[quote]altimus wrote:
PeteK, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.[/quote]
Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.
[quote]PeteK wrote:
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?[/quote]
Gravity can’t have that big of an effect on insects, there used to be huge ones during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian eras. I’m pretty sure the reason insects don’t get big anymore has to do with the concentration of atmospheric oxygen and the insects respiration system. Either way I’m pretty sure gorillas and ants have little to do with human sporting events.
[quote]PeteK wrote:
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?[/quote]
To everybody ragging on this guy:
This may SOUND a bit kooky the way it was put here, but there is a kernel of truth to it.
Supertraining:
Most muscle strength is the result of neurological improvements (just getting stronger).
But when your neurological strength gains taper off or slow down, you need to add muscle mass.
However, all other things being equal, muscle strength is proportional to muscle DIAMETER, not muscle VOLUME. But the added amount of muscle weight is proportional to muscle volume.
This means that among highly trained individuals, those with higher quantities of muscle mass will necessarily have a somewhat lower strength: bodyweight ratio.
But because increased height often results in poorer leverage for moving weights, it is necessary for tall individuals to gain more muscle mass than their shorter counterparts; they can only be competitive at higher bodyweight.
Consequently, among highly trained strength athletes, taller individuals tend to have lower strength: bodyweight ratios.
Holy bullet-point mania, Batman!
I’m not 100% sure what the argument is right now, but I’m throwin my hat into the ring.
Bodybuilders are relatively weak?
It’s so (I really hate to say this) ignorant to say something like that. I say that for three reasons.
Bodybuilders is a blanket term that could describe just about anyone that lifts regularly.
The term “relatively” seems to be indicative of weak inductive reasoning. You can say a lot of misleading things if you use the word relatively. “The city of San Francisco is relatively gay.” “Our solar system is relatively small.” “Thomas Edison was relatively stupid.”
I think “weak” is thrown in just because the strength guys know it will piss off bodybuilders.
Also,
Bruce Lee was amazing. Like a lot of people, I am completely enthralled by some of the stuff he could do. For his bodyweight he was CRAZY strong, but he’s been built up into this indomitable force that he wasn’t. Lee said himself that he wouldn’t have been able to win a fight against Muhammad Ali, that if Ali hit him once, it would all be over. Who had more functional strength/size? What does that even mean?
And it might not even matter. Chuck Norris could beat them both–COMBINED!!!
F’real though, I once heard Chuck Norris lost a fight to a pirate. But that was just a rumor started by Chuck to lure more Pirates to himself. Pirates never were very smart.
Absolute strength trumps relative strength anyday.
What if you are short and weak? What is my excuse than?
[quote]Kalle wrote:
What if you are short and weak? What is my excuse than?[/quote]
FUNNY! 
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to see Kingwill hit a ginormuos 1080 while spraying the crowd with an ak-47.
That would be stronger than heck!
Or a boarder-cross run where the competitors get machettes.
[/quote]
Or dueling Moto-X…with chainsaws. That would mean a tall rider like Pastrana would get whupped, since being tall makes him weak and unable to wield said chainsaw.
How did this thread go from bodybuilders being weak to tall people being weak? I guess this means all bodybuilders are tall?
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
PeteK wrote:
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?
Gravity can’t have that big of an effect on insects, there used to be huge ones during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian eras. I’m pretty sure the reason insects don’t get big anymore has to do with the concentration of atmospheric oxygen and the insects respiration system. Either way I’m pretty sure gorillas and ants have little to do with human sporting events. [/quote]
I have seen a physicist claim that if ants were the size of humans they could not stand up due to gravity.
[quote]TShaw wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Oh contraire mufraire
That’s Au contraire, mon frere (meaning “On the contrary, my brother”).
Airtruth, I’ve found a new calling: following you around and correcting your attempts at any language other than Standard English! (A thankless job, but somebody’s got to keep these fora intelligible.)
Just kidding you, dude. You were doing great with the F equation.[/quote]
Day Nadda
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
Absolute strength trumps relative strength anyday.[/quote]
Ignorant statements like this are the reason we have these ridiculous debates…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:
PeteK wrote:
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?
Gravity can’t have that big of an effect on insects, there used to be huge ones during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian eras. I’m pretty sure the reason insects don’t get big anymore has to do with the concentration of atmospheric oxygen and the insects respiration system. Either way I’m pretty sure gorillas and ants have little to do with human sporting events.
I have seen a physicist claim that if ants were the size of humans they could not stand up due to gravity.
[/quote]
Exactly. It’s the same reason humans can’t be 30 feet tall.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:
PeteK wrote:
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?
Gravity can’t have that big of an effect on insects, there used to be huge ones during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian eras. I’m pretty sure the reason insects don’t get big anymore has to do with the concentration of atmospheric oxygen and the insects respiration system. Either way I’m pretty sure gorillas and ants have little to do with human sporting events.
I have seen a physicist claim that if ants were the size of humans they could not stand up due to gravity.
Exactly. It’s the same reason humans can’t be 30 feet tall.[/quote]
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/
Check that out. It’s fun and informative about why giant ants and shrunken humans are impossible.
BTW, relative strength has its merit, IMO. Being the strongest pound for pound would mean you can deal with your own bodyweight with the least amount of effort. This is great for BW sports like rock climbing. It’s also necessary in sports with weight classes.
However, absolute strength should be the goal of those who want to be as functional as possible, especially in contact team sports like Basketball and Football. If you’re 150 pounds who can carry 3x your bodyweight, you’ll be the one to fall in a collision against a 200-pound guy who can carry 2.5x his bodyweight.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
Even Bruce Lee said “A stronger muscle, is a bigger muscle.”
Scroll down to the physical fitness section.[/quote]
I hate it when people quote wikipedia, what a useless piece of shit that thing is.
[quote]PeteK wrote:
But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. quote]
Why do you think this? Because of the muscle density?
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/
[/quote]
Cool read. Another interesting thing to read that touches on this topic as well as others is a book called The Physics of Superheroes.
[quote]DanErickson wrote:
Brant_Drake wrote:
Even Bruce Lee said “A stronger muscle, is a bigger muscle.”
Scroll down to the physical fitness section.
I hate it when people quote wikipedia, what a useless piece of shit that thing is.[/quote]
Wiki has some truths in it, but you’re right in the broader sense because wiki is too unreliable. It can be used at the start of any research, but it must certainly be left out of the bibliography.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Oh contraire mufraire
TShaw wrote:
That’s Au contraire, mon frere (meaning “On the contrary, my brother”).
Airtruth, I’ve found a new calling: following you around and correcting your attempts at any language other than Standard English! (A thankless job, but somebody’s got to keep these fora intelligible.)
Just kidding you, dude. You were doing great with the F equation.
Airtruth wrote:
Day Nadda[/quote]
Well played, sir!
[quote]PeteK wrote:
Honestly they really are. And so are heavy-weight weightlifters and powerlifters and so are gorillas. Well at least according to the people on this site. The thing that people don’t take into account is that someone who is TALL will always be relatively weaker than someone who is short. It is actually height more than anything else that determines your “relative” strength.
Think of it this way… Lightweight weightlifters can lift 3x their own bodyweight over their head. Super heavyweights less than 2x. So if you want great relative strength, make sure you are short, if not, well then you really have to add muscle, because there aren’t any 6 foot 145 pounds strongmen I know of.
Muscle after all will make you stronger. A guy that is 6 foot tall and weighs 140 pounds is not as strong as a guy that is also 6 foot tall and weighs 200 pounds (assuming that it is muscle). There simply is nobody on this earth who is over 6 feet tall that can be considered strong at 145 pounds, no such thing. And I think your “relative” strength will also increase as your bodyweight increases.
Sure enough it will always be lower than that of an equally well trained but shorter individual, but it will be better than what you started with. Case in point, myself. I more than doubled my lifts the first year of training, and I certainly didn’t double my bodyweight.
(On a different note. I even think that the relative strength of short bodybuilders like Lee Priest and Franco Columbu is higher than those of heavyweight power- and weightlifters.)
Also, if you look at men like Rezazadeh you will soon find that he probably has about the same amount of muscle mass as someone like Ronnie Coleman. Interestingly enough I think that if you could teach today’s elite bodybuilders perfect weightlifting technique and gave them a few months(or years) to prepare they would do extremely well in a meet. Probably world class too. If they have the required coordination.
We’ve heard the stories of bodybuilders using relatively light weights such as Paul Dillet and Vince Taylor. However, I am willing to bet that if people would use their techinique, range of motion, tempo and their diet at the time of taping the weights would be suprisingly heavy.
The biggest men are the strongest. And the shortest are the relative strongest. It has nothing to do with bodyweight but with height. If your tall you need the muscle and everything will improve. If you’re short you need less of it because you have better leverages, and of course, you don’t have to lift that much.
I think the entire notion of “relative” strength is bullshit. It’s just something that weighlifting organizations cae up with to compare lifters from different weight classes.
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?[/quote]
I think you are onto something here.
But there are other factors too.
Lighter weightlifters can train more and more frequently.Lighter and shorter lifter might have Napoleon syndrome and work the hardest at his strenght.
When you are smaller,your health and energy levels are higher.You can train harder.
[quote]christine wrote:
People with big heads are relativly stupid.[/quote]
Ha ha ha !!!