Height and Weight vs. Strength!

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[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]

His excuse makes sense, but unless you have arms that are short for your height(like 5’4" wingspan) and your friend is built to pull(like 6’5" ws), he should be able to lift a lot more than you. His lean weight(if your BF% aren’t imaginary numbers) is 35 lbs heavier than your total weight.

He is probably a big pussy and fatter than you claim, or has poor neural efficiency.

22

Height and limb length definitely play roles in the lifts that you can be better at. Of course nothing can substitute hard work!

I have short arms compared to my friend, which is partly why I can press a lot more weight than him. But when it comes to deadlifts, his monkey-like forearms give him a big pulling advantage.

I mean, the guy is 4 inches shorter than me, but has a longer wingspan…ridiculous.

23

Fucking excuses!
I have long limbs and a relatively short torso, so what!
I don’t use that fact as some sort of excuse for poor performance.
I just work harder on my bench and squat. My numbers might suck, but that just gives me more drive to work harder.

24

[quote]MC sp3 wrote:
Fucking excuses!
I have long limbs and a relatively short torso, so what!
I don’t use that fact as some sort of excuse for poor performance.
I just work harder on my bench and squat. My numbers might suck, but that just gives me more drive to work harder.[/quote]

Exactly I just hate shorter people always going,‘hey look at how much stronger I am then you’ well no shit I over a foot taller then you its a little harder for me. They always try to bring in the relative strength argument all the time also, just gets annoying.

25

to the OP, whats your deadlift compared to your friends? (as the size diff would most likely help you out in both the lifts mentioned)

26

I don’t make excuses I know its a weakness so I work on it brutally. I’m just tired shorter guys being like, “Wow, I’m a midget and i’m way stronger than you, you must be really weak!” I’ll out pull any sum bitch so that keeps me sane.

27

lmao ya the body fat test was done wiht a fat caliper purchased form bodybuilding.com. It’s just an estimate and I’m not saying its accurate. body even a bodyfat scale said the samething but then again there is no real accuarate way in measuring your bodyfat unless you are willing to spend some qwan.

So basically from all the posts replies…there is still no straight answer or supporting answers from studies and so on. lol this is so frustrating because we have this discussion every single time we go to the gym and hit the weights.

He even argues with me that weighted leg raises are only for a guy with me because my legs weigh less then his because he’s taller and bigger so he doesn’t need it…lol

I believe u have to incorporate both resistance and non-resistance ab training into your program. He just believes that any weight on lower abs is not good…lol i dunno

thanks for the replies guys lets try to figure this out

28

well if he’s too weak (wether it be lever issues or not, and it probably partially is) to use weights for those ab exercises, than no, they are no good to him…at This point…until he gets stronger

the same reason he’d probably be considered to have some advantages on the field (obviously not all sports) you will have opposing advantages, normally in the weightroom/strength department

again-what are your deadlift #'s like?

29

[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]

Actually Bruv, while you are GENERALLY correct, some people genetically have a lower body fat percentage due to the internal fat surrounding organs being drastically less.
A 6% BB who looks as he does has 2-3% of fat under has skin and the rest around his organs (the %ages are inaccurate for arguments sake), but i have met people who look extremely lean, who have 10-11% bf (due to a higher BF internally) and people who dont look as lean as a BB, but are 5-6%, due to a lot less fat around the vital organs.

(but of course, they may be terrible estimations done at time of writing, as people who have never: A/ Counted calories or B/ Never had BF measured; are absolutely terrible as “guessing” those numbers).

Joe

30

[quote]BHCS18 wrote:
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.[/quote]

GOOD question, i am not sure, i bet there is a calculation though, i will look in a metabolic equations book i have…

I believe that the width is the strength speed,… and as that is the case, there has to be a correlating curve. I would give an educated guess though, that that is personal, as it comes down to how much each myfibril or actually how much each sarcomere inside each myofibril can pull, and that is down to the pulses from the motor unit. Someone with a naturally high strength is usually highly efficient at motor unit firing, than someone who isnt.

So that being the case, while the general power is determined by how many myofibrils are in parallel (the width of the muscle), the strength is ALSO determined my the muscle unit in its totality, from neurons in the spinal cord through the motor, through muscle to sarcomere to actin and myosin.

I know that strength isnt TOTALLY understood 100%, and i have barely scratched the surface of the theory.

Good question though. I do not know the answer!

Joe

31

With pullups more than anything else, low bodyweight and frame is hugely important. Because if you look at the differences between bodies, there is not a proportionate increase in everything.

32

OP, it is not just the range of motion that’s significant. It’s the distance of the weight from the working joints (including the spine which has to be stabilized). In physics this is called ‘leverage.’

For example, when a guy with long arms bench presses or does a pullup, the force of the weight is further away from the shoulders, elbows, and spine. Further away = more leverage = more force applied to the working joints.

If you got the long-armed guy and the short-armed guy into a lab where the loads on the actual tissues could be measured with special instruments, you’d find that the tissue loads would be higher in the long-armed bench presser. The brain calculates these tissue loads constantly during movement and limits muscle fiber recruitment during a lift in order to protect the joints.

So, your tall workout buddy is right.

However, in the real world, people are never going to understand this. It’s too complicated. People can sum up how much weight is on the bar they can see with their own two eyes, and that’s it.

33

And BTW, biomechanical leverage is not an “excuse,” it’s cold, hard reality.

34

[quote]Joe Brook wrote:
BHCS18 wrote:
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.

GOOD question, i am not sure, i bet there is a calculation though, i will look in a metabolic equations book i have…

I believe that the width is the strength speed,… and as that is the case, there has to be a correlating curve. I would give an educated guess though, that that is personal, as it comes down to how much each myfibril or actually how much each sarcomere inside each myofibril can pull, and that is down to the pulses from the motor unit. Someone with a naturally high strength is usually highly efficient at motor unit firing, than someone who isnt.

So that being the case, while the general power is determined by how many myofibrils are in parallel (the width of the muscle), the strength is ALSO determined my the muscle unit in its totality, from neurons in the spinal cord through the motor, through muscle to sarcomere to actin and myosin.

I know that strength isnt TOTALLY understood 100%, and i have barely scratched the surface of the theory.

Good question though. I do not know the answer!

Joe[/quote]

Good question, also don’t know the answer, but thinking out loud…

Considering a muscle of a particular person who is not a beginner as he gains strength while training in a consistent style, I think two times the muscle weight should lift two times as much weight. That’s a lot of ifs and buts, I know. My thinking is that the muscle length stays the same, so twice the muscle weight means the cross-sectional area is two times bigger. That should mean twice as many myofibrils so twice the strength potential, as long you haven’t switched training styles from strength to hypertrophy emphasis or vice versa. BUT strength gains are heavily neural, especially “beginner’s gains”, so this would only work after your neuromuscular system is fairly well trained.

Hmm, looking at that it seems maybe there are so many factors that you just can’t tell. And comparing between different people is even worse. Maybe there is no useful relation, but obviously tiny muscles are never very strong, and huge muscles are never very weak.

  • MarkT
35

Bodyweight pullups is where low bodyweight helps the most. If you guys want to compare on that, you can add 35lbs to your back and compare your pullup number to his bodyweight pullup number.

As far as the other lifts, height and weight make a difference in strength, but its also up to each of you to learn how to use your leverages to your advantage.

With you being shorter it’s going to require less muscular work to push weight of your chest 12 inches, versus him 16 inches. With the levers you also have to remember it requires more force at the joint to produce enough torque to push the weight up, T = l*f.
However,
It’s up to him to know to use either a wider grip, or gain enough muscle to lift more. With a bigger frame he has the ability to pack on more muscle and should be able to bench more then you at the end of the day. At 6% bodyfat and 40lbs heavier he should be stronger than you on every lift. I sense that you guys just have bad bodyfat scales or something.

36

[quote]andersons wrote:
And BTW, biomechanical leverage is not an “excuse,” it’s cold, hard reality.[/quote]

But doesn’t the fact that they have longer muscles make up for that, or at least the fact that there is more “room” for mass?

Plus it makes a small difference compared to the difference that neurological advantages have, which the small or tall guy could have.

This Tall guy could have long levers but a less primed neuro-muscular system simply meaning, HE IS NOT AS STRONG! i just think it is an excuse… how tall are you?! :wink:

Joe

37

It isnt just about levers, muscle or weight! it is MOSTLY about the nerve impulses!

Look at an olympic lifter…!
This tall guy simply isnt as strong, as one guy put it, he has the potential to add more muscle, and he simply needs to adjust his grip… He is just not as strong, and is making excuses for that fact.

I am 5’8" and a certain strength, i accept that. no lies, no cloud of distraction! If i am weaker than someone else, i know that is simply it, i cant expect we all star from a level playing field and its my height that lets me down, or else i would never be able to fight off anyone 5’9" and above!

Sorry, but wheres the thread on excuses? that shit gets to me.

Joe

38

Now that physics has been brought into it:

Who’s has more powerful muscles? Power = Work / Time (P = W/t). Total Work is defined as Force x Distance (W = FxD), where Force= Mass x Acceleration(Gravity) and Distance = change in height for both the pull-up and bench example. Therefore: P = (F x dh)/t

The longer armed person will have a greater Distance for both the pull-up and bench. Also, a heavier person will undergo a greater force during the pull up.

Therefore, assuming the taller person also has longer arms and the reps are done over the same time increment, the taller person will be doing more Total work in both cases and will be using more power.

39

[quote]skaklight wrote:
Now that physics has been brought into it:

Who’s has more powerful muscles? Power = Work / Time (P = W/t). Total Work is defined as Force x Distance (W = FxD), where Force= Mass x Acceleration(Gravity) and Distance = change in height for both the pull-up and bench example. Therefore: P = (F x dh)/t

The longer armed person will have a greater Distance for both the pull-up and bench. Also, a heavier person will undergo a greater force during the pull up.

Therefore, assuming the taller person also has longer arms and the reps are done over the same time increment, the taller person will be doing more Total work in both cases and will be using more power.
[/quote]

Generally yes a tall person can generate more power, thats why generally pitchers have pretty long arms. Or long jumpers, high jumpers have long legs. Long levers don’t really make you the best lifter, but generally make you a pretty good athlete.

40

[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
It isnt just about levers, muscle or weight! it is MOSTLY about the nerve impulses!

Look at an olympic lifter…!
This tall guy simply isnt as strong, as one guy put it, he has the potential to add more muscle, and he simply needs to adjust his grip… He is just not as strong, and is making excuses for that fact.

I am 5’8" and a certain strength, i accept that. no lies, no cloud of distraction! If i am weaker than someone else, i know that is simply it, i cant expect we all star from a level playing field and its my height that lets me down, or else i would never be able to fight off anyone 5’9" and above!

Sorry, but wheres the thread on excuses? that shit gets to me.

Joe[/quote]

Joe,

It’s not an excuse, like another poster said, it’s reality. Look at the physics posts, I think there were 2 different guys who had really good replies. Longer-limbed guys have more distance to move the weight, and hence need to do more work to do so. That = a mechanical disadvantage in lifts like the bench and pull-ups, but an ADVANTAGE in say deadlifts, for the exact same reason: longer arms then = LESS ROM for that lift. And grip adjustment to reduce ROM only works to a point (see regular bench vs close-grip as to what is being worked); else everyone would bench with their arms at 140-degree angles.

Bottom line: a guy with long arms will get RELATIVELY stronger more slowly than a guy with better leverage. If someone wants to use that info as an excuse, whatever. But it is reality.