T Nation

Article About Strength Ratios?

Looking for an article on strength ratios based on weight of certain lifts such as bench, squat, etc…

And no it isn’t Poliquin’s Structural Balance article.

I cannot remember the name for the life of me…Do any of you guys remember this article?

This was posted like last week or the week before, check the home page or article section.

Nooo…It was posted a few months back.

It was an extensive list sort of like this

Bench press: 100%
Back squat: 250%
deadlift: 275%
DB bench press: 80%

or something like that with different exercises being in the 100& spot.

This one maybe?

[quote]laxccm wrote:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/how_much_can_you_lift_wimp [/quote]

Perfect…Thanks this is the one I was looking for.

I think that kind of thing needs to be taken with quite a bit of salt.

For example, from this we would conclude that what goes along typically with a 315 lb bench press is a 566 lb DL.

Is that really typically the case?

I don’t at all disagree that it’s DESIRABLE to be able to DL at least 566 with that bench – heck it would be DESIRABLE to DL over 600 with that, and even more desirable to DL over 700 – but is it typical? (I agree it’s not unusual among those training for strength; but not typical among 315-bench gym goers in general I think.)

Or let’s say someone’s deadlift is 405 lb.

Is their push press really, typically, only 162 lb? Push, not military? And would that be “balanced”?

Lastly, if someone’s DL is again say 405, is it really typical for their squat to be only 289? A lot of lifters have their squat closer to the deadlift than this.

(All values above are from the percentages given in the article cited.)

I suppose if one is drastically far off then there is probably a weakness in the lift in question, or if markedly better and having feared that the lift was a relative weak point, now one might conclude that it is not, but that is about as far as I would go with this, myself.

Another point is that the percentages disagree with “common wisdom” on the subject by a significant bit. By which I mean the 300/400/500 standard.

On the system in this article, if the DL stays the same then the numbers become 278/357/500. Or if say the squat stays the same then the numbers become 311/400/560.

And the article says that front squat is typically/should be 50 % of the deadlift. I don’t know if anyone fits into that one.

One area I do see a potential good use for it is for beginners in terms of planning training.

I did something similar to this when starting training, which due to lack of knowledge was with mostly Nautilus equipment early on. (At least it was the early Nautilus stuff.)

I figured that ol’ Arthur probably chose the amounts of weights on the stacks fairly proportionately, so that someone who was strong enough to use the entire stack as a suitable weight would also find the entire stack a suitable weight on the other machines as well.

So I planned a per week weight increase that would move everything evenly towards being able to use the entire stack on everything in some reasonable time frame, I forget what.

Some things this was a larger percentage increase per week than was the case for others. (When a beginner, one can actually lift a significant percentage more each week.)

But I found that this system matched things up very well, and I do think it led to more balanced early strength than had I just increased weight haphazardly.

I suppose a beginner might take this and set some reasonable time for a given lift to reach what should indeed be a reasonable goal, and then have within that same time frame other lifts at values calculated by this system. That would avoid, at least, falling behind on anything.

I think the chart in the back of Mark Rippetoe and Lon Kilgore’s Practical Programming for Strength Training is extremely helpful. It gives strength levels for the overhead press, bench press, squat, deadlift, power clean for gender, weight classes, and level of expertise.

That kind of thing would also definitely accomplish that same purpose.

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
This one maybe?

I think that this article is better, it doesn’t compare exercises to each other as a % but it does give some base numbers and multipliers to determine youre reletive level of strength.