Short people can squat/bench more?

French Spirit · Fri, August 13th, 2004, 11:41 AM

I'm 5'4.5 and I squat 190 for 8 reps, and I was wondering if I have strong legs or my height simply gives me an advantage.

supirman · Fri, August 13th, 2004, 11:49 AM

190 for 8 reps doesn't make you strong, unless you're of a very young age. At 5'7 I squatted 545x7 and maxed at an even 600. Being short means you have a shorter range of motion, but you also have smaller muscles (relatively speaking). I'd say it evens out.

French Spirit · Fri, August 13th, 2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supirman

190 for 8 reps doesn't make you strong, unless you're of a very young age. At 5'7 I squatted 545x7 and maxed at an even 600. Being short means you have a shorter range of motion, but you also have smaller muscles (relatively speaking). I'd say it evens out.

Well, clearly I'm not strong, but I'm very new to lifting and I only bench 100 or so. So with a 2:1 ratio, my legs are my strongest body part. Do you see what I mean? Anyway, I'm 15, which isn't very young, so I guess you're right.

Rudd · Fri, August 13th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Short limbed barrel chested people, short torsoed people are better benchers and squatters. The ROM is shorter and their leverage is better. Longer limbed people are usually better at pulling exercise i.e deadlifts.

That said it is a little early in your lifting career to say where your strengths and weaknesses lie.

Ger

PingSpike · Fri, August 13th, 2004, 09:29 PM

supirman is extremely strong, so I wouldn't worry about trying to beat him

...especially at 15. When I was 15 I couldn't even bench 50lbs for one rep...I just didn't develop until I got quite a bit older.

I did read an article once that talked about shorter/smaller people having greater strength relative to their size compared to larger people. It had a whole diagram about how the muscle movement was more efficient on smaller limbs or something...I can't remember the details.

But I don't think smaller people are stronger...even that article I read made it clear that they were basically more efficient with what they had...not stronger overall.

supirman · Sat, August 14th, 2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PingSpike

. When I was 15 I couldn't even bench 50lbs for one rep...

I am somewhat of a strength freak... at 16 I was benching 300 lbs

Knubb · Sat, August 14th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PingSpike

supirman is extremely strong, so I wouldn't worry about trying to beat him

I certainly AM going to worry about beating supirman. He's one of very few people I know who can outlift me, so wanting to beat him is a huge source of inspiration and motivation. I AM THE GREATEST!!! ...or...going to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PingSpike

I did read an article once that talked about shorter/smaller people having greater strength relative to their size compared to larger people.

It's quite easy to show this theory in practice. Just look at the weight lifters in the olympics. The tiny guy's (well, both short and light) lifts are far better pound for pound than the big guys, but huge will always make you lift more.

Naytch · Mon, August 16th, 2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by French Spirit

Well, clearly I'm not strong, but I'm very new to lifting and I only bench 100 or so. So with a 2:1 ratio, my legs are my strongest body part. Do you see what I mean? Anyway, I'm 15, which isn't very young, so I guess you're right.

You're legs are supposed to be your strongest body part. Don't fall into the training trap of not training legs so your upper body can catch up! I've seen so many people who schedule Leg Day at the end of their Training Week and conveniently find something better to do that day. If you are new to lifting, don't focus solely on the poundage you are lifting. Make sure you have good form and the strength will come to you.

inurb · Fri, August 20th, 2004, 09:53 PM

I always thought that the taller you were the more disadvantage you were at in lifting weights. I'm 6' 4" and technically speaking wouldn't it be harder for me to add muscle to my frame then it would for someone who is 5' 4"?

Just think when I have to bench press I have a longer range of motion I have to push up to. When I squat I have to go lower and come up longer. When I do arm curls it's a longer rep then what a short guy does. I guess what I am trying to get at is that I'd rather be shorter

French Spirit · Fri, August 20th, 2004, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inurb

I guess what I am trying to get at is that I'd rather be shorter

Don't ever say that. Ever. You know not of the pains of being short *cries*

supirman · Sat, August 21st, 2004, 11:47 AM

But at 6'4", you could easily carry 300lbs on your frame and be a monster. At 5'7", it's hard to carry that much weight. Taller people weigh more and thus should lift more overall, but pound for pound the shorter people usually win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inurb

I always thought that the taller you were the more disadvantage you were at in lifting weights. I'm 6' 4" and technically speaking wouldn't it be harder for me to add muscle to my frame then it would for someone who is 5' 4"?

Just think when I have to bench press I have a longer range of motion I have to push up to. When I squat I have to go lower and come up longer. When I do arm curls it's a longer rep then what a short guy does. I guess what I am trying to get at is that I'd rather be shorter