Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:06 am
I understand that, but I still don't get the part about weightlifting non-weightlifters.
I guess I'm not getting the point of the thread.
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:33 pm
The exercises included in the strength standards are all major compound lifts. They were chosen as a measure of real world strength ... the type of strength that applies to a wide range of sports and athletic activities.
Curls on the other hand are an isolation exercise with very little crossover to any sport of athletic activity.
Of course, the standards aren't perfect, and an individual athalete may struggle with any one of the selected lifts. For example, if someone is advanced in everything but power cleans, it's probably safe to say he/she is an advanced lifter.
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:41 pm
Matt, what's the intended use of the standards?
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:56 pm
The short version is to give a guidelines to "open-age" (not masters/older lifters/special populations) athletes about where they stand in relative lifts. Based on the experience of Lon Kilgore and Mark Rippetoe.
You can't read too much into them, but they're handy for all of that. You get some idea of what it means to deadlift 300 lbs at 183 pounds of bodyweight, or that it's bad when your bench press is "intermediate" but your shoulder press is "novice."
I agree that a curl standard would be a waste. It's not terribly predictive as I understand it.
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:03 pm
But wouldn't the curl be useful for determining bragging rights among the minions of the mirror?
"Heck, ah can curl 200 without even giving mahself whiplash!"
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:21 am
Another benefit is that it can show areas of weakness. In Matt's example of being Advanced in all the "slow" lifts but not the clean, may indicate a lack of power, and therefore an area the person should work on. However, once you start specializing in a style of lifting, the ratios go out the window. It would be unusual for a competitive powerlifter to also be competitive in Olympic weightlifting. The training is just too different so the standards become meaningless. That doesn't mean that a powerlifter wouldn't benefit from improving his clean, just that it's not going to be as important as his big 3 lifts. That's probably where Alfred was going with the weightlifter/non weightlifter thing.
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:30 am
pdellorto wrote:The short version is to give a guidelines to "open-age" (not masters/older lifters/special populations) athletes about where they stand in relative lifts. Based on the experience of Lon Kilgore and Mark Rippetoe.
I'm glad you mentioned about non standard populations.
The standards need to be taken with a grain of salt in that someone 198# at 5' will probably be able to lift more than a 198# 6'2" lifter. Therefore it's unrealistic that they would be able to lift the same with the same training. It's really geared to the average. Some people will blast through novice and interediate while still in the newbe phase, others may never hit novice.
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:06 pm
It's also worth mentioning that because the standards are based on bodyweight, signifigantly overweight people generally score poorly, even though they may be pretty strong in absolute terms.
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:44 pm
I was also thinking about how form affects curls and cleans. With curls, good form minimizes the weight you can move, and bad form (i.e. body english, etc.) increases the weight. For cleans, good form increases the weight you can successfully get up, but doesn't make you look better than you really are.
I know this, as I can clean about 3#, but I can curl nearly 5.