so we getting into some vector calc now?
[quote]bignate wrote:
so we getting into some vector calc now?[/quote]
yeah … let’s not …
[quote]apple12345 wrote:
[quote]grettiron wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]apple12345 wrote:
[quote]Ethan7X wrote:
I can’t believe how some people are arguing about this.
Listen up folks, this will delineate things very clearly for you 
Subject A: Bench 225x1
Subject B: Bench 225x2
Estimated 1 rep Max for A: 225; Estimated 1 rep Max for B: 235
B is not “2x” stronger than A, despite the fact he can push the same quantifiable mass 2x instead of 1x.
The difference is only ~10 pounds in their overall productive force & work output.
You will have to look at the ratio between 10 pounds versus the overall mass being pushed, since that is the difference. That is the % increase in strength,which is very low.[/quote]
So you mean that if x energy is needed to move a weight from point a to point b, x2 energy is not needed to move it twice? strong logic
[/quote]
Technically speaking, since the barbell is returning to its original location in both instances, by definition the work accomplished in both is ZERO.
[/quote]
No, you need to use a line or path integral to evaluate work. That means it matters what happens as the force vector moves through space, even though it ends up back at point a.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/intare.html#c2
Also, to apple, we’re not talking about if someone has twice the energy (work) capacity, we’re debating if they are twice as strong. And so we’re back at debating the definition of strong. I don’t think it should be defined in terms of fundamental physical concepts. I think it is the bar weight used on a successful lift, period.
Also I don’t think the concept of “twice as strong” has any meaning. A 200lb bench is nothing compared to a 400lb bench. There needs to be some sort of nonlinear scaling (like logarithmic but not actually a log scale) between 0 and the maximum bench (Mendy’s 715?). [/quote]
The reason i started wondering about this it seems so weird that average people benching 200 lbs got half the strength as someone serious and big enough to bench 400 lbs. There has to be a nonlinear scale of strength, but how does that make sense? obviously if x muscles is needed to move x weight from exact point a to point b the double would be needed to move double the weight or am i missing something here?
[/quote]
There are far more factors involved my friend
[quote]grettiron wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]apple12345 wrote:
[quote]Ethan7X wrote:
I can’t believe how some people are arguing about this.
Listen up folks, this will delineate things very clearly for you
Subject A: Bench 225x1
Subject B: Bench 225x2
Estimated 1 rep Max for A: 225; Estimated 1 rep Max for B: 235
B is not “2x” stronger than A, despite the fact he can push the same quantifiable mass 2x instead of 1x.
The difference is only ~10 pounds in their overall productive force & work output.
You will have to look at the ratio between 10 pounds versus the overall mass being pushed, since that is the difference. That is the % increase in strength,which is very low.[/quote]
So you mean that if x energy is needed to move a weight from point a to point b, x2 energy is not needed to move it twice? strong logic
[/quote]
Technically speaking, since the barbell is returning to its original location in both instances, by definition the work accomplished in both is ZERO.
[/quote]
No, you need to use a line or path integral to evaluate work. That means it matters what happens as the force vector moves through space, even though it ends up back at point a.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/intare.html#c2
Also, to apple, we’re not talking about if someone has twice the energy (work) capacity, we’re debating if they are twice as strong. And so we’re back at debating the definition of strong. I don’t think it should be defined in terms of fundamental physical concepts. I think it is the bar weight used on a successful lift, period.
Also I don’t think the concept of “twice as strong” has any meaning. A 200lb bench is nothing compared to a 400lb bench. There needs to be some sort of nonlinear scaling (like logarithmic but not actually a log scale) between 0 and the maximum bench (Mendy’s 715?). [/quote]
A logarithmic-esque approach could work when simply comparing the lifts, but when applied the respective bodies, it can become pretty hectic. Numerous confounding variables (and outliers) would be addressed with “fixes” to any proposed equation. Could wind up with something more fucked up than Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy if taken too seriously.
Ergo, who gives a shit. Debate is invalid. “Twice as strong” has no meaning.
[quote]grettiron wrote:
Ergo, who gives a shit. Debate is invalid. “Twice as strong” has no meaning.[/quote]
LOL exactly
[quote]arramzy wrote:
This has got to be the most interesting pointless thread…
IMO:
Ratio of wilks score.[/quote]
Wilks is garbage in my opinion.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]arramzy wrote:
This has got to be the most interesting pointless thread…
IMO:
Ratio of wilks score.[/quote]
Wilks is garbage in my opinion.[/quote]
Might not be perfect but certainly more meaningful to the sport that some discussion of force vectors… Seeing how IPF world records for all classes are quite similar WILKs wise (other than a couple standout guys), seems good to me.
[quote]arramzy wrote:
Ratio of wilks score.[/quote]
Yup. But it tends to be little people who are a fan of the wilks. And I’m a little person.
Why is wilks garbage?
1.) This doesn’t fucking matter. I have also wondered about it though.
2.) Your given numbers are: Lifter A lifts 200 kg for 1 rep and 100 kg for 20-30 reps. Lifter B lifts 100 kg for 1 rep but we do not know Lifter B’s 20-30 rep max. I think we should compare equivalent rep maxes, instead of saying Lifter A’s 20-30 rep max is equal to Lifter B’s 1 rep max. I guess we could assume that Lifter B’s 20-30 rep max is half of Lifter A’s 20-30 rep max. This would make Lifter A twice as strong, just like with the 1 rep maxes.
Neither, and both. Seriously, they say there’s no such thing as a dumb question…well I think they’re wrong.
It hinges entirely on how you define “strong”. And guess what? There’s a crapload of different, equally valid ways of defining it. That’s why when someone hits a world record squat, it doesn’t make them the strongest man in the world, it just means they’re the best at the squat portion of powerlifting, as per its current rules.
I would say yes you are twice as strong if your max is 200kg
However doing a single rep of 100kg is 30 times as easy.
Strength is maximum output. I would that a person with twice the bench max can apply twice the force at the same point within the movement of the bench press.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]arramzy wrote:
Ratio of wilks score.[/quote]
Yup. But it tends to be little people who are a fan of the wilks. And I’m a little person.
Why is wilks garbage?
[/quote]
I always imagined it would be the other way around and the bigger fellas (and gals) would prefer Wilks. It seems to be the little guys would want to use bodyweight coefficients, since that is more beneficial to them than a larger lifter.
I alays hear about these 140 pound guys bragging about deadlifting 3x their bodyweight…Well, that is awesome but your DL is STILL only 400 pounds lol…the best deadlifer in the world didn’t DL 3x his bodyweight, so you must be better than him.
^^Hypothetical conversation.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I alays hear about these 140 pound guys bragging about deadlifting 3x their bodyweight…Well, that is awesome but your DL is STILL only 400 pounds lol…the best deadlifer in the world didn’t DL 3x his bodyweight, so you must be better than him.
^^Hypothetical conversation.[/quote]
That reminds me of a story my dad once told me. I think it was in the marines. There was some bodyweight coefficient scale that they had ranked everyone on after they were tested on certain things. One dude there was immensely stronger than everyone else, but he was also ridiculously larger; probably outweighed most of them by 100 pounds.
He was dead last on this scale. All he said was “Fuck you guys; I’m number one on the ass kicking scale.”
The strongest is the strongest. Plain and simple.
[quote]grettiron wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]apple12345 wrote:
[quote]Ethan7X wrote:
I can’t believe how some people are arguing about this.
Listen up folks, this will delineate things very clearly for you
Subject A: Bench 225x1
Subject B: Bench 225x2
Estimated 1 rep Max for A: 225; Estimated 1 rep Max for B: 235
B is not “2x” stronger than A, despite the fact he can push the same quantifiable mass 2x instead of 1x.
The difference is only ~10 pounds in their overall productive force & work output.
You will have to look at the ratio between 10 pounds versus the overall mass being pushed, since that is the difference. That is the % increase in strength,which is very low.[/quote]
So you mean that if x energy is needed to move a weight from point a to point b, x2 energy is not needed to move it twice? strong logic
[/quote]
Technically speaking, since the barbell is returning to its original location in both instances, by definition the work accomplished in both is ZERO.
[/quote]
No, you need to use a line or path integral to evaluate work. That means it matters what happens as the force vector moves through space, even though it ends up back at point a.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/intare.html#c2
Also, to apple, we’re not talking about if someone has twice the energy (work) capacity, we’re debating if they are twice as strong. And so we’re back at debating the definition of strong. I don’t think it should be defined in terms of fundamental physical concepts. I think it is the bar weight used on a successful lift, period.
Also I don’t think the concept of “twice as strong” has any meaning. A 200lb bench is nothing compared to a 400lb bench. There needs to be some sort of nonlinear scaling (like logarithmic but not actually a log scale) between 0 and the maximum bench (Mendy’s 715?). [/quote]
Actually you don’t need a path integral to evaluate work. Barbell starts with zero kinetic energy and ends with zero kinetic energy. So total work is zero. The work of the gravity is zero so the total work of the lifter’s force is zero. This is not the chemical energy that the lifter expends which is two times the variation of the potential energy.
The guy with 200 max is two times stronger the guy with 100 max (stronger means max strength) and he has 20-30 times more endurance when they both try 100 kg.