all posts post new thread

Barbell Adding % of bodyweight lifted to bar when determining percentages?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Enkidu

Level 4 Valued Member
Does anyone add the percentage of body weight used in a particular lift when calculating percentages? The first time I recall hearing about this was something like 15+ years ago and it seemed so obvious to me at the time, but I never ended up actually using as cool as the idea sounded. If I recall correctly it was first introduced to me via Dietrich Buchenholz (who had his 15m of fame a while ago) which I am pretty sure was a pseudonym. One of the points made was that when you are squatting or dead lifting, you are using a significantly higher percentage of your body weight in addition to the bar than you are when doing something like benching or pressing.

The basic idea was that the percentage of body weight should be added to the bar weight when calculating percentages. So, let's say a 200 lb. person has a 300 lb. 1 RM back squat and wants to calculate what weight to use at 70% of his 1 RM. Using the traditional method, one would simply multiply the weight on the bar by .7 and end up using 210 lbs for squats. Using adjusted body weight (there are various suggested percentages to use, but exrx suggested using 72% of body weight for the squat and deadlift) would suggest a very different number: 167 lbs for squats instead of 210! That's a pretty big difference. The percentages would be much closer for something like the bench press where only somewhere in the neighborhood of 7% of body weight would be added to the bar (if I recall correctly from exrx). So, the same 200 lb. person with a 225 max bench would be lifting 239 lbs adjusted for percentage of body weight. 70% of that would be 153 lbs -- pretty close to the 157.5 one lift not taking body weight into consideration (so close that it probably isn't worth doing for things like bench).

I remember thinking at the time I read this, that it might account for some of the things that WSBB club was doing with speed lifts. The percentage used for the bench on speed lifts was ~60% on speed days whereas the % used for speed squats was more in the 40-50% range (albeit with bands/chains for both). What made me think about this most recently, and start revisiting this was my recent research into Dan John's and Pavel's Easy Strength program (and their variants). I read a lot and looked at results reported. One thing I noted again and again was that the percentage increase for lower body lifts (squats and dead lifts) was often somewhere in the neighborhood of twice the reported percentage increase for upper body exercises like the bench press. This made me wonder if the reason for that might be that the percentages being used in the lower body exercises are actually significantly higher when adjusted for the % of body weight also being lifted as compared with movements like the bench and press. So, while someone might be using 55% of the 1RM of the bar only, in reality, the weight being used might be closer to 65-70% of the adjusted 1RM when % of body weight is taken into consideration. So, maybe, just maybe, the upper body lifts that only use a fraction of body weight need to be lifted at a higher percentage than the lower body lifts when not adding % of body weight to the equation to get similar % increases.

Mostly just thinking out loud. Anyways, just thought I would throw this up for general consideration and discussion.
 
Last edited:
One thing I noted again and again was that the percentage increase for lower body lifts (squats and dead lifts) was often somewhere in the neighborhood of twice the reported percentage increase for upper body exercises like the bench press. This made me wonder if the reason for that might be that the percentages being used in the lower body exercises are actually significantly higher when adjusted for the % of body weight also being lifted as compared with movements like the bench and press.

Interesting line of thought and there might be some programming implications for programs based on % of 1RM.

As for lower vs. upper body, I think that is simply a factor of the size of the muscle groups involved.
 
In the weightlifting books, it has often been said that the average relative intensities of the heavier lifters were smaller than those of lighter ones. The classic example of using 73-77% of 1RM shows one example how the intensity range can be different.
 
That's another data point that seems to favor incorporating adding some percentage of body weight when using percentages.
 
Sure, DB Hammer, Nuttall, et. al and followers were all about calculating that. They were also really really into jargon. There were some good thoughts in all of that, but I can't say I know anyone who was able to make much use of that knowledge and make significant gains...

As far as bigger athletes go, yeah, for sure - in general, more recovery needed.
 
No, I don't do this, because:

1. I compete in a sport (weightlifting) that has weight divisions. So my strength relative to my weight is already pseudo-normalized for my weight bracket.

2. The judges count what's on the bar, over my head. Nothing else.

3. Programming is already complicated enough when trying to calculate BSQ, FSQ, C&J, SN, etc, ratios and progressions.

4. The existing methods for weightlifting training for competition don't take this approach, so while it may have some merit, it doesn't have the track record that the more usual approaches have.
 
Last edited:
As for lower vs. upper body, I think that is simply a factor of the size of the muscle groups involved.

+1

It's that, plus the relative stability of the hip joint vs fragility of the shoulder joint.

But, yes, to compare two much simpler and more analogous joints, knee vs elbow, biceps femoris (hamstrings) vs biceps brachii (biceps), that's a whopping size difference in tissue mass.
 
Sure, DB Hammer, Nuttall, et. al and followers were all about calculating that. They were also really really into jargon. There were some good thoughts in all of that, but I can't say I know anyone who was able to make much use of that knowledge and make significant gains...

The proof is on the platform.

If added methodological complexity is not leading to better outcomes, there may be more madness than method.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom