Barbell SFL Barbell Cert: Bench > Squat?

[watchnerd]

So I was reviewing the SFL Barbell Certs...

SFL Barbell Certification Requirements | StrongFirst

The Instructor candidates must pass the following tests: Teaching safely and effectively. Strength test. Technique test. Candidates have a choice of taking the strength and technique test during the Certification or submitting a video up to 6 months after the end of the Certification. If you are...

www.strongfirst.com

...and it seems that the bench press numbers are higher than the squat numbers, at least in my case.

Just to keep math easy:

BW: 100 kg
Age/gender: 50-64 male

Bench press requirement:

1 RM @ 1.1x BW = 1.1 x 100 kg = 110 kg bench press for 1 rep

Squat requirement:

5 RM @ 0.9 BW = 0.9 x 100 kg = 90 kg squat for 5 reps

Okay, the squat is lower, but it's also for 5 reps. So let's try to normalize using a 1 RM calculator:

One Rep Max Calculator - Strength Level

Calculate your one-rep max (1RM) for any lift. Your one-rep max is the max weight you can lift for a single repetition for a given exercise.

strengthlevel.com

110 kg bench @ 1 RM = 93.6 kg bench for 6 reps

93.6 kg bench for 6 reps > 90 kg squat for 5 reps

Normalizing in the other direction:

90 kg squat @ 5 RM = 101.3 kg squat for 1 rep

101.3 kg squat for 1 rep < 110 kg bench for 1 rep

=====

I realize 1 RM calculators aren't that accurate, but I still find this curious, as usually strength standards roughly follow:

bench < squat < deadlift

But SFL seems to be expecting:

squat < bench < deadlift

Is this just a mathematical anomaly edge case, or is this how SF views things?

That one should be stronger at the bench press than the squat?

 

[Steve Freides]

In general, the one rep Max requirements are just that. Although we’d like everyone to have perfect form on everything, I think it’s accurate to say that at least a little more slack is given when testing lifts for one repetition. On the other hand, the five rep max tests are a test of form.

In the history of our programs, I believe that for some things, for example, the SFG snatch test, we used to be more tolerant of less than SFG-specific form than we are now. If memory serves, I believe these current specification says that your 100 reps have to also be in the same good form as your technique test.

In short, one thing is a strength test, and the other thing is a technique test, and in the latter, better than just legal lift technique is required.

@Brett Jones

-S-

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Is this just a mathematical anomaly edge case, or is this how SF views things?

That one should be stronger at the bench press than the squat?

Look at fine print there: "Strength Standards" have bench press and deadlift one rep max. "Technique Standards" list numbers for squat, deadlift, and military press. Interesting that there wouldn't be a strength test for the squat and a 5 rep technique test for the bench also, but I suppose you don't want to spend hours and hours testing either.

 

[watchnerd]

Look at fine print there: "Strength Standards" have bench press and deadlift one rep max. "Technique Standards" list numbers for squat, deadlift, and military press. Interesting that there wouldn't be a strength test for the squat and a 5 rep technique test for the bench also, but I suppose you don't want to spend hours and hours testing either.

There is also no strength standard for the overhead press, either.

But I assume the logic is something like:

1 lower body strength lift, 1 upper body strength lift

Given that bench somewhat translates to OHP, and DL somewhat translates to squat.

If you have to judge a bunch of people at one time, it's not very practical to have everyone do 4 lifts for strength and 4 for technique.

 

[Steve Freides]

The standards - the chosen 1RM lifts, the chosen 5RM lifts, and everything else - have been devised and formulated by people way smarter than me, so I won't speculate on the reasoning, suffice it to say a lot of thought went in, and the standards have been revised more than once along the way, the goal always being to ensure we turn out well-qualified instructors who can walk the walk.

I wouldn't bother to speculate further than that, and certainly not about things like what somewhat translates to what. Likewise the testing procedures are well-thought out and have been used for what are now, I'm sure, at least hundreds of certifications.

It's not "if we told you why we do everything the way we do, we'd have to kill you" but rather, at least from my perspective, if I truly understood why every standard and testing procedure is the way it is, then I might have opinions about those things. The same goes for what's taught and how it's taught - lots has gone into these things, and just like I don't feel the need to look up Pavel's article citations, I don't feel the need to understand the things you're asking about. Of course, you're entitled to ask, and I tagged Brett above so I hope he'll participate here as well.

To ramble on further on this, the standards and curriculum and procedures and whatnot are, for me, like a martial art - there are people with a level of mastery both of these things and of teaching these things that I'll never achieve and frankly don't aspire to; I'm just glad to be a student in all this, and as I did when I was a martial arts student, sometimes I get asked to "lead the class" in something even though I'm not a grand master.

JMO, YMMV.

-S-

 

[Brett Jones]

No—the perspective is not that the bench should be stronger than the squat.

The technique tests are just that—technique tests with enough load to show the execution of the lift and meet the form standards.

The strength standards ensure that you have put enough time in with the barbell to perform well over the weekend and take in the coaching and information.

It's not a powerlifting meet or strongman show.