Off the back of another thread.

How much of an effect do you think a lifters weight and height effect his strength on each of the main lifts? Do you think its solely down to weight or is height also another factor...or do you think its more down to limb length that determines possible strength, or what the individual is capable of?

To give an example - Should an 80kg @ 5 ft 5" lifter be weaker/stronger than a 80kg @ 6ft lifter? In what lifts?

- Should a 80kg @ 5ft 5" lifter be weaker/stronger/evenly matched with a 90kg @ 6ft lifter? In what lifts?

Obviously there are several factors (there always is) such as how long you have been training, your body type ecto/meso/endo, limb length etc.

I dont know if the term weaker is correct, but in certain circumstances being shorter is definately an advantage.

Young Kirk is a good example, at 3' 2" he has much less travel of the bar to deal with than a fully developed human.


... all joking aside, height is a massive factor, how many 6'2" olympic lifters do you see, and most succesful powerlifters are shorter than average. (there are exceotions ofc, Andy Bolton is a good 6 foot iirc, but hes quite short limbed if you look at him).

If you are tall but with disproportiantly long arms you may have a slight advantage on deadlifting, but usually the leg length would cover that.

Also height adds a considerable amount of weight, ive often thought that like bodybuilding, powerlifting should be split into tall and short categories. A 20% bf powerlifter at 6"0 could easily be in the top end 125+ category, whereas a stumpy 5'5"'er of the same BF% could be all the way down in the 90s.


...yes i am bitter about being tall with long limbs

I'd say limb length plays a pretty big role. Long arms would make Bench harder but Deadlift easier while having long legs may make Deadlift and Squat harder in comparison to torso.

Limb proportion is worth a mention as well as it's an issue I suffer from with my legs where the norm is a 55/45 Lower/Upper leg split where a mine are a 50/50 split. So although I have good leg strength now, I initially find it harder to get good leg drive off the floor as I have longer levers to try and get moving.

Shorter person means shorter levers - basic principles of physics means this is an advantage.

Bigger people tend to have bigger muscles though and this to some extent compenstates - But they'll be heavier as a consequence, normally

But if you're comparing a 5' 5" 90Kg person with a 6' 2" 90Kg person, with similar BF%, then the shorter one will have the leverage advantage.

The main other factor on strength will be constitution of musles- a higher percentage of short twitch fibres will mean you have more strength than someone with more slow twitch fibres.

Ader wrote:Shorter person means shorter levers - basic principles of physics means this is an advantage.

Bigger people tend to have bigger muscles though and this to some extent compenstates - But they'll be heavier as a consequence, normally

But if you're comparing a 5' 5" 90Kg person with a 6' 2" 90Kg person, with similar BF%, then the shorter one will have the leverage advantage.

The main other factor on strength will be constitution of musles- a higher percentage of short twitch fibres will mean you have more strength than someone with more slow twitch fibres.

Sorry to be a pain, but in physics longer levers are an advantage. In physiology longer limbs (levers) are a disadvantage.

If you think about it - whats easier to move a 200kg boulder with? A 1ft lever against a fulcrum? or a 20ft lever against the fullcrum. The latter makes it easier.

Tall wrote:

Ader wrote:Shorter person means shorter levers - basic principles of physics means this is an advantage.

Bigger people tend to have bigger muscles though and this to some extent compenstates - But they'll be heavier as a consequence, normally

But if you're comparing a 5' 5" 90Kg person with a 6' 2" 90Kg person, with similar BF%, then the shorter one will have the leverage advantage.

The main other factor on strength will be constitution of musles- a higher percentage of short twitch fibres will mean you have more strength than someone with more slow twitch fibres.

Sorry to be a pain, but in physics longer levers are an advantage. In physiology longer limbs (levers) are a disadvantage.

If you think about it - whats easier to move a 200kg boulder with? A 1ft lever against a fulcrum? or a 20ft lever against the fullcrum. The latter makes it easier.

Agreed 100%.

Tall wrote:

Ader wrote:Shorter person means shorter levers - basic principles of physics means this is an advantage.

Bigger people tend to have bigger muscles though and this to some extent compenstates - But they'll be heavier as a consequence, normally

But if you're comparing a 5' 5" 90Kg person with a 6' 2" 90Kg person, with similar BF%, then the shorter one will have the leverage advantage.

The main other factor on strength will be constitution of musles- a higher percentage of short twitch fibres will mean you have more strength than someone with more slow twitch fibres.

Sorry to be a pain, but in physics longer levers are an advantage. In physiology longer limbs (levers) are a disadvantage.

If you think about it - whats easier to move a 200kg boulder with? A 1ft lever against a fulcrum? or a 20ft lever against the fullcrum. The latter makes it easier.

It depends which end of the lever you're at!

If you have 200KG on one end of a seesaw - then if the fulcrum's in the middle you have to apply 200KG force to the other end to move it. If you move the fulcrum nearer the 200Kg weight you can move it with less than 200Kg force - If you move the fulcrum nearer you, you have to apply more than 200Kg force.

Now apply that to you lifting 200Kg - If you have short limbs, then the 200Kg is nearer the fulcrum (ie your joints) so you have to apply less force than if you have long limbs when teh 200Kg is further from the fulcrum.

Best I can do re picture at short notice:




Hope that makes sense

Anyone else notice the signature on that picture?

Ader wrote:

Tall wrote:

Ader wrote:Shorter person means shorter levers - basic principles of physics means this is an advantage.

Bigger people tend to have bigger muscles though and this to some extent compenstates - But they'll be heavier as a consequence, normally

But if you're comparing a 5' 5" 90Kg person with a 6' 2" 90Kg person, with similar BF%, then the shorter one will have the leverage advantage.

The main other factor on strength will be constitution of musles- a higher percentage of short twitch fibres will mean you have more strength than someone with more slow twitch fibres.

Sorry to be a pain, but in physics longer levers are an advantage. In physiology longer limbs (levers) are a disadvantage.

If you think about it - whats easier to move a 200kg boulder with? A 1ft lever against a fulcrum? or a 20ft lever against the fullcrum. The latter makes it easier.

It depends which end of the lever you're at!

If you have 200KG on one end of a seesaw - then if the fulcrum's in the middle you have to apply 200KG force to the other end to move it. If you move the fulcrum nearer the 200Kg weight you can move it with less than 200Kg force - If you move the fulcrum nearer you, you have to apply more than 200Kg force.

Now apply that to you lifting 200Kg - If you have short limbs, then the 200Kg is nearer the fulcrum (ie your joints) so you have to apply less force than if you have long limbs when teh 200Kg is further from the fulcrum.

Best I can do re picture at short notice:




Hope that makes sense

Using a picture by NU............NEG

cleaver wrote:Using a picture by NU............NEG

I did say it was short notice - Didn't notice the signature on the picture - defo a neg

Is that guy all over the net?

You have a lot of spare time when all you can do is talk about training i guess.

To give an example - Should an 80kg @ 5 ft 5" lifter be weaker/stronger than a 80kg @ 6ft lifter? In what lifts?

I think the obvious thing being over looked here is that guy A is 7" taller than guy B. If thier BF is the same, then it's likely that guy B is more muscle...

Also, in many lifts, the limbs aren't used as levers - more props and pulleys.

I think there are too many vaiables in the equation and the question should be more specific...

Short guys tend to have the advantage on both strength and building muscle (because they have small muscle bellys to fill out). Having said this I'm glad to be tall.

Craig wrote:Short guys tend to have the advantage on both strength and building muscle (because they have small muscle bellys to fill out). Having said this I'm glad to be tall.

Who has a small belly?

upright wrote:

Craig wrote:Short guys tend to have the advantage on both strength and building muscle (because they have small muscle bellys to fill out). Having said this I'm glad to be tall.

Who has a small belly?

not KP

Craig wrote:

upright wrote:

Craig wrote:Short guys tend to have the advantage on both strength and building muscle (because they have small muscle bellys to fill out). Having said this I'm glad to be tall.

Who has a small belly?

not KP

because he tall?

well its all relative, to you he would appear very tall, like some kind of giant but not to a normal sized person.

So basically they're saying in the ad that a fat person with a huge beer belly can keep up with a running wearing their brand of trainers over many miles and the only way to win is by cheating.

Craig wrote:well its all relative, to you he would appear very tall, like some kind of giant but not to a normal sized person.

I used to be huge man - like 7' tall. Alas the constant be-littling has taken it's toll and I am now a mere pixie of a thing. Much more of this and I shall be a tiny spec, all but nothing.

upright wrote:

Craig wrote:well its all relative, to you he would appear very tall, like some kind of giant but not to a normal sized person.

I used to be huge man - like 7' tall. Alas the constant be-littling has taken it's toll and I am now a mere pixie of a thing. Much more of this and I shall be a tiny spec, all but nothing.

Which sounds like an invitation for us to up the flaming....are you sure it's you who's lifting the weights posted in your journal and not Lucy?

GymBunny wrote:I used to be huge man - like 7' tall. Alas the constant be-littling has taken it's toll and I am now a mere pixie of a thing. Much more of this and I shall be a tiny spec, all but nothing.

Which sounds like an invitation for us to up the flaming....are you sure it's you who's lifting the weights posted in your journal and not Lucy?
[/quote]

Lucy's alot taller than me and has issues with her back being so gigantical so she just uses the pink DBs. Her form on Shoulder Press is ImPRESSing to say the least though.

Good comeback, sounds like you are learning a lot from her. She corrects your form and makes helpful comments too I'll wager

GymBunny wrote:Good comeback, sounds like you are learning a lot from her. She corrects your form and makes helpful comments too I'll wager

Oh yes - she knows the drill - she adds weight to my Lat pull Downs too. At first I thought it was just to watch the teddies go up and down... She helps me drink my water and fills the bottle back up... She also arranges all the dinky plates into size and shapes and uses DB Bars to play some intense heavy metal - definatley puts you in the mood for busting heads