How much of strength do you base on size?

[legkicktko]

I know I am opening a major can of worms. It is very difficult to get an unbiased opinion on this matter (myself included). I'm going to make this as concise as possible.

So we all know guys at the gym that are big (sometimes round) who move large amounts of weight, sometimes deadlifting, squatting, or benching. However, their strength percentages are generally not as impressive because they aren't moving a lot in comparison to their size (think of a 280 lb guy deadlifting 500 lbs, 500 lbs is a lot, but for him it is not even 200% of his bodyweight).

So having worked in a gym throughout college (not anymore), I saw a lot of this dialogue back and forth about whether those guys are considered as strong as a slimmer guy that is pushing better percentages but not necessarily the same amount of weight (although in some cases they push just as much). So think of a 170lb guy who deadlifts 405, he is not in the 500lb deadlift club but his percentage in his max is very impressive compared to the guy who weighs 280lbs and lifts 500 (in my opinion).

Here comes the part where I'm biased. I was recently in a gym and saw a fat guy squatting 225lbs. A much slimmer kid, probably in high school, took the squat rack after and squatted the same thing after a few warm up sets. The fat guy clearly felt insecure. I watched him watching the kid and then approach him. He went to go help the kid with his "form" (which was good), and told the kid that although he may be squatting the same, his squat was actually significantly more because he was the bigger guy so he was squatting that 225 on top of his already heavier frame.

I'm curious as to whether or not you've heard big people use that as an excuse for shitty percentages. I've spent a great deal of time training and working in the gym industry and have never flat out heard someone say that they have strength more difficult because they have more mass. Obviously this wouldn't apply to certain lifts (you're not benching the barbell in addition to your bodyweight).

That said, what do you think of his point? He was basically saying lifting heavy is easier for slim guys, which is the complete opposite of what we generally hear in relation to strength. The way I explain it to people is that if you tell me...

"My 16 year old brother benches 185, is he strong?"

It would be impossible to answer. If he is 125 lbs, then he is very strong. If he is 240, then no, he is actually pretty weak at that lift. It's all relative.

 

[Phlog]

"I'm going to make this as concise as possible.

It's all relative, or absolute."

Fixed for you.

 

[LatFlare]

If you look only at official world record Olympic lifts the ratios of weight lifted: bodyweight of the lifter show a linear decrease.

 

[209since1978]

I know I am opening a major can of worms. It is very difficult to get an unbiased opinion on this matter (myself included). I'm going to make this as concise as possible.

So we all know guys at the gym that are big (sometimes round) who move large amounts of weight, sometimes deadlifting, squatting, or benching. However, their strength percentages are generally not as impressive because they aren't moving a lot in comparison to their size (think of a 280 lb guy deadlifting 500 lbs, 500 lbs is a lot, but for him it is not even 200% of his bodyweight).

So having worked in a gym throughout college (not anymore), I saw a lot of this dialogue back and forth about whether those guys are considered as strong as a slimmer guy that is pushing better percentages but not necessarily the same amount of weight (although in some cases they push just as much). So think of a 170lb guy who deadlifts 405, he is not in the 500lb deadlift club but his percentage in his max is very impressive compared to the guy who weighs 280lbs and lifts 500 (in my opinion).

Here comes the part where I'm biased. I was recently in a gym and saw a fat guy squatting 225lbs. A much slimmer kid, probably in high school, took the squat rack after and squatted the same thing after a few warm up sets. The fat guy clearly felt insecure. I watched him watching the kid and then approach him. He went to go help the kid with his "form" (which was good), and told the kid that although he may be squatting the same, his squat was actually significantly more because he was the bigger guy so he was squatting that 225 on top of his already heavier frame.

I'm curious as to whether or not you've heard big people use that as an excuse for shitty percentages. I've spent a great deal of time training and working in the gym industry and have never flat out heard someone say that they have strength more difficult because they have more mass. Obviously this wouldn't apply to certain lifts (you're not benching the barbell in addition to your bodyweight).

That said, what do you think of his point? He was basically saying lifting heavy is easier for slim guys, which is the complete opposite of what we generally hear in relation to strength. The way I explain it to people is that if you tell me...

"My 16 year old brother benches 185, is he strong?"

It would be impossible to answer. If he is 125 lbs, then he is very strong. If he is 240, then no, he is actually pretty weak at that lift. It's all relative.

I'm always impressed with the smaller/leaner guys at the gym that lift higher percentage but admittedly I'm biased because I fall in that group.

 

[legkicktko]

I'm always impressed with the smaller/leaner guys at the gym that lift higher percentage but admittedly I'm biased because I fall in that group.

Same here, that is partially why I want to hear a legitimate argument from the other spectrum.

 

[JauntyAngle]

Same here, that is partially why I want to hear a legitimate argument from the other spectrum.

It's important not to cream your pants about relative strength, because it naturally decreases with mass. That's why ants spend much of the day walking around with 20x their bodyweight and Hathor Bjornsson can walk half a dozen steps with 3.5x his bodyweight. It's a power law thing- as you get larger mass increases as a power of three and muscular cross-section increases as a power of two. If you doubled in size you would be four times as strong, but 8 times as heavy. We shouldn't idolize smaller strength athletes because they have been less victimized by mathematics than larger athletes.

To know how impressive something is you need to start by look at the distribution of performance for similar athletes, not multiples of bodyweight. You need to compare lifts to records at different levels. A 130lb lifter squatting 600 would be more impressive than a 300lb lifter squatting 900 not because of bodyweight multiples, but because the 130lb lifter pretty absolutely destroyed the world record, while the 300lb lifter is doing something that a few other people can do (I think- I don't know much about PL records). Performance against records tells you what is impressive because the record tells you what people think is more or less the limit given incredible dedication, great technique, perfect preparation and amazing genetics.

But then what about two athletes who both just narrowly beat the world records, one 130lbs and one 300lbs? Well, it's nice to know that both of these are at the limit compared to athletes of similar size... but don't we want to know what is the limit for all athletes? Yeah, I want to know how strong a 130lb guy can be, 140lb guy can be... and also women too... but perhaps most of all I want to know how strong a human being of any size can be. I want to know the strongest a human can be. Also fastest. Highest possible jump. Etc. And that's the argument for absolute strength as the clincher, once you've taken into account performance relative to the population of similar athletes.

 

[panamaican]

Not my area but I'll give my opinion. It's probably harder for the heavier guy for any closed chain exercise that requires him to move his body as well as the weight in question - squats, deads, pull ups, etc.

If you're asking who's stronger, the heavy guy is stronger, if you're asking who's more impressive - the little guy.

But at the end of the day, if you need to move something heavy, either the person can move it or they can't. Relative strength doesn't mean very much if someone can't move the things you need moved.

 

[Phlog]

All of this shit comes out in the wash. In judo, kickboxing, rugby, American football the bigger guy wins.

Thats why there are weight classes and why you don't see recievers lining up against the O line.

Reality of competition is your other side to the argument.

 

[BayAreaGuy]

If two guys ran the same distance with the same time, and one was 150 pouds and the other was 250, the 250 guy is way more impressive.

 

[Thaijitsu612]

Are you asking if total weight lifted is more impressive then relative weight lifted?

The part in the op about the same weight being more difficult for bigger guys is bullshit. It is not easier for a 170 pounder guy to squat 225 then it is for a 200 pound guy. The big guy in your gym is an idiot

 

[Pitbull]

"My 16 year old brother benches 185, is he strong?"

It would be impossible to answer. If he is 125 lbs, then he is very strong. If he is 240, then no, he is actually pretty weak at that lift. It's all relative.

I don't agree with this at all. If someone weighs 125lbs and benches 185, then he is small and weak. If you can't lift a lot, you're weak. Being small doesn't change that and somehow make you strong.

I've had small blokes saying I lift more than them because I weigh more (only 90kg). I have no idea what that has to do with it. I've eaten and lifted my way to this weight and strength because I wanted to be strong.

 

[legkicktko]

Are you asking if total weight lifted is more impressive then relative weight lifted?

The part in the op about the same weight being more difficult for bigger guys is bullshit. It is not easier for a 170 pounder guy to squat 225 then it is for a 200 pound guy. The big guy in your gym is an idiot

There are people who genuinely believe that and negate relative strength. I didn’t think it was that debatable but apparently it is.

If Sergio Pettis deadlifted 450 lbs, most people would be like damm, that’s pretty good.

If Brock Lesnar bragged about it, he’d get roasted.

It’s not as simple as 450 lbs is a lot to deadlift. But that’s my opinion.

 

[legkicktko]

I don't agree with this at all. If someone weighs 125lbs and benches 185, then he is small and weak. If you can't lift a lot, you're weak. Being small doesn't change that and somehow make you strong.

I've had small blokes saying I lift more than them because I weigh more (only 90kg). I have no idea what that has to do with it. I've eaten and lifted my way to this weight and strength because I wanted to be strong.

I respect your viewpoint but to me percentages matter. At 90 kg, you’re not the heaviest guy. So if someone who weighs 130 kg lifts the same amount of weight in his core lifts as you, are you stronger? Or equal? I would say you’re stronger, but that’s my opinion.

 

[SexyMahnaz]

Obviously if two guys lift roughly the same weight, I'll be more impressed by the lighter guy. I don't know when that continuum ends, but generally speaking the heavier the weight, the more impressive.

 

[Thaijitsu612]

Not my area but I'll give my opinion. It's probably harder for the heavier guy for any closed chain exercise that requires him to move his body as well as the weight in question - squats, deads, pull ups, etc.

If you're asking who's stronger, the heavy guy is stronger, if you're asking who's more impressive - the little guy.

But at the end of the day, if you need to move something heavy, either the person can move it or they can't. Relative strength doesn't mean very much if someone can't move the things you need moved.

I'd agree with you here. This argument isn't about which guy is stronger. Whichever one lifts more is stronger. Which is more impressive though? I'd say that's case by case.

This often degrades into ridiculous examples with enormous gaps in bodyweight and weight lifted.

Rather then a 115lb guy bench 10 times his bodyweight vs a 400 pound guy benching 1.5 times has bodyweight, real examples would be better

For example, my workout partner is 155 and can bench 305. I'm about 205 right now and can bench 315. His bench is easily a bigger feat of strength in my opinion.

 

[Pitbull]

I respect your viewpoint but to me percentages matter. At 90 kg, you’re not the heaviest guy. So if someone who weighs 130 kg lifts the same amount of weight in his core lifts as you, are you stronger? Or equal? I would say you’re stronger, but that’s my opinion.

If we lift the same weight, we would be equally as strong. I would have better relative strength, but in the real world, our strength would be the same.

The only people who care about this are weight class athletes, and small and weak people who are trying to make their poor lifts look more impressive than they are.

 

[panamaican]

I'd agree with you here. This argument isn't about which guy is stronger. Whichever one lifts more is stronger. Which is more impressive though? I'd say that's case by case.

This often degrades into ridiculous examples with enormous gaps in bodyweight and weight lifted.

Rather then a 115lb guy bench 10 times his bodyweight vs a 400 pound guy benching 1.5 times has bodyweight, real examples would be better

For example, my workout partner is 155 and can bench 305. I'm about 205 right now and can bench 315. His bench is easily a bigger feat of strength in my opinion.

I agree that the little guy is more impressive. He's just not stronger. Your friend is more impressive that you but if I need 315 lbs moved, he can't do it and you can.

 

[legkicktko]

If we lift the same weight, we would be equally as strong. I would have better relative strength, but in the real world, our strength would be the same.

The only people who care about this are weight class athletes, and small and weak people who are trying to make their poor lifts look more impressive than they are.

You had me until here. That is too biased. It would be like me saying its fat boy logic to disagree with me.

Obviously, there are two ways of looking at it and it seems like there is too much polarity for both sides to see the other.

All I can say is common sense is common sense. You are turning zero heads in the gym weighting 280 and benching 300. We all have different frames. We know what men that weigh 150, 160, 170, 180, 200, 250, or 300 lbs are capable of. We know that for a disciplined male that is over 250, a deadlift north of 700 lbs is certainly attainable and a badge of significant strength. Likewise, for someone south of 170, a deadlift over 500 is competitive level and very impressive as well. We don't all have the same frame. Therefore, it is common sense that not just in powerlifting, but in the gym industry overall, we judge strength relative to size.

This is my opinion, but I genuinely understand where you are coming from. If I own a moving company and I need to employ guys, I don't care as much about relative strength. Point taken.

 

[Pitbull]

You had me until here. That is too biased. It would be like me saying its fat boy logic to disagree with me.

Obviously, there are two ways of looking at it and it seems like there is too much polarity for both sides to see the other.

All I can say is common sense is common sense. You are turning zero heads in the gym weighting 280 and benching 300. We all have different frames. We know what men that weigh 150, 160, 170, 180, 200, 250, or 300 lbs are capable of. We know that for a disciplined male that is over 250, a deadlift north of 700 lbs is certainly attainable and a badge of significant strength. Likewise, for someone south of 170, a deadlift over 500 is competitive level and very impressive as well. We don't all have the same frame. Therefore, it is common sense that not just in powerlifting, but in the gym industry overall, we judge strength relative to size.

This is my opinion, but I genuinely understand where you are coming from. If I own a moving company and I need to employ guys, I don't care as much about relative strength. Point taken.

It's not biased at all. It's normally small and weak people who care about this stuff as it benefits them.
Out, of interest, how much do you weigh and how tall are you? Is it fair to assume from your examples that you're not very strong?

 

[legkicktko]

It's not biased at all. It's normally small and weak people who care about this stuff as it benefits them.
Out, of interest, how much do you weigh and how tall are you? Is it fair to assume from your examples that you're not very strong?

It’s not actually, that is a hilariously unobjective statement.

There are clearly two sides to this and I’m acknowledging both. You assuming my viewpont of balance is because I’m not strong or small is hilarious and highlights the bias.

Is it fair to assume that people who negate relative strength are 25% < bodyfat and relatively weak compared to strong people their same size?