All guys with good Deadlift: Race to 3.5x BW
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Jamie |  | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 22:49 |
 Member 665, 30 posts SQ 160, BP 105, DL 200465.0 kgs @ 82kgs UnEq | Here's some total speculation: Muscle gets stronger by being trained. You can get a lot stronger without adding muscle (think gymnasts, little powerlifters etc) by utilising a greater proportion of the muscle in your body. Interestingly, in untrained individuals, maximal contraction involves activating only around 40% of the fibres in any one muscle. With training you can get this up to around the 70% mark. Much like learning the piano or anything else, you learn to recruit a greater proportion of fibres in the muscle and thus can generate more force. To learn to recruit more muscle takes time, obviously. We also know that adding muscle (hypertrophy) can make you stronger - a larger muscle has greater potential to be stronger. But, just as you learnt to utilise a greater proportion of you previous muscle mass in order to get stronger, now you must learn to use this new mass. What this means is the new mass isn't pulling it's weight, so to speak. You need to work very hard to gain to get the same efficiency in your new muscle, so that your additional bodyweight justifies itself. As we get bigger and bigger, you need more and more training to make use of the extra bodyweight. It becomes harder and harder to lift 3.5x bodyweight, because the extra mass is not justifiying it's existence. For the added mass of bigger lifters to be trained enough, to be efficient enough to pull 3.5x bodyweight, would take more time than I think we have in our training lifespans. If our joints, nervous systems and just the whole body could survive and extra few decades of training, I think it could be done. The other consideration is the type of hypertrophy. Increasing muscle size can be through sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy. The former is an increase in cell volume, the latter is an increase in the size of the contractile elements in muscle. The latter will potentiate greater strength gains for obvious reasons. The former does help you get stronger as well, but whether the additional mass, M, will result in a muscle contraction 3M, remains to be seen. Bigger lifters will have more muscle but not necessarily all that muscle will be contractile elements. I hope this all makes sense. | ||
| Paul_D | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 22:51 |
 Hey mate, my name is Paul Dudley Member 632, 3628 posts SQ 200, BP 155, DL 282.5637.5 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2375... Sorry, I don't know how to embed Pictures. Basically, it's Lamar Grant, 5xBW deadlift! He had pretty extreme scoliosis (hence it looks like he has insanely long arms). Race to 5xBW deadlift anyone....   Paul | ||
| PhilKlidaras | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 22:51 |
Cut him some slack, he is an american Member 311, 1751 posts | Bhaskaran never pulled 5 xBW, well not at an IPF meet.....he has done 256 at 52 kg BW at the IPF worlds in Jonkoping Swe...almost there the only man to pull 5xBW or more is the mighty Lamar Gant, he did 310 kg at 60 kg BW at the 1988 IPF worlds in Perth, Aus | ||
| Paul_D | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 22:54 |
Hey mate, my name is Paul Dudley Member 632, 3628 posts SQ 200, BP 155, DL 282.5637.5 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | That made alot of sense, thanks for the very useful and informative response Jamie. | ||
| Jaako | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 22:58 |
Mr. Abb. Member 239, 581 posts SQ 172.5, BP 100, DL 212.5485.0 kgs @ 74.1kgs UnEq | Don't Wilks and similar formulas give more points per kg lifted as the BW goes up? Maybe the answer you are looking for is explained in the reasoning as to how the formulas are made up? Best pound for pound unequipped dead lifter (all his lifts are oustanding though) I've seen is Stuart Ford in the BDFPA's 67.5kg class. His current record stands at 252.5kg at 66.5kg BW in the British last April. That's a 3.8xBW DL. He might just have a chance to hit 4xBW unequipped at some point as I don't think he's planning on moving up to the 75kg class. Personally i got my only 3xBW DL of 210kg at 69kg. That was a year ago now and now I have to get 225kg to equal that which won't happen anytime soon. Forget about me getting anywhere close to 262.5kg at 75kg for a 3.5xBW DL...ever. If I can get that at 90kg one day I'll be happy. | ||
| PhilKlidaras | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 22:59 |
Cut him some slack, he is an american Member 311, 1751 posts | another thing about Lamar Gant, is that at one time he held a world BP record when there was only the IPF.....this was at the same time he held the DL record, not many folks can say that a US sports magazine did an article on him once and had an X ray of his spine as the front cover of the magazine | ||
| cuntos | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:05 |
 old fat fingers needs to find 10kg Member 192, 640 posts SQ 280, BP 210, DL 245735.0 kgs @ 122.7kgs Eq | Can't be arsed to read the whole thread but surely the title should be something like, "To all skinny little pussies with no muscles: race to 3.5x deadlift" or similar. A better one might be race to "x" Wilkes points deadlift or whatever. | ||
| PhilKlidaras | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:07 |
Cut him some slack, he is an american Member 311, 1751 posts | ^+1 | ||
| Paul_D | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:10 |
Hey mate, my name is Paul Dudley Member 632, 3628 posts SQ 200, BP 155, DL 282.5637.5 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 01.06.2009 @ 23:18 PM by Paul_D c**tos: I like how you don't bother to read the thread, then go and make a completly useless comment (your subject title...). I do however agree on your wilkes points idea. Just out of intrest, how is the wilkes system set up to make it equal for all weight categorys? (obviously you plug your weight into a calculator, but what makes it so that, for example, a 300kg deadlift at 100kg is better than a 225kg deadlift at 75kg...?)EDIT: Just found a Wilkes Calculator by the way c**tos. http://www.powerlifting-ipf.com/fileadmin/data/wilkscalc.htm . Would that do? I plug deadlift in (rather than just my total) and it comes out to 160. | ||
| Rick | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:20 |
 I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10035 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator | Paul_D said: Naive Comment warning here.... Is it not relative? E.g. Bigger guys should have bigger pulls. Obviously genetics (length of limbs etc) come in to play. Bigger guys do, in general, have bigger pulls (though it's less pronounced than the other two powerlifts), but that has nothing to do with bodyweight multiples, which are obvious bulls**t. Human phsyiology just doesn't work that way. Suppose you take a little guy who's good and can pull, say, 3.5x his BW. Now for every pound you add, he has to add 3.5lbs to his pull. There's absolutely no reason to suppose he could or should be able to do that - and in fact it's probably closer to 1lb/lb that 3.5. And, finally, c**tos's comment is far from useless - he pointed out very neatly that this just is not on the cards for larger people, however lean they are. As to how Wilks works: he just analysed the totals of the best lifters at different bodyweights and worked out a formula that fitted reasonably well. How else would you do it? | ||
| Steve | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:21 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | Paul_D said: c**tos: I like how you don't bother to read the thread, then go and make a completly useless comment (your subject title...). I do however agree on your wilkes points idea. Just out of intrest, how is the wilkes system set up to make it equal for all weight categorys? (obviously you plug your weight into a calculator, but what makes it so that, for example, a 300kg deadlift at 100kg is better than a 225kg deadlift at 75kg...?) Robert Wilks (then man who came up with the formula) did a survey of around 10,000 lifters results from around the World. He then essentially did a regression analysis to calculate the rate of change in performance as bwt increases and then created a series of co-efficients via quadratic equation. The work was however done on lifters totals and the co-eeficients are not really designed to be used on individual lifts - they very strongly favour the big lifters if used just for bench press and will favour the smaller lifters if used just for deadlift. | ||
| Paul_D | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:24 |
Hey mate, my name is Paul Dudley Member 632, 3628 posts SQ 200, BP 155, DL 282.5637.5 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | Thanks for the informative response Steve, good to know. Paul | ||
| cuntos | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:30 |
old fat fingers needs to find 10kg Member 192, 640 posts SQ 280, BP 210, DL 245735.0 kgs @ 122.7kgs Eq | Post Edited: 01.06.2009 @ 23:35 PM by cuntos I read the first page and it was enough!Paul_D: I like the way you misinterpret my perspicacious comment as being useless. Seriously though, the concept of an "N-times" bodyweight lift is complete nonsense because, as you realise, strength and bodyweight are not correlated in a linear fashion. I could give you the actual Wilkes formula, but you canfind it online and it actualy favours some of the tubbier lifters anyway, so it's a bit bo***cks too. I propose that you consider the following: Bodyweight is proportional to all three dimensions of the human (duh!), whereas strength is proportional to the muscular cross-section (which is two dimensions). THEREFORE, you could multiply by bodyweight to the power of two thirds, or take the cube root of bodyweight squared as the weights increase. EG. Say we reckon a 225kg deadlift at the gay pussy weight of 75kg is good (which it is). So we plug 75^2/3 into our calculator and get 17.784. Then we divide 225kg by our lifter coefficient (so 225/17.784) and that gives us 12.65. Okay so far? So now we say that the lifter coefficient X 12.65 = a good deadlift equivalent to 225 @ 75kg. Trying this with a few numbers we get the following lifts which I claim are roughly equivalent. I have rounded each weight to the nearest 2.5kg to make it easier on the eyes: Bwt Lift 52......175 56......185 60......195 67.5....210 75......225 82.5....240 90......255 100.....272.5 110.....290 125.....315 150.....357.5 175.....395 EDIT: I am genuinely trying to be helpful with this and it is not a pisstake or just made up on the spur of the moment! You will see that you are still miles better than me (and most other guys on the forum) at deadlift (which we already knew), but most of us could probably eat you without being full. | ||
| Paul_D | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:39 |
Hey mate, my name is Paul Dudley Member 632, 3628 posts SQ 200, BP 155, DL 282.5637.5 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 01.06.2009 @ 23:40 PM by Paul_D I apologize for misinterpreting your "perspicacious" comment as being useless c**tos , I however don't think that there was a need for your description... (To all skinny Pussies with no muscle...). EDIT: Thats my opinion however. On your most recent post, thats very intresting, thanks for taking the time to type that out for me. Certainly gives me something to muse upon  .Paul | ||
| cuntos | | ... | 01-06-2009 @ 23:48 |
old fat fingers needs to find 10kg Member 192, 640 posts SQ 280, BP 210, DL 245735.0 kgs @ 122.7kgs Eq | No worries Paul. And apologies for being so forthright! Interestingly, my proposed formula isn't that great for deadlift, but if you put totals in you will see a fairly close correlation to the IPF world records, which I think is pretty interesting! Try a value of 48 instead of 12.65 in the formula I gave you before and you get this: Bwt.....Pred WR.IPF WR 52......667.5...665 - close 56......702.5...700 - close 60......735.....743.5 - close 67.5....795.....832.5 - Olech is awesome! 75......852.5...882.5 - Olech again! 82.5....910.....955 - Mike Bridges was possibly even better! 90......965.....980 - close Belyaev 100.....1035....1037.5 - close Freydun; Coan had the record at 1035 for 11 years 110.....1102.5..1060 - starting to drift 125.....1200....1092.5 150.....1355....1180 | ||