Adonis= World Class powerlifter??

[SteelePegasus]

Because. You adjust power to weight.

MY power to weight at near 240 lbs is not near as good as it is now.

based on those standards every weight and power record would need to be rewritten to account of for body type

actually every performance based record.  

I can hear it now:
I  actually won the swim meet because I am shorter
technically I am faster since I am shorter
I make more money than you because I said so
I have a girlfriend because I showed a picture online


or my favorite...I am stronger, since I have less muscle why should that count against me?

[Hedgehog]

Because. You adjust power to weight.

MY power to weight at near 240 lbs is not near as good as it is now.

Why should you adjust "Power" to weight?

YIP
Zack

[SteelePegasus]

Jezze: did you just cum in 2 minutes?

TA: relatively speaking that is actually 1 hour! The lives of ants is shorter than ours and thus every minute counts longer. So if we were ants it would be like 1 hour of sex..nah 2 hours..relatively speaking

[The True Adonis]

Why should you adjust "Power" to weight?

YIP
Zack

Power-to-weight ratio (sometimes referred to as the more general Specific power) and its inverse weight-to-power ratio are measures commonly used when comparing various vehicles (or engines), including automobiles, motorcycles, aircraft, and armoured fighting vehicles. It is the power the engine generates, divided by the vehicle's (or engine) weight or vice versa:

 
Units are usually horsepower per tonne (hp/tonne - PtW) or kilograms per horsepower (kg/hp - WtP), although nowadays watts are used for power in most countries that adopted the metric system

The power-to-weight ratio is often used as an indication of likely performance. The larger the PtW (the smaller the WtP) the more performance can be expected. Vehicle weights have relatively little impact on top speed, which is mostly dependent on aerodynamic drag (see drag equation). Acceleration (a), on the other hand, is dominated by the Newtonian acceleration term, F = ma, so more force (F - from the engine's torque delivered to the driven wheels or thrust delivered by an aircraft engine), will deliver more acceleration for any given vehicle mass (m = weight/g).

In any vehicle the engine power-to-weight ratio is essential for vehicle power-to-weight ratio. But in an aircraft it is more critical than in any other vehicle because any additional weight requires more lift to be generated by the wings in order to lift it. More lift from the wings automatically means more drag, through a process known as induced drag, slowing the plane down. Thus if any two engines deliver the same power, the lighter one will result in a better plane. Power-to-weight ratio therefore has a much more important impact on overall performance in aircraft, including top speed.

In this usage the power-to-weight ratio is typically used to refer to the weight of the engine alone, as a useful way of comparing various aircraft engines. The term applying to the aircraft as a whole is power loading, and is used especially in helicopter engineering.

Power-to-weight ratio is also often used as a general indicator of the mobility of tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, usually expressed in horsepower per tonne (hp/t). Such vehicles, weighing up to seventy tons, must be able to achieve relatively high speeds quickly, while overcoming a great deal of inertia and mechanical resistance even on hard surfaces, and also travel at high speeds over soft ground and up steep slopes.

[danielson]

Hey adonis I can bench 365 for 4 reps. I weigh 178, but I have 8.5 inch wrists, can I go on websites and tell people I can bench 600?

[ricosauve]

Jezze: did you just cum in 2 minutes?

TA: relatively speaking that is actually 1 hour! The lives of ants is shorter than ours and thus every minute counts longer. So if we were ants it would be like 1 hour of sex..nah 2 hours..relatively speaking

THAT WAS BEAUTFULL 

[Hedgehog]

Power-to-weight ratio (sometimes referred to as the more general Specific power) and its inverse weight-to-power ratio are measures commonly used when comparing various vehicles (or engines), including automobiles, motorcycles, aircraft, and armoured fighting vehicles. It is the power the engine generates, divided by the vehicle's (or engine) weight or vice versa:

 
Units are usually horsepower per tonne (hp/tonne - PtW) or kilograms per horsepower (kg/hp - WtP), although nowadays watts are used for power in most countries that adopted the metric system

The power-to-weight ratio is often used as an indication of likely performance. The larger the PtW (the smaller the WtP) the more performance can be expected. Vehicle weights have relatively little impact on top speed, which is mostly dependent on aerodynamic drag (see drag equation). Acceleration (a), on the other hand, is dominated by the Newtonian acceleration term, F = ma, so more force (F - from the engine's torque delivered to the driven wheels or thrust delivered by an aircraft engine), will deliver more acceleration for any given vehicle mass (m = weight/g).

In any vehicle the engine power-to-weight ratio is essential for vehicle power-to-weight ratio. But in an aircraft it is more critical than in any other vehicle because any additional weight requires more lift to be generated by the wings in order to lift it. More lift from the wings automatically means more drag, through a process known as induced drag, slowing the plane down. Thus if any two engines deliver the same power, the lighter one will result in a better plane. Power-to-weight ratio therefore has a much more important impact on overall performance in aircraft, including top speed.

In this usage the power-to-weight ratio is typically used to refer to the weight of the engine alone, as a useful way of comparing various aircraft engines. The term applying to the aircraft as a whole is power loading, and is used especially in helicopter engineering.

Power-to-weight ratio is also often used as a general indicator of the mobility of tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, usually expressed in horsepower per tonne (hp/t). Such vehicles, weighing up to seventy tons, must be able to achieve relatively high speeds quickly, while overcoming a great deal of inertia and mechanical resistance even on hard surfaces, and also travel at high speeds over soft ground and up steep slopes.

You still need to explain how you make 410 lbs into 600 lbs.

And, I remember you talking about fat as deadweight, and that you haven't lost one ounce of muscle.

How is it then that you cannot pull 600 lbs today?

YIP
Zack

[The True Adonis]

Hedgehog, I still think you don`t get that a weight lifted has nothing to do with muscle.

I lost 0 Lean Body mass.  0.

The weight lifted means nothing.  I do not have the same mechanics now. I had a high 30s waist and nearly 20 inch arms.  I was a different kind of lever then with a different center of gravity.

Muscle gain or loss is not dictated by a weight lifted.

[The True Adonis]

How much does body size and fatness affect sports performance?
In some sports, particularly those based on skill (e.g. golf, archery and shooting), performance is largely independent of body fatness. Both selection and conditioning factors tend to allow higher body fat levels in these athletes. In fact, top performers in these sports may actually be overweight (or over-fat) by community standards.

At the other end of the spectrum there are sports in which a low body mass, and in particular a low body fat level, are a distinct advantage to performance. The advantages of a low body fat level include physical and mechanical gains due to an increased power to mass ratio, or simply to a reduction in the 'dead weight' that must be moved by the athlete. This is a particular advantage where the athlete has to transport their own body mass over long distances (e.g. distance runners, triathletes, road cyclists) or to move vertically against greater gravity effects (gymnasts, jumpers, basketball players, or cyclists riding a hilly course). Higher body fat levels are seen in endurance athletes, most notably swimmers, who perform in a weight-supported sport. A high 'power to mass' ratio plays a role in 'stop-start' sports by increasing speed, agility and the ability to change direction quickly. In some team sports, players in mobile field positions or with a mobile playing style are often observed to have lower body fat levels than their team-mates. On the other hand, particularly in sports involving physical contact, a higher body fat level may be less problematic for 'set position' players. A certain level of body fat may help to protect body organs against injury from body contact, and to provide bulk against tackling. Nevertheless, a high body mass should be achieved principally through an increase in muscle mass.

A small body size per se is an advantage in distance events, especially in hot conditions where a greater surface area to volume ratio enhances heat dissipation. It also helps in acrobatic sports such as diving and gymnastics to assist the athlete to rotate or spin their entire body over a smaller area or in a faster time. Finally, in some sports there is an aesthetic component to performance. A slim, petite figure is currently deemed de rigueur in gymnastics, diving, figure skating and other subjectively judged sports. Extreme leanness is an obsession in body building, to allow muscularity to be maximally defined.

A number of studies of elite athletes have identified profiles of body fat and muscularity that confirm these principles. And in some sports, across a group of athletes of differing abilities or disciplines, there is a statistical relationship between performance and body fatness: a lower body fat level is related to better performance. These data help to promote the interest, and sometimes obsession, of various groups of athletes to achieve minimal body fat levels. But there are some limitations of these types of studies that are not taken into account by individual athletes. First, it is true that among heterogeneous groups of athletes, individual factors such as body fat levels or VO2max are predictive of performance. However, among a group of top performers or athletes with similar ability, the importance of these factors alone disappears. Instead, a combination of factors begin to play interconnected roles. Even when there is an association between body fat and performance, this does not hold true for individual cases. Among a group it is likely that some of the best performers do not conform to the stereotyped lean model, whereas some athletes with very low body fat levels are not highly gifted.

Most importantly, these studies are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. In other words, there are no good studies in which the performance of individual athletes have been monitored across a range of body fat levels. These studies would be necessary to confirm the absolute value of a certain, particularly low, level of body fatness. It is likely that if such studies were undertaken, they might confirm general tendencies towards benefits of size and body fat in some sports. But they might also confirm the observation of sports nutrition practitioners, that each athlete has a 'natural' body shape, and that they perform best within a range of this. Trying to achieve a stereotypical 'ideal' must always be balanced against the cost and disadvantages of fighting against their natural body fat levels.

A separate story of size, shape and performance involves sports with specific weight limits for competition. In sports such as boxing, wrestling, judo, light-weight rowing and weight lifting, weight divisions (commonly ranging from two to ten) have been set with the intention of matching competitors or opponents of similar size and strength. This is proposed to allow fair and equal competition. In horse racing, the horse is similarly handicapped in that they carry a certain weight, which then sets an upper weight limit for the jockey. Of course, athletes in these sports all want to compete in a lower weight class than they really deserve to be in, believing that this will mean competing against a smaller, lighter opponent. 'Making weight', the practice of reducing body mass to meet the competition weight limit, will be discussed later.

[Whiskey]

To equal a 600 lbs deadlift at my current bodyweight, All I have to do is deadlift 410 lbs.

How do you like that?

So in reality, If I do 500 now, which I can, I should be doing 731 lbs at my previous bodyweight.

Now you are starting to see it!

Yeah but you said yoiu havent lost any strengh since losing all that weight

[250Ben250]

Hedgehog, I still think you don`t get that a weight lifted has nothing to do with muscle.


Muscle gain or loss is not dictated by a weight lifted.

Actually it is.

I'm pretty sure if I stopped lifting weights and kept everything else constant, that I would loose some degree of muscle tissue.

Do you realize yet that you are very close to getting laughed completely off this board??

[The True Adonis]

Yeah but you said yoiu havent lost any strengh since losing all that weight

I haven`t.
My strength went up.

I am exerting more work and force now.

[Whiskey]

So you can deadlift more than 600pounds now for 1 rep at your bodyweight?

How much would you luke to bet that you cant?

[Joey Tito]

I had a high 30s waist and nearly 20 inch arms.  I was a different kind of lever then with a different center of gravity.

Sorry TA...but nobody else is calling bullshit on the "20 inch arms" so I will.  No WAY on earth, from your "fat" pics I've seen, you had anything CLOSE to 20 inch arms (maybe 16.5 tops).  Hedge care to jump in and second this?

[The True Adonis]

Every time I have dieted down with High Protein and oats or my Ice Creams and Doughnuts the same EXACT thing occurs.

Except this time my power to weight is way better than it was the previous times getting really lean.


But either way, my leverage and center of gravity dramatically change as well as range of motion.

A reduction of 13 inches in the waist alone and who knows else where will make a significant change mechanically.

It has nothing to do with muscle.

[BEAST 8692]

'Hedgehog, I still think you don`t get that a weight lifted has nothing to do with muscle.'

you can count me in also (not getting it) in that case.

weight lifting has 'nothing' to do with muscle?

[Whiskey]

So you can deadlift more than 600pounds now for 1 rep at your bodyweight?

How much would you luke to bet that you cant?

Care to make that bet.
if you dont just say you have lied yet again and you cant deadlift 600
now.

[The True Adonis]

'Hedgehog, I still think you don`t get that a weight lifted has nothing to do with muscle.'

you can count me in also (not getting it) in that case.

weight lifting has 'nothing' to do with muscle?

EXACTLY!

PAul Dillet in his prime had tons of muscle, but there are 150 lb lifters that would kill him!  ITs not because of muscle!

JAy Cutler is a weakling compared to many lifter his same height but 100 lbs less.

They lift more than he can and have way less muscle.

[Joey Tito]

Sorry TA...but nobody else is calling bullshit on the "20 inch arms" so I will.  No WAY on earth, from your "fat" pics I've seen, you had anything CLOSE to 20 inch arms (maybe 16.5 tops).  Hedge care to jump in and second this?

bump.  Second calling of bullshit on 20 inch arms.  LMAO

[The True Adonis]

Are ants incredibly super strong? Would they be able to toss trucks around like volley balls if they were our size? What if we could shrink down to ant size? Say about 6.4 millimeters (1/4 of an inch for the metrically challenged) tall? How strong would we be compared to the mighty ant?

     And while we're at it, wasn't there always some little guy in PE class that could do 200 pushups and 30 pullups? The big guys, even the strong fast athletic big guys, just aren't usually the pull-up champions, are they? It's almost always the small guys.
 
     It's true for world class weight lifters too. The smaller people usually lift more with respect to their weight than the big people. It's not better muscles, or a more determined attitude, that helps the little guys, it's just geometry and the way muscles work.

[BEAST 8692]

EXACTLY!

PAul Dillet in his prime had tons of muscle, but there are 150 lb lifters that would kill him!  ITs not because of muscle!

JAy Cutler is a weakling compared to many lifter his same height but 100 lbs less.

They lift more than he can and have way less muscle.

you're forgetting all the physiological, motivational and mental variabes here adam.

put simply, you think that lifting weights had 'nothing' to do with the muscular development on jay and paul's bodies?

[Whiskey]

Care to make that bet.
if you dont just say you have lied yet again and you cant deadlift 600
now.

3rd time I am calling bullshit
Still dont want to make a bet huh?
Thought so.
You really are a luaghing stock here and over on ironage

[The True Adonis]

We are talking about weight lifted.


THE EVOLUTION OF BODYMASS ADJUSTMENT FORMULAE
2-21-00

 

Periodically, the issue arises of comparing the strength of athletes of
different bodymass.   The following article summarises some of the more
important events in the evolution of strength-bodymass relationships and
their use in lifting or strength comparison.

Some of us have found the equations involved to be interesting and useful in
comparing treadmill-based performances.  Instead of simply dividing by
bodymass, we have used these lifting-based comparison methods to compare
results obtained for athletes of different bodymass on  treadmill or cycle
ergometers. Years ago, some exercise physiologists applied the two-thirds
power law (mentioned in the first paragraph  below) in an attempt to improve
upon bodymass adjustments made by simple division by bodymass. Since the
ability to execute work is related to lean body or muscle mass, we felt that
using strength-based formulae might be highly relevant.  Has anyone else
examined ergometry and other bodymass-dependent results in this way?

THE EVOLUTION OF BODYMASS ADJUSTMENT FORMULAE

(Ref: Siff M C & Verkhoshansky Y V "Supertraining", 1999)

Strength is related to the cross-sectional area of the muscles and,
consequently, indirectly to bodymass.  Therefore, the heavier the athlete,
the larger the load he can lift.   The athlete's bodymass is proportional to
the cube of its linear dimensions, whereas  a muscle's cross-sectional area
is proportional only to its square. From this basic dimensional analysis, the
mathematical relationship between maximum strength (F) and bodymass (B) may
be expressed as F = a.B ^ 2/3, where a is a constant, which characterises the
athlete's level of strength fitness (Lietzke, 1956).  Lietzke found that the
most accurate fit to data was obtained for an exponent of 0.6748, which was
close to the theoretical value of 0.6667.  This equation expresses with
modest accuracy the relationship between bodymass and results in the Olympic
lifts.

In the practical setting, Hoffman had already appreciated from 1937 the value
of the two-thirds power law in comparing the performances of weightlifters of
different bodymass and he annexed this equation as the 'Hoffman formula'.
More than ten years later, Austin considered the theoretical 2/3 exponent as
insufficiently accurate to describe the records of his day, so he produced
his 'Austin formula' with an exponent of 3/4.  More recently, several
researchers persisted with the two-thirds power law, including Karpovich and
Sinning (1971), who used current weightlifting records to demonstrate that
the exponent still remained fairly close to two-thirds.  Their equation,
however, offered only modest accuracy, with a mean error over all the
bodymass classes of 5.2% in interpolation and major inaccuracies in
extrapolation for the heavier lifters (e.g. the error at 125 kg bodymass was
14.7%).

Numerous attempts have been made since then to derive the closest possible
mathematical relationship between the Olympic lifts and bodymass (e.g. by
O'Carroll, Vorobyev and Sukhanov), but all equations invariably favoured
certain bodymass classes and competitive weightlifters strongly opposed to
comparisons of performance based on relative scores using any of the extant
formulae.

Consequently, in 1971, Siff and McSorley, an engineering student at the
University of Cape Town, South Africa, examined the possibility of fitting
different equations to current weightlifting records for all bodymass
divisions up to 110 kg.  Soon afterwards, McSorley prepared
computer-generated parabolic-fit tables to compare performances by
weightlifters of different bodymass.  In 1972 these tables were adopted by
the South African Weightlifting Union and were used for nearly a decade to
award trophies and select national teams.  In 1976 Sinclair of Canada
concluded similarly that a parabolic system offered the best means of
com-paring the strength of lifters of different bodymasses (Sinclair &
Christensen, 1976).

The McSorley and Sinclair parabolic systems were limited in that both were
most accurate for bodymasses up to 110 kg and, since they were based on world
records of no more than three successive years, the tables became inaccurate
whenever world records were broken.  To avoid these difficulties, it is
preferable to collect a database comprising the mean of the ten best lifts
ever achieved in each of the 11 bodymass classes in weightlifting history for
bodymasses up to about 165 kg (Siff, 1988).  Statistical regression
techniques revealed that various sigmoid (S-shaped) curves, such as the
logistic, hyperbolic tan and Gompertz functions, and a power law provide
highly accurate fits to the data (correlation coefficient R > 0.998).  The
simplest equation for practical application was found to be the following
power law equation:

Total lifted        T = a - b*B ^(-c)

where B = bodymass and a, b and c are numerical constants.

For weightlifting data up to 1988, the values of the constants for adult
lifters are:

  a  =  512.245, b =  146230  and c =  1.605

The same power law equation applies accurately to powerlifting records (Siff,
1988).
For powerlifting data up to 1987, the values of the constants are:

Powerlifting Total:                    a   =  1270.4,  b = 172970,  c = 1.3925
Powerlifting Squat:                   a   =  638.01,  b = 9517.7,   c = 0.7911
Powerlifting Bench Press:        a  =   408.15,  b = 11047,     c = 0.9371
Powerlifting Deadlift:               a  =   433.14,  b = 493825,   c = 1.9712

To compare the performances of lifters of different bodymass, simply
substitute each lifter's bodymass in the relevant equations above to
calculate the Total (or lift) expected for a top world class lifter.  Then
divide the each lifter's actual Total by this value and multiply by 100 to
obtain the percentage of the world class lift achieved by each lifter.  This
method is also useful for monitoring the progress of an athlete whose lifts
and bodymass increase over a period of time, because it is pointless to do so
by referring simply to the increase in absolute mass lifted if the athlete's
bodymass has changed significantly.

The following websites discuss the application of several formulae for
comparing weightlifting and powerlifting performances, with some of the
details of the equations from "Supertraining" (Ch 3.3.5). The last quoted
website allows you to automatically calculate several bodymass corrected
Totals.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/8682/formulas.htm
http://www.isu.edu/~andesean/wform.htm
http://www.qwa.org/stats/pwrrankings.asp

Similar formulae for strength comparison of women and juveniles appear in
"Supertraining" (some details of this book, including its Contents, are on
this website:  http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/8682/siff.htm).

[The True Adonis]

Bodyweight and Age Formulas
by Tony Dziepak October 1998

The question often arises who is the strongest lifter pound-for-pound? Well, the simplest way to answer this would be to divide the lifter's total by his/her bodyweight. However, the relationship between bodyweight and ability to achieve the highest total weight lifted is not linear, so nonlinear formulas are used to compare the performances of lifters across bodyweights.
The best formulas to use are the Siff formulas. For Weightlifting, the formula is:

Total=a-b*B^(-c), where B is bodymass in kg, a = 512.245, b = 146230 and c = 1.605.

For Powerlifting, the same equation applies, but the constants are: a=1270.4, b=172970, c=1.3925.

For women's weightlifting:

Total=c-a*exp(-b*B), where B is bodymass in kg, a=943.063, b=0.05142 and c=257.314.

To compare the performances of lifters of different bodymass, simply substitute each lifter's bodymass in the relevant equations above to calculate the Total (or lift) expected for a top world class lifter. Then divide each lifter's actual Total by this value and multiply by 100 to obtain the percentage of the world class lift achieved by each lifter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the more commonly used formulas in weightlifting are the Sinclair formulas. They have been formulated by Roy Sinclair since at least 1984 and updated every four years (for men) and at least since 1996 for women.
The 1996 formula is: 10^(a(x^2)), where a=1.348196177 (men), =1.016281142 (women), and x=log(w/135.39) (men) =log(w/110.69) (women), where w=bodyweight. The formula is used for athletes less than or equal to 135.39kg (men) 110.69kg (women) bodyweight. For athletes greater than this bodyweight, the coefficient is 1.

Powerlifting has similar formulas: the Schwartz formula was the original; later, the Malone formula was formulated for women. Currently, the Wilks formula is most commonly used for both men and women.

The Malone-Meltzer coefficients are used to compare totals of masters lifters of different ages. Track and field has similar age-grading formulas for each event.

The Siff and Malone-Meltzer formulas are given in formulas.xls, a Microsoft Excel file. I have also superimposed Siff isocurves onto my chart of absolute records.

So to determine who is the most efficient lifter, or who lifts the most pound-for-pound, one would find the tangency of a ray from the origin to the Siff isocurves. This occurs at a bodyweight of about 62kg for men and 50kg for women. This defines the most efficient bodyweight, given the current pool of lifters. Heavier athletes lift more, but an additional kilogram of bodyweight generally returns less than additional kilogram to the total.

Of course, this does not mean that the most efficient bodyweight for all individual men is 61kg. That depends upon the individual's characteristics--most notably frame. When one is lower than their ideal bodyweight, their bone mass is a greater percentage of their muscle mass, and the bone-muscle system is less efficient. In general, the most efficient weight class (men and women) is the second heaviest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Sinclair formula: My major criticism of the Sinclair formula is that the coefficients are the same for athletes above 135.39 kg of bodyweight. Therefore, two athletes that total 400 kg, one weighing 135.4 and one weighting 170, would score identical. I believe the better lifter in this case is the more efficient lifter: the lighter one.

So a tiebreaker rule might be that the lighter lifter is ranked ahead of the heavier lifter. But this is exactly what the Sinclair formula is supposed to do. The Siff formulas are upward-sloping for all bodyweights. Furthermore, the Siff formulas are not piecewise.

Malone-Meltzer coefficients: The current table of coefficients are not generated by a formula. Therefore, a plot of the coefficients and isocurves produces a wavy line with many inflection points.

Solution: reduce the number of inflection points to one to produce a smooth S-curve. My proposed values are given in the Excel chart. In addition, to extend the chart, the coefficients should increase by 0.02 for every year above the age of 90.

Also, when the next Malone-Meltzer update is done, I suggest separate tables for men and women. Men and women may have different rates of physical decline at various age ranges.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Competition
The following describes the procedure for conducting a formula competition (as opposed to a standard weight class competition): This is useful in small meets, where there would be only one or two entrants in some weight classes.

First, athletes weigh in one time between two and one hours before the competition. (There are no extra weigh-ins to make a certain weight class.) After last weigh in, all lifter's weights are revealed. Then athletes declare their opening attempts. (Throughout the competition, athletes may adjust declared attempts upward.) Competition ascends by formula applied to the snatch; bar weight must be increments of 2.5kg. In the jerk, competition ascends by formula applied to the jerk (or alternatively applied to the total). Bar weight must be increments of 2.5kg.

Example: four lifters weigh in at:

   bwt    opening att Siff value
A  60.00  70          .227604
B  67.69  82.5        .240124
C  84.40  97.5        .247543
D  94.00  95          .230210
The starting order is A-D-B-C. However, if lifter A takes second attempt at 75, this is worth .243861, so lifter A will take second attempt before lifter C takes first attempt.
If lifter A makes 75 on second attempt, Lifter D will then have to lift 102.5 to surpass lifter A.

Also, the Siff value and the Malone-Meltzer coefficients can be multiplied to make an age-handicap, bodyweight-handicap combination competition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References and links:
Meltzer, David E. (1994) "Age dependence of Olympic weightlifting ability" Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1053-67.

Meltzer, David E. (1996) "Body-mass dependence of age-related deterioration in human muscular fuinction" American Physiological Society 0161-7567, 1149-55.

Siff, Mel C. & Verkhoshansky "Supertraining" 1998, Ch 3.3.

The Evolution of Bodymass Adjustment by Mel Siff

More on the Wilks Formula by Sean Anderson

[Joey Tito]

3rd time I am calling bullshit
Still dont want to make a bet huh?
Thought so.
You really are a luaghing stock here and over on ironage

I tell you, as someone who has competed for many many years in powerlifting and who knows an awful lot of VERY strong guys, TA is full of shit about this 600 lb deadlift.  At 240 lbs he looked soft.  His traps were non existent: those puny traps did not pull even 400, I bet.  Not that size means everything, but I think you get my point...

As for the 20 inch arms, I know a couple guys with arms slightly over 20.  And they aren't fat either.  And TA's arms are NOT 20 inch arms.