• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Which is important to you: BW to lifting ratio or max lift numbers?

Bodyweight ratio's mean nothing.

If you weigh 60kg and bench double bodyweight, you're not stronger than a 150kg benching 275kg.

All that matters is where you stand in relation to various grading scales, your federations records, and that you are constantly improving.
 
depends on sport.

For my sport, track, bodyweight ratios are critical. Weight lifted, per bodyweight, great indicator that training is on track.

For lifting sports, obviously little correlation as ratio lifted declines as you get heavier.
 
Ummm.....power is important. Being able to cover 10 yards in the blink of an eye. Can't be powerful without having good limit strength but absolutely no chance of power without velocity.
 
True that.. power is what most athletes strive for. There's not many professional sports out there that demand a slow grind of heavy ass weights off the ground.

For the average gym go-er, I certainly am not going to be awestruck by a 100kg bloke squatting 60kg compared with a 60kg bird squatting 60kg. Everyone should strive to lift to their potential. It would make sense that the more LBM you have the more you should be able to lift.
 
Admin said:
Which is important to you: BW to lifting ratio or max lift numbers?
Click to expand...
The answer is to be found in the premise of the question itself. And since I find the premise is asking for a subjective answer, it makes the whole reply subjective by its very nature.
 
Goes both ways. Fat shit benching double BW. Could not care less. Border Line 50kg dwarf benching double Bw couldn't care less either.
 
Taller should ultimately mean stronger. Ed Coan complained about not being tall enough. He was a brick with eyes and if he had been 6ft tall then he could have carried another 50kg of bodyweight. That would have been very scary and he would probably be very dead. Being short is probably why he isn't dead.

Its a simple truth that a longer limb will be able to carry a greater mass of muscle and a greate mass of muscle ought to translate into greater potential to generate force.
 
So bigger potential - but longer to get to the same level as someone shorter perhaps?
Talking skinny nerd stepping foot in gym for first time
 
vonfram88 said:
Taller should ultimately mean stronger. Ed Coan complained about not being tall enough. He was a brick with eyes and if he had been 6ft tall then he could have carried another 50kg of bodyweight. That would have been very scary and he would probably be very dead. Being short is probably why he isn't dead.

Its a simple truth that a longer limb will be able to carry a greater mass of muscle and a greate mass of muscle ought to translate into greater potential to generate force.
Click to expand...

Why would he have been dead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top