Deadlifts - Page 3

zenpharaohs · Tue, October 24th, 2006, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_D

I thought you said you were going to clean 700 lbs, and I was like ...? wtf

Anyone can clean 700#. As long as it's on the moon.

chicanerous · Tue, October 24th, 2006, 11:57 PM

Great pull, Chris Mason!

That's huge weight.

turing · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

Anyone can clean 700#. As long as it's on the moon.

Uhhh... no they can't -- 700 lbs on the moon is the same as 700 lbs here! (by definition, pounds is a measurement of force, not mass) Now, if you said Anyone can clean 320kg as long as it's on the moon, well, I'd have to agree with you...

Silly americans and your ancient measuring ways....

Robert2006 · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 07:53 PM

http://exrx.net/WeightExercises/Erec...BDeadlift.html

So is that wrong? It seems in all the videos the lifter is starting almost upright. Unlike this guy.

zenpharaohs · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turing

Uhhh... no they can't -- 700 lbs on the moon is the same as 700 lbs here! (by definition, pounds is a measurement of force, not mass)

You seem to be confusing the the pound avoirdupois which is indeed a measure of mass, with the pound-force, which is what you call the pound.

The pound avoirdupois is defined as 0.45359237 kg, and is therefore a unit of mass. This is what it means when weights, e.g. barbells and their plates, are measured in pounds.

If you think about it, it is obvious that the pounds marked on dumbells and barbell plates are in units of pound avoirdupois, and not units pound-force. Otherwise barbell plates which are marked in pounds would have things like altitude and latitude correction tables on them.

So next time you are on the moon, you too will be able to clean 700#.

DeafNgari · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turing

Uhhh... no they can't -- 700 lbs on the moon is the same as 700 lbs here! (by definition, pounds is a measurement of force, not mass) Now, if you said Anyone can clean 320kg as long as it's on the moon, well, I'd have to agree with you...

Silly americans and your ancient measuring ways....

Silly Canadian...

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

You seem to be confusing the the pound avoirdupois which is indeed a measure of mass, with the pound-force, which is what you call the pound.

The pound avoirdupois is defined as 0.45359237 kg, and is therefore a unit of mass. This is what it means when weights, e.g. barbells and their plates, are measured in pounds.

If you think about it, it is obvious that the pounds marked on dumbells and barbell plates are in units of pound avoirdupois, and not units pound-force. Otherwise barbell plates which are marked in pounds would have things like altitude and latitude correction tables on them.

So next time you are on the moon, you too will be able to clean 700#.

exactly. Wouldn't it be fun to consult a chart to compare lifts between someone in San Francisco and someone in Colorado?

Big_D · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 09:56 PM

Hehe, I don't know if it makes that much of a difference =P.

zenpharaohs · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_D

Hehe, I don't know if it makes that much of a difference =P.

It would on the moon...

chicanerous · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

It would on the moon...

Big_D · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 11:27 PM

Yeah but there is more of a difference than a mile in altitude, plus the less gravity thing, too =P.

elhewie · Wed, October 25th, 2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by mastover
The guy who won the light heavy class took the overall show. I spoke to him that day and discovered that all he did was basically 6-7 exercises - squats, deads, benches, dips, pullups, and shoulder presses. No pec deck, dumbell curls, fly's, leg extensions, etc., yet his physique was complete with shredded mass and perfect symmetry. These exercises are my favorites.... .

The modern trend is to cut down on exercises to 3 or 4, increase intensity and frequency. Greece adopted that trend and excelled dramatically in making Pyrros Dimas and others. That trend started in the old Soviet and East Germany.

The fundamental issue is "resistance" in very simplified routine that cuts on mental fatigue. So, you do not have to worry too much about which exercise list to execute in which day of the week.

In the old days, farmers developed muscles superior to any bodybuilding muscles with just lifting what ever need be lifted.

chris mason · Thu, October 26th, 2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elhewie

The modern trend is to cut down on exercises to 3 or 4, increase intensity and frequency. Greece adopted that trend and excelled dramatically in making Pyrros Dimas and others. That trend started in the old Soviet and East Germany.

The fundamental issue is "resistance" in very simplified routine that cuts on mental fatigue. So, you do not have to worry too much about which exercise list to execute in which day of the week.

In the old days, farmers developed muscles superior to any bodybuilding muscles with just lifting what ever need be lifted.

Superior in what way?

Nico · Thu, October 26th, 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by turing
Uhhh... no they can't -- 700 lbs on the moon is the same as 700 lbs here! (by definition, pounds is a measurement of force, not mass) Now, if you said Anyone can clean 320kg as long as it's on the moon, well, I'd have to agree with you...

Silly americans and your ancient measuring ways....

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

You seem to be confusing the the pound avoirdupois which is indeed a measure of mass, with the pound-force, which is what you call the pound.

The pound avoirdupois is defined as 0.45359237 kg, and is therefore a unit of mass. This is what it means when weights, e.g. barbells and their plates, are measured in pounds.

If you think about it, it is obvious that the pounds marked on dumbells and barbell plates are in units of pound avoirdupois, and not units pound-force. Otherwise barbell plates which are marked in pounds would have things like altitude and latitude correction tables on them.

So next time you are on the moon, you too will be able to clean 700#.

physics ownage!!

turing · Thu, October 26th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

You seem to be confusing the the pound avoirdupois which is indeed a measure of mass, with the pound-force, which is what you call the pound.

The pound avoirdupois is defined as 0.45359237 kg, and is therefore a unit of mass. This is what it means when weights, e.g. barbells and their plates, are measured in pounds.

Hah, whoops, that's what I get for trying to be too clever, based solely on my distant memories of 1st year engineering statics. And, given that: In structural engineering applications the term "pound" is used almost exclusively to refer to a unit of force and not to refer to the unit of mass. Hence my confusion.

Here's a rather clear (and interesting) discussion of the subject, for those not too annoyed by how off topic I've pulled this thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Quote:

If you think about it, it is obvious that the pounds marked on dumbells and barbell plates are in units of pound avoirdupois, and not units pound-force. Otherwise barbell plates which are marked in pounds would have things like altitude and latitude correction tables on them.

1 lb (mass) is equal to 1 lbf (force) at standard g (9.80665m/s^2). So, I was well aware that the pounds marked on plates was actually based on a unit of mass, my error was in assuming that that was simply an historical description due to the tangled history of force and mass, and not realizing that common usage of lb actually refers to an officially sanctioned unit of mass.

Mea Culpa

-- at least I learned something today!