disadvantage to the short and stocky....but that's life in a sport, just like you won't find too many sub-250 pounders playing offensive line in the NFL, or too many sub 6-footers playing basketball, etc.

However, if you want to measure the output of the muscle...even if they have less distance to go, the short and stocky still put up the weight, and the tall and lanky don't....I would bet the actual amount of force exerted by their muscles is still higher than the taller one.

No, it isn't. The weight has much more leverage over the lanky lifter's muscles, so those muscles have to be stronger to lift the same weight.

Think about it: I'm 6'4". On a bench press, when the weight bar hits my chest, my arms are pretty long, so my elbows are below the bench I'm lying on. My upper arms are pointing down at a pretty steep angle.

Now take a short, stocky guy, maybe call him "barrel chested". Have him lie on the bench and lower the bar to his chest.
Chances are, his upper arms are barely pointing down, or maybe even are pointing almost straight out. Plus, he doesn't have as far to push to reach maximum extension.

So he's not only starting at a more advantageous point to press the weight up, he doesn't have as far to press it.

It's obvious he doesn't have to be as strong as I am to lift the same amount of weight.

Now, for a different point of view, let's take me vs. the short stocky guy who can bench the same amount and have us arm wrestle.
I'm going to take him down, hard, because that's where my longer arm had an advantage. My arm will be more upright than his to begin with, since he'll have to extend his out further away from his body to grasp my hand.

So that leverage works both ways, just depends on what you're doing with it.

You arm won't be more upright, at least not assuming you're on the same level. His arm can't stretch upwards, but your can lean forward to accomodate the height of his arm. Perhaps you got it backwards, perhaps I'm missing something...

 

[Inferno0032]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I know the total work is likely higher...see my other responses. I'm saying the "peak strength" or "instant force" is probably still higher on the shorter guy.

Actually, accounting for the leverage, the tall guy would have to apply more force if im not mistaken, probably proportionally higher than the shorter guy. It also all depends on how much shorter each person's arms are, the angles there lifting from, the leverage, where your grip is and other things all rolled into one.

I was also thinking. Should the force or the work be the best measure of strength. Since im thinking when you also add reps, you add more work. Wouldn't that kind be strength+muscle endurance? Just a quick though.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Deeko
My opinion is that the instananeous force of the short and stocky weight lifter is higher than that of the tall and lanky weight lifter. It depends on your definition of "strength", total work or instantaneous force?

Yup, that's the lever arm working for you.

IMHO you really need to consider force, work, and power semi-independently. High force is great for situations where you need to manipulate something...break the branch off a tree for firewood, carry a heavy piece of furniture, maneuver the engine in a car slightly to line up the motor mounts. High work is good for things like construction, where you're carrying fairly weighty stuff all day long. You can carry a lot more concrete in 50-lb bags than 150-lb bags without getting worn out. High power is again different...sprinters, the "fast wall-climb" Olympians, boxers, and others who use really high acceleration and momentary energy output end up developing more "power" than the previously mentioned factors.

To summarize, strength, endurance, and speed correlate roughly with force, work, and power for most humans.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Inferno0032
Actually, accounting for the leverage, the tall guy would have to apply more force if im not mistaken, probably proportionally higher than the shorter guy. It also all depends on how much shorter each person's arms are, the angles there lifting from, the leverage, where your grip is and other things all rolled into one.

Yeah, you're right. The shorter the arm, the less peak torque needs to be generated to move a given amount of weight. It is a biomechanical advantage. The short-armed 5'6" guy who generates the same torques with his muscles as the 6'6" guy will move a heavier bar.

Your solution to that is to forget about it, because ultimately no one else in the gym cares. Accept your limitations and realize you probably aren't going to win any national powerlifting titles. If you want to drastically improve your bench to whatever level you think is respectable, change the way you train. Find specific bench/powerlifting routines.

I was also thinking. Should the force or the work be the best measure of strength. Since im thinking when you also add reps, you add more work. Wouldn't that kind be strength+muscle endurance? Just a quick though.

The classic competition of strength has been, and will always be, who can lift the heaviest rock.

So don't compete in powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting. World's Strongest Man and the NFL Scouting Combine reward the ability to move a given weight many times, go do those

 

[Inferno0032]

I dont lift to compete. Only to work on my other sports. I've just been thinking about this and seeing if my thoughts were correct. I dont really care if i impress other people or anything like that, i guess its more of an ego thing That, and i get peeved sometimes when i'm told to "go lower", when going lower means a hyperextesion.

 

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: Inferno0032
At the same time, there are so many extra variables i think. Like for a person with long arms, when your arms are bent a long ways further, your muscle is stretched alot further which also can add to an extra force needed initially to get it going. Its hard to word what im talking about so correct me if it makes no sense

And as far as squats, the same thing applies to what i've noticed. My hips are barely flexible enough to do a full 90 degree squat, so i usually am at about 100-105 degrees if i were to guess. Also seems a bit unfair when people judge strength solely by how much can be lifted.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Stop trying to justify why you aren't as strong as other people and focus on lifting heavier weight.

 

[RESmonkey]

I can only rep 115.... ...about 10x3. I can do a max of 6-7 reps in a set, but I try not to kill myself the first two sets.

 

[Inferno0032]

Originally posted by: crt1530

Originally posted by: Inferno0032
At the same time, there are so many extra variables i think. Like for a person with long arms, when your arms are bent a long ways further, your muscle is stretched alot further which also can add to an extra force needed initially to get it going. Its hard to word what im talking about so correct me if it makes no sense

And as far as squats, the same thing applies to what i've noticed. My hips are barely flexible enough to do a full 90 degree squat, so i usually am at about 100-105 degrees if i were to guess. Also seems a bit unfair when people judge strength solely by how much can be lifted.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Stop trying to justify why you aren't as strong as other people and focus on lifting heavier weight.

LOL, im trying obviously. But the true physics of it tells it all. Strength is more than just what's on the bar.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Didn't read all the responses but book STARTING STRENGTH by Mark Rippetoe says that the larger (taller) your chest is, the bigger angle is (closer to right angle) is, the more mechanically effective lift is (closer to vertical).

 

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: Inferno0032

Originally posted by: crt1530

Originally posted by: Inferno0032
At the same time, there are so many extra variables i think. Like for a person with long arms, when your arms are bent a long ways further, your muscle is stretched alot further which also can add to an extra force needed initially to get it going. Its hard to word what im talking about so correct me if it makes no sense

And as far as squats, the same thing applies to what i've noticed. My hips are barely flexible enough to do a full 90 degree squat, so i usually am at about 100-105 degrees if i were to guess. Also seems a bit unfair when people judge strength solely by how much can be lifted.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Stop trying to justify why you aren't as strong as other people and focus on lifting heavier weight.

LOL, im trying obviously. But the true physics of it tells it all. Strength is more than just what's on the bar.

No, it's not. There is no real world situation where your leverages will not be a factor. Strength is how much you can pick up and move around. Period. There are no special calculators that give extra points to people who are a certain height or who have decided they are "hard gainers." Watch a World's Strongest Man contest. The vast majority of those guys are well over six feet tall.

You are weak and are trying to justify it to soothe your bruised ego.

 

[Inferno0032]

I understand where you are coming from and you have a point. But in direct comparison between a person with shorter arms and one with longer arms, same weight requires more force by the person with longer arms... hence more strength. I definitely wouldn't consider myself weak, this is just something I've thought about. I lift quite a large sum more in all lifts that i do than almost anyone i lift with, so weak may not be the proper word. I realize im far from being considered "strong", so dont get me wrong.