Ok thanks. Getting a professional bodyfat measurement sounds like more effort than I want to exert as a powerlifter.
I have trouble thinking of bodymass in terms of “bro-science” (bodyfat percentage) It makes no sense that bodyfat would even be a factor in the top 10-20 in any weightclass. Bodyfat is easily/can quickly be manipulated. Lot’s of higher level powerlifters have dropped a shitload of weight and have still been ridiculously strong. Just look at all of the guys Keifer and Starnes work with. I think the key is muscle maturity. Odds are, those top 10-20 guys have been lifting weights for a long time. Long enough to create muscular and nervous adaptations that go far beyound something as easy to control as bodyfat percentage.
@Jakerz: Interestingly though, last time I got my bf checked, I was right at 18%. Right after that I pulled 804 at 275. I am not saying I am a top level guy by any means, but maybe there is something to bodyfat once to get stronger… but that takes a long time.
[quote]grettiron wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
25-30 years ago there were app 10-15 elite guys in weight classes . These
standards would be better with maybe the top ten or so.[/quote]
You mean top 10 across the USA?
I dunno, being in the top 10 nationally is pretty heroic. Maybe elite can be the top 1-5% or something.
Come to think of it, a 2.5xBW squat isn’t particularly challenging. 3x def feels elite but I’d go with whatever the numbers say.
edit- just re-read the post. Elite weights seem to be a little lower than a top 50 lift. Maybe a 2.75x squat for a 181 is a sweet spot (just a little below the top 50 2.85x).[/quote]
Exactly, elite is bring thrown around to easily now. If you were an elite competitor you were a potential national and world champ.
That’s what elite was. Now class one is bring tossed out there as raw elite . Thirty years ago gear didn’t get you what just knee wraps now does .
[quote]grettiron wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
25-30 years ago there were app 10-15 elite guys in weight classes . These
standards would be better with maybe the top ten or so.[/quote]
You mean top 10 across the USA?
I dunno, being in the top 10 nationally is pretty heroic. Maybe elite can be the top 1-5% or something.
Come to think of it, a 2.5xBW squat isn’t particularly challenging. 3x def feels elite but I’d go with whatever the numbers say.
Top fifty is not elite. Top fifty is mid to high class one to low master. God, people’s standards are so low.
edit- just re-read the post. Elite weights seem to be a little lower than a top 50 lift. Maybe a 2.75x squat for a 181 is a sweet spot (just a little below the top 50 2.85x).[/quote]
www.weightrainer.net/plateau.html <–A little something for those of us with slighter builds.
I liked what you did there a lot.
So I’m 185 atm and just about to turn 25 (started training 2.5-3 years ago, working out 4.5), I have a 300lb bench, 460 deadlift (calculated), squat 345. Within my lifetime I can definitely see 370, 495, and 555 or an equivalent total under 200lb which I think would put me in the top 100 or close.
Considering that a girl could beat me in arm wrestling in late middle school and I was the weakest person on my football team in high school and I couldn’t even do a 95lb bench when I started, I would be damned satisfied getting those #s by the time I’m 40.
I’m curious, are there any people who have trained most of their life who actually got stronger in their late 30’s through 40s than any other time in their life?
edit: Something else I found interesting was that there’s a bigger delta between average wrist to my wrist measurements than with my ankles, yet in a relative way my bench is bigger than my other two lifts. In addition to that smaller wrist measurement I have narrow shoulders and arms that go forever. Go figure.
You sell yourself short Fletch. I was in a similar state in high school (a rower but not much in the way of weight training) and am the same age as you. Keep on pushing, no reason you can’t get the numbers you strive for much sooner then you think. I’ve managed to surpass those numbers (and then some) you’ve set yourself with smart training and won’t be 26 until April. Just keep on pushing through.
[quote]IzzyT wrote:
Keep in mind with that calculator, it’s just an estimate. People fall along a bell curve genetically when it comes to maximum muscular potential. If you’re closer to being an outlier, it may be inaccurate for you.
The easiest way to get your body fat measurement is to have a PT do a skin fold test with calipers. You can also do hydrostatic weighing and a host of other things. There are tables which compare waist, neck, and weight to give you a number. All of these things can be considered estimates with hydrostatic weighing being the most accurate.
I find it more useful to just get familiar with what certain body fats look like although that can be very deceiving due to genetics.
In short, it is really, really hard to get an accurate body fat measurement without some kind of professional tools.[/quote]
Yea, hydrostatic weighing is the gold standard…just make sure they actually measure the residual volume in your lungs instead of estimating it. For me it meant 15% with an estimated residual volume, but 18% with a measured one. Just about anyone who exercises has a lower RV than the estimates, and that makes your BF go up.
I think I qualify sort of. I pulled 605 at 205 at 47. It was z gym lift so I did not cut for 198. I’m planning on 650 at the same weight soon.
Mid 20s to mid 30s was busy for me life wise.
Josh personally thinks I have a 700 pull in me. Now my shoulders are rough so I’m not pushing up my raw bench and straight bar squat , but I’m working around those issues. I’m 48 now btw and about 208-210. I can easily cut to 198 btw.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
www.weightrainer.net/plateau.html <–A little something for those of us with slighter builds.
I liked what you did there a lot.
So I’m 185 atm and just about to turn 25 (started training 2.5-3 years ago, working out 4.5), I have a 300lb bench, 460 deadlift (calculated), squat 345. Within my lifetime I can definitely see 370, 495, and 555 or an equivalent total under 200lb which I think would put me in the top 100 or close.
Considering that a girl could beat me in arm wrestling in late middle school and I was the weakest person on my football team in high school and I couldn’t even do a 95lb bench when I started, I would be damned satisfied getting those #s by the time I’m 40.
I’m curious, are there any people who have trained most of their life who actually got stronger in their late 30’s through 40s than any other time in their life?
edit: Something else I found interesting was that there’s a bigger delta between average wrist to my wrist measurements than with my ankles, yet in a relative way my bench is bigger than my other two lifts. In addition to that smaller wrist measurement I have narrow shoulders and arms that go forever. Go figure.[/quote]
According to this then I would have an elite deadlift for 148 once I drop my bw 2 lbs
Haven’t maxed squat in a while as I’m training for Night of the Living Dead, have been deadlifting crazy hard past couple of months. I recently in the gym got 325 for 2 sets of 1 touch and go on the benchpress, but I never saw these as standards for elite. I thought I had quite a ways to go. Now that I think about it, maybe the standards I saw were for geared lifters? I train just with chalk and a belt so I guess I’ll stick to the ones posted in the Op’s haha. Helps my ego out a lot more 
[quote]Efeguwewe wrote:
According to this then I would have an elite deadlift for 148 once I drop my bw 2 lbs.[/quote]
Even if standards can be discussed indefinitely about their relative realism, your deadlift is certainly nothing to be ashamed of… haha
By the way, is chalk and/or belt considered forbidden for a “raw” qualification (officially)?
And no thats not a poorly concealed attempt to discredit anybody hehe
[quote]Butan wrote:
[quote]Efeguwewe wrote:
According to this then I would have an elite deadlift for 148 once I drop my bw 2 lbs.[/quote]
Even if standards can be discussed indefinitely about their relative realism, your deadlift is certainly nothing to be ashamed of… haha
By the way, is chalk and/or belt considered forbidden for a “raw” qualification (officially)?
And no thats not a poorly concealed attempt to discredit anybody hehe
[/quote]
Chalk and belt are allowed in all raw competitions. The only thing that would be considered questionable in raw lifting is wraps/sleeves for your knees. Some federations allow them, some do not.
[quote]Butan wrote:
[quote]Efeguwewe wrote:
According to this then I would have an elite deadlift for 148 once I drop my bw 2 lbs.[/quote]
Even if standards can be discussed indefinitely about their relative realism, your deadlift is certainly nothing to be ashamed of… haha
By the way, is chalk and/or belt considered forbidden for a “raw” qualification (officially)?
And no thats not a poorly concealed attempt to discredit anybody hehe
[/quote]
Chalk and belt is fine. Some consider knee wraps still raw on the squat.
Just read this on EFS. Thought it was interesting.
http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/training-articles/you-have-the-power/
Wilks’ formula is probably the best and most commonly used way to truly compare lifters:
http://www.marylandpowerlifting.com/wilks.asp
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Yea, hydrostatic weighing is the gold standard…just make sure they actually measure the residual volume in your lungs instead of estimating it. For me it meant 15% with an estimated residual volume, but 18% with a measured one. Just about anyone who exercises has a lower RV than the estimates, and that makes your BF go up.[/quote]
Just as a side note DEXA Xray imaging is the new gold standard in bodyfat measurement, you basically get scanned by a computer like an MRI which creates a 3D model of the body, less estimating than any other method so it is the best at the moment.