T Nation

Height and Weight vs. Strength!

Hey guys,
my workout partner and I have this debate all the time and it came to the point where I was so annoyed that I searched google about this topic and found nothing. Thus, is the reason why im here and hopefully someone can give me a strong answer with some support about the topic I’m about to explain.

My workout partner is 6 feet and weighs about 215 lbs with around 6% bodyfat, I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat. I can perform more pull-ups weighted and not weighted then my buddy, bench more then him and he argues that because I’m shorter then him I can lift more.

His argument is the fact that there is shorter range of motion for me with bench pressing that its an advantage for me, so i can lift more then him and the fact that I weigh less I can do more pull ups.

Now can someone help me with a real answer here and hopefully an answer to prove him wrong…if u can provide maybe an article form here or website to support your answer it would be great.

thanks Jay

I have no idea, but I’d guess that it’s not so much about the actual distance that the weight travels, but the angle that the joint covers.

For example, if a 6 foot guy and a 5 foot guy are benching, both touching the bar to their chests and locking out on top, their joints make the same range of motion, even though the taller guy moves the bar further.

[quote]jay_69_30 wrote:
Hey guys,
my workout partner and I have this debate all the time and it came to the point where I was so annoyed that I searched google about this topic and found nothing. Thus, is the reason why im here and hopefully someone can give me a strong answer with some support about the topic I’m about to explain.

My workout partner is 6 feet and weighs about 215 lbs with around 6% bodyfat, I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat. I can perform more pull-ups weighted and not weighted then my buddy, bench more then him and he argues that because I’m shorter then him I can lift more.

His argument is the fact that there is shorter range of motion for me with bench pressing that its an advantage for me, so i can lift more then him and the fact that I weigh less I can do more pull ups.

Now can someone help me with a real answer here and hopefully an answer to prove him wrong…if u can provide maybe an article form here or website to support your answer it would be great.

thanks Jay[/quote]

LMAO! I always used to have the same argument… i got the answer though.

My freind used to complain of “long levers”, however it isn’t the length that determines strength, the length of a muscle is proportionale to the displacement of the object, and the circumference of the muscle, how thick it is, is directly proportionate to the strength i believe… maybe power and not strength or something, but definitely that way around.

joe

Ilearnt that partly in Advanced Physiology, and partly on T-Nation, so there should be an article somewhere, god knows what it’s called.

JB

[quote]Joe Brook wrote:
jay_69_30 wrote:
Hey guys,
my workout partner and I have this debate all the time and it came to the point where I was so annoyed that I searched google about this topic and found nothing. Thus, is the reason why im here and hopefully someone can give me a strong answer with some support about the topic I’m about to explain.

My workout partner is 6 feet and weighs about 215 lbs with around 6% bodyfat, I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat. I can perform more pull-ups weighted and not weighted then my buddy, bench more then him and he argues that because I’m shorter then him I can lift more.

His argument is the fact that there is shorter range of motion for me with bench pressing that its an advantage for me, so i can lift more then him and the fact that I weigh less I can do more pull ups.

Now can someone help me with a real answer here and hopefully an answer to prove him wrong…if u can provide maybe an article form here or website to support your answer it would be great.

thanks Jay

LMAO! I always used to have the same argument… i got the answer though.

My freind used to complain of “long levers”, however it isn’t the length that determines strength, the length of a muscle is proportionale to the displacement of the object, and the circumference of the muscle, how thick it is, is directly proportionate to the strength i believe… maybe power and not strength or something, but definitely that way around.

joe[/quote]

Huh? Muscle length and attachment points are very important to consider. Anyway, OP, where’d the heck you get the 4.3% figure? It’s crazy to claim to your BF to such precision.

Whatever you say… i know. and you are giving a guess…

The length of the muscle (thus the attachment points too) affects the distance the weight/object moves - it can only contract so far, the longer the muscle, the further it can move.
The width of it is the number of myofibrils in parallel, thus giving a certain amount of collective power to the movement.

Brits can study ACSM too y’know…

Ahem…

Joe

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:

Huh? Muscle length and attachment points are very important to consider. Anyway, OP, where’d the heck you get the 4.3% figure? It’s crazy to claim to your BF to such precision.[/quote]

Probably used a shoe

lmfao! probably… i did and i am 0.5% bf, but i wanna get it down.

Joe

Its not that that the weight has less distance to cover. The leverages are just different. I bet he has an easier time on some lifts.

At the end of the day, whoever is stronger, is stronger. Period

[quote]jay_69_30 wrote:
I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat. [/quote]

You’re in contest ready condition all the time?

[quote]GetSwole wrote:

At the end of the day, whoever is stronger, is stronger. Period[/quote]

True. Being tall hasn’t stopped Andy Bolton, Nathan Jones, Matt Rhodes, or any number of tall people from being strong.

4.3% body fat…

Height arguments…

Weight arguments…

Idiots.

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
jay_69_30 wrote:
I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat.

You’re in contest ready condition all the time?[/quote]

not that unheard of.

2 guys at work are 160-170 lbs, and both are about 5-6% BF year round.

as for the 4.3% being exact, it’s something called doing a body fat test. skinfolds or BIA are most commonly used

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
jay_69_30 wrote:
I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat.

You’re in contest ready condition all the time?

not that unheard of.

2 guys at work are 160-170 lbs, and both are about 5-6% BF year round.

as for the 4.3% being exact, it’s something called doing a body fat test. skinfolds or BIA are most commonly used[/quote]

Even if you sampled a few professional bodybuilders and gave them a DEXA scan (the gold standard for BF% measurement), I highly doubt any of them would be 4.3%. Even the 6%, that’s definitely contest condition too. Those numbers seem far fetched, and more like terrible estimations done at the time of writing the post.

[quote]ab_power wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
jay_69_30 wrote:
I’m 5’8 and weigh 167 with 4.3% bodyfat.

You’re in contest ready condition all the time?

not that unheard of.

2 guys at work are 160-170 lbs, and both are about 5-6% BF year round.

as for the 4.3% being exact, it’s something called doing a body fat test. skinfolds or BIA are most commonly used

Even if you sampled a few professional bodybuilders and gave them a DEXA scan (the gold standard for BF% measurement), I highly doubt any of them would be 4.3%. Even the 6%, that’s definitely contest condition too. Those numbers seem far fetched, and more like terrible estimations done at the time of writing the post. [/quote]

i don’t follow bodybuilding, but I’d be willing to bet, they’re well below 6%, probably around 3%, again, I would need them to hold a shoe to determine more accurately

Don’t quote me on it, but I heard that Sly was under 5% for most of Rambo III, and he ended up feeling like shit almost every day of shooting… so I really doubt the 4.6%.

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
GetSwole wrote:

At the end of the day, whoever is stronger, is stronger. Period

True. Being tall hasn’t stopped Andy Bolton, Nathan Jones, Matt Rhodes, or any number of tall people from being strong.

[/quote]

True but on average shorter guys are stronger, just look at the nba I doubt many of them would be considered very strong to a lot of people on here.

[quote]SSC wrote:
Don’t quote me on it, but I heard that Sly was under 5% for most of Rambo III, and he ended up feeling like shit almost every day of shooting… so I really doubt the 4.6%.[/quote]

I guess I’m lying then, lol.

Guess that taking body fat measurements for 6 yrs doesn’t count for much.

typically anything below 3% is not considered healthy for males.

i should note however, that BF testing isn’t 100% accurate, and the only way to be 100% sure is an autopsy.

Well this thread is gone anyways… so I might as well post this question here instead of making a new thread.

How’s the strength/size curve on muscles work? Say a 2lb muscle lifts 20lbs. Roughly speaking, would a 4lb muscle lift 30lbs… 40lbs… 50lbs in comparison to the 2lb muscle?

Just wondering.

Long limbs = longer distance. I always get into it with the shorter fellers in my gym. They are also morons that only train their upper body, and they live by the philosophy that weight you throw up on the bench press is almost as important as oxygen. my bodyfat % is 11.14285. beat them shits.

damn you ab power and your avatar! where are my puffs.