Re: Height Adjusted Totals

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote

" ...Another important issue is that it has never been shown that a taller lifter

is automatically weaker than a shorter colleague who has the same bodymass... "

I find that very surprising. Has anyone actually tried to show that? Very

interesting indeed. I assumed (and I thought reasonably) that, ceteris paribus,

this was the case, indeed I had observed as much in my federation. Perhaps it is

true what they say, namely that economists assume too much and do very little.

Cheers,

_______________________

Mavromatis

Department of Economics

Monash University

AUSTRALIA

_______________________

***Ceteris paribus = all things being equal. I have data from Russian texts

which give the heights of lifters in the same bodymass division and found that

there is no correlation between height and performance within the same division.

In these cases, the differences generally are less than about 10cm centimetres,

so it would be interesting to ascertain what the outcome would be if the height

difference were to be much greater.

Nevertheless, having spent time with the tall Rachmanov (lighter than Serge),

the short Serge Reding and various other elite lifters in the same bodymass

division, I do know that some taller lifters happen to achieve greater Totals

than their shorter counterparts. Similarly in powerlifting.

The more important issue is that of leverages, something which has a great deal

to do with the relative lengths of limbs in a lifter. Even then, one can train

and use techniques which tend to level the playing field.

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote

<*** As a matter of fact, my " Supertraining " book has included height

correction formulae for many years (see Ch 3.3 in any edition). However, I

would never advocate that any height correction formulae be used in lifting,

since height differences do not necessarily imply poor leverages among all

tall lifters....>

<.Mavromatis@...> wrote:

<Then why would you advocate weight correction formulae? After all some

lifters (though not all) can get so heavy that it affects their speed and

even execution of a movement. I recall Louie (or was it Dave Tate?)

saying something to the tune that you can get too heavy such that your gut

interferes with your ability to deadlift!

Are you arguing that weight correction is more objective than height

correction? It would seem to me that in all likelihood shorter lifters hold

an advantage over their taller opponents which is not all that dissimilar to

that of heavier lifters relative to their lighter opponents. Why correct for

one but not the other?>

***One every good reason is that strength depends on both height and

bodymass, which means that a fairer formula would have to include an

adjustment nomogram or formula that would show how strength is simultaneously

dependent upon both of these variables. I would try to devise such a

formula, but have been unable to obtain sufficient data on a large enough

sample of top lifters over a long enough period.

On the practical side, since lifting competitions have been based upon

bodymass classes and not height classes, all of our correction formulae have

adjusted for bodymass differences. It is highly unlikely that the technical

committees in lifting will be convinced to accept height adjustments as well,

so that we will have to be satisfied to use height studies only for academic

purposes for many years to come.

Another important issue is that it has never been shown that a taller lifter

is automatically weaker than a shorter colleague who has the same bodymass.

On the other hand, there is prolific evidence that lifters who are heavier

generally display greater absolute strength than their lighter counterparts.

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote

<*** As a matter of fact, my " Supertraining " book has included

height correction formulae for many years (see Ch 3.3 in any

edition). However, I would never advocate that any height correction

formulae be used in lifting, since height differences do not

necessarily imply poor leverages among all tall lifters....>

Then why would you advocate weight correction formulae? After all

some lifters (though not all) can get so heavy that it affects their

speed and even execution of a movement. I recall Louie (or

was it Dave Tate?) saying something to the tune that you can get too

heavy such that your gut interferes with your ability to deadlift!

Are you arguing that weight correction is more objective than height

correction? It would seem to me that in all likelihood shorter

lifters hold an advantage over their taller opponents which is not

all that dissimilar to that of heavier lifters relative to their

lighter opponents. Why correct for one but not the other?

Cheers,

Mavromatis

[Guest guest]

:

I believe that there are many lifters out there that don't buy into the

application of any formula to determine Best Lifter. For one, conceptually it

seems contradictory to having weight classes in the first place. Clearly a

6', 250-pound man cannot be compared to a 5'7 " , 200-pound man. As you point

out, there are mathematical limitations but also physiological (e.g.,

biomechanical). To come up with a valid and reliable result may be

impossible. Besides, as one person put it, compared to bodyweight the ant

kicks the elephant's butt, but the elephant will still squash an ant.

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

In an earlier letter, I wrote:

***Ceteris paribus = all things being equal. I have data from Russian texts

which give the heights of lifters in the same bodymass division and found

that there is no correlation between height and performance within the same

division. In these cases, the differences generally are less than about 10cm

centimetres, so it would be interesting to ascertain what the outcome would

be if the height difference were to be much greater.

***I meant to write " ceteris paribus = other things being equal. " Please

accept that correction. In this context, it means that we would be comparing

the effect of height on Total and considering all other variables to be the

same or irrelevant to the issue being considered.

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...

From (no email address) Tue Dec 12 13:04:54 2000

Return-Path: <Gladiadores@...>

Received: (qmail 22133 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 21:04:53 -0000

Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7. with QMQP; 12 Dec 2000

21:04:53 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO c9.) (10.1.2.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 12

Dec 2000 22:05:58 -0000

X-eGroups-Return: Gladiadores@...

Received: from [10.1.2.74] by c9. with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2000 21:04:50

-0000

X-eGroups-Approved-By: Supertraining@... via web; 12 Dec 2000 21:04:29 -0000

X-Sender: Gladiadores@...

X-Apparently-supertrainingegroups

Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Dec 2000 20:15:04 -0000

Received: (qmail 35583 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 20:15:03 -0000

Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9. with QMQP; 12 Dec 2000

20:15:03 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.4) by mta2 with

SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 20:15:03 -0000

Received: from Gladiadores@... by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id

a.bf.9a3ba34 (4540) for <supertrainingegroups>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:14:24

-0500 (EST)

Message-ID: <bf.9a3ba34.2767e11f@...>

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:14:23 EST

Subject:Re: Not being limited by 'Science'

supertrainingegroups

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset= " US-ASCII "

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114

From:

Diego Crespo<gladiadores@...>

X-eGroups-Edited-By: Supertraining@...

I do not attack Science, in fact my earlier posts begins with this sentence:

Without a doubt in my mind science is the best tool we have for truth (with a

very little t ). This I say because TRUTH in my religion is reserved for

Jesus; I am Catholic).

I did attack severely " science " (pseudo), the act of silencing people with

" science " and manipulating people buy things with " science " . (please notice

the apostrophes).

I also say that Science is very hard to practice the way the system works. I

also say that even those institutions that seem traditional and respected are

within a comercial system and are influenced by funding. Before the eighties

you could not even do research in weight training, for example, without great

difficulty since it was not the thing to do, since it was the aerobic decade.

So weightraining was " scientifically contraindicated for losing weight (fat)

and not too long ago it wasn't even recommended for athletes. This is the

reason why Dr. Zatsiorsky, Dr. Siff, Dr. Medveyev, etc,etc are the clear

leaders. When we run into one of them it is like finally reaching some

drinking water in a desert.

With all the Exercise Science departments, with all the PhD's in nutrition,

in Wellness, etc, in every university in every town in every State in the

U.S. Last I remember there was a 95% failure rate in exercise adherence and

in success in losing weight longterm. The truth is that this is the nation with

the worst obesity problem in history. We do not know how to lose weight as a

culture. This is not the public's fault; they know all the trite cliches and

have followed all advice.

We don't know the exact rep or sets to use because this premise doesn't make

any sense. I am glad there is no " exact " because such knowledge would take

away all human freedom. We would not have these discussions if there was an

exact rep and set range. No need to have a discussion group at all.

So Science to me is very noble, scientists perform the noblest profession in

my mind; " the pursuit of truth " which is liberating and freeing.

On the other hand, anyone who says there is " a " way to do anything is

selling something and is taking away freedom. Any scientist who does not

listen to common people and observe his world (especially if it goes against

what he knows) with humility, any scientist that doesn't doubt his/her own

science is performing anti-science. This we all do from time to time, even if

you are the greatest scientist in history.

I stand by my statements.

Diego Crespo