Objective Strength Standards - Stronger by Science

10/10/2017 Objective Strength Standards • Stronger by Science
ARTICLES GUIDES PRODUCTS COACHING MASS
Home » Objective Strength Standards

Search this website …
OCT 08 2015
Categories
Objective Strength Standards Announcements
Articles
Quick Thoughts
Recent Posts
Español
Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why
Genetics
and How and Strength Potential
Nutrition
What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
PrehabPowerlifters
1,900 and Rehab
Programming
The Science of Autoregulation
Recovery and Mindset
Steroids
Technique
Don Reinhoudt – one of the all-time great lifters. He thought he totaled 2420 in the 1970s, but
when they weighed the weights after the meet they discovered that the plates were underweight, Bench
and that his total was “only” 2391 via a 931 squat, 610 bench, and an 850 deadlift. Deadlift
Squat
People like to know how they measure up against some standard. For some,
that means trying to be the strongest person in their gym. For some, that
means trying to attain a certain placing at a high-level meet. For others, that Popular Posts
means pursuing records.
Perfecting Protein
Perhaps the two most common standards people use are strength/bodyweight Intake in Athletes:
ratios (which are pretty bad standards. You can read more about that here), or
comparing their lifts to those on Strength Standards tables. There are a few
How Much, What,
different strength standards tables. This one is probably the most popular, and When? (and Beyond)
but a few more have cropped up (one, two, three, four, five).
There are a few problems with these strength standards. How to Choose the
Right Load
1. Most of them aren’t based on any actual data. They’re pretty subjective –
Progression
just different peoples’ opinions about what folks of varying strength
levels should be able to lift. There are two exceptions. This one is Strategy
roughly based on world records from drug-tested federations, but since it
was made in 2013, it’s gotten pretty outdated. This one is based on self-
reported user data, which runs the risk of a polluted data pool (probably Periodization:
unintentionally; I put in some dummy numbers just to see how it would History and Theory
rank them, and they’re now in the data pool. I can’t imagine I’m the only
one who’s done that).
2. They don’t take height into account. This isn’t a major issue for people The Science of
who aim to compete in powerlifting, but (at least as I see it), a
Autoregulation
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/objective-strength-standards/ 1/18
major function of “strength standards” is to get an idea of your skill as a

lifter. If two people weigh the same amount and lift the same amount, but
one is 160cm tall and the other is 180cm, the taller person is a more Training with Biceps
skilled lifter. If you’re highly skilled but not as competitive as you’d like Tendinopathy
to be, you likely need to focus on building more muscle, and if you’re less
skilled, you likely need to either get leaner or get in more quality practice.
I made one table to give you a snapshot of your skill right now, and
another that shows how you stack up against the best of the best.
3. Most don’t have standards for women.
So, to rectify these issues, I’ve made my own tables. The first is based on the
relationship (discussed in the last three articles; one, two, three) between
strength and fat free mass per cm. Based on your height and weight, we can
get an idea of how much you’d lift if you had the same skill and body
composition (about 12% body fat for a male, and about 20% for a female) as Recent Posts
world-class lifters.
and How
Sex
Male
Female
1,900 Powerlifters
Height (cm)
170
Weight (kg)
73
SQUAT BENCH
Ridiculous Ridiculous
242.580706824 161.324535059
Outstanding Outstanding
220.527915294 146.658668235
Formidable Formidable
198.475123765 131.992801412
Solid Solid
176.422332235 117.326934588
Not-too-shabby Not-too-shabby
154.369540706 102.661067765
Needs some work Needs some work

132.316749176 87.995200941
Novice Novice
110.263957647 73.329334118
DEADLIFT TOTAL
Ridiculous Ridiculous
283.258075294 687.163317176
Outstanding Outstanding
257.507341176 624.693924706
Formidable Formidable
231.756607059 562.224532235
Solid Solid
206.005872941 499.755139765
Not-too-shabby Not-too-shabby
180.255138824 437.285747294
Needs some work Needs some work

154.504404706 374.816354824
Novice Novice
128.753670588 312.346962353
“Ridiculous” is 10% above the strength level predicted from the FFM/cm
relationship. Outstanding is what would be predicted from the FFM/cm
relationship. Formidable, solid, not-too-shabby, needs some work, and novice
Recent Posts
are 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% below those predictions, respectively.
I also adjusted the women’s numbers a bit to be more feasible, based on and How
current records. Keep in mind, the equations are based on data from male
competitors, so the female predictions are bound to be a bit less accurate.
1,900 Powerlifters
Additionally, remember that these are based on skill and body composition.
Carrying more body fat than is necessary will negatively impact your ranking
here just as much as low skill as a lifter. I discussed the impact body The Science of Autoregulation
composition has on relative strength in the last article.
To get an idea of lifts you should be aiming for when you’re approaching your
maximum muscular potential (discussed in the first two articles of this series;
one, two), you can use the calculator below to get the bodyweight to plug into
the calculator above.
Sex
Male
Female
Height (in cm)

170
Wrist Circumference (between your hand

and the bony protrusion of the wrist, with
your hand open)
17
Ankle Circumference (at its narrowest

point)
20.6
Bodyweight at Maximum Muscular

Potential
83.7197507
So, that’s the first table: calculating your skill as a lifter. We know that among
elite lifters, the squat, bench, and deadlift scale linearly with fat free mass per
cm. Based on your height and weight, we can get an idea of how skilled you
are at picking up heavy stuff with the muscle you currently have.
The second set of calculators gives you an idea of how good of a lifter you are
compared to the best of the best. The standards I’m using are the top
allometric scaling scores of all-time for each lift, and for each manner of
competing (with or without wraps, and with or without drugs).
The only all-time record I’m “throwing out” is Andrezej Stanaszek’s

290kg/639lb squat at 56kg/123lbs because, quite frankly, his dwarfism gave
him such an extreme advantage in the lift. If I included him in the
calculations, every other squatter (including the rest of the world record
holders) in the history of the sport would look like drunken toddlers. That’s
only a slight exaggeration.
SQUAT
Weight (kg) Recent Posts

73
Your best squat (kg) and How
147.5
Manner of Competing What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying

Male, drug-tested, no knee wraps 1,900 Powerlifters
Female, drug-tested, no knee wraps
Male, drug-tested, with knee wraps
Female, drug-tested, with knee wraps
Male, untested, no knee wraps
Female, untested, no knee wraps
Male, untested, with knee wraps
Female, untested, with knee wraps
Relative Strength Compared To The Best

of All-Time (percentage)
49.851486345
BENCH
Weight (kg)
73
Your best bench (kg)

105
Manner of Competing
Male, drug-tested
Female, drug-tested
Male, untested
Female, untested

48.304217924
Deadlift
Weight (kg)
73
Your best deadlift (kg)

206
Manner of Competing
223
Male, drug-tested
Shares
223 ARTICLES GUIDES PRODUCTS COACHING MASS
Female, drug-tested
Male, untested
Female, untested

61.842822987
TOTAL
Weight (kg)
73
Your best total (kg)

455
Recent Posts
Manner of Competing
Male, drug-tested, no knee wraps Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why
Female, drug-tested, no knee wraps and How
Male, drug-tested, with knee wraps
Female, drug-tested, with knee wraps What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
Male, untested, no knee wraps 1,900 Powerlifters
Female, untested, no knee wraps
Male, untested, with knee wraps
Female, untested, with knee wraps

57.237901225
Any score over 100% means you’re the best of all time. If that happens, let me
know so I can update the calculator.
Any score over 90% puts you among the best in the world.
Scores in the 80% range are truly exceptional. For example, a drug-free male
squatting 295kg/650lbs at 100kg/220lbs without knee wraps, or a drug-free
70kg/154lbs female benching 120kg/264lbs, or a 90kg/198lb male on drugs
deadlifting 315kg/695lbs.
Scores in the 60-75% range will be very impressive in almost every gym, and
will probably place you in the top 20 in your weight class at any major national
meet.
A score between 50-60% generally means you’ve put in some serious time
under the bar and you’ll turn heads at most gyms, but you still have plenty of
room for improvement.
Anything below 50% just means you need to keep grinding. Somewhere
around 40-50% is where most people will start hitting their first plateaus.
When that happens, it’s time to increase training volume and put more focus
on proper sleep (one, two), stress management, and nutrition.
I want to make sure these calculators don’t get outdated like others have, so
when a world record is broken, help me out by plugging it into the appropriate
calculator above, and shoot me an email if it scores over 100 so that I can
update the formulas.
To wrap up this series, I just want to make a few notes about expectations.
Throughout this entire series, most people have responded in one of four very
distinct ways:
1. The Defeatists: People who are a long way from their predicted muscle
and strength potentials, who cried foul. Either they had a long road ahead
to gain as much muscle as Dr. Butt’s calculations predicted, or their
current strength levels were noticeably below what would be predicted by
their current muscle mass.
Recent Posts
2. The Realists: People who were a long way from their predicted muscle Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why
and strength potentials, who were excited by the predictions. They and How
realized that, though they may be getting away from the “easy gains”
portion of their training life and transitioning into “the grind,” they had a
lot of room to get more jacked and set new PRs if they put their nose to What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
the grindstone and kept working. 1,900 Powerlifters
3. The Nihilists: People who were nearing their predicted muscle or
strength potential, and took it as a cue to take it easy. As they saw it, The Science of Autoregulation
since they didn’t have much more room for improvement, there was no
point in continuing to grind.
4. The Optimists: People who were nearing (or who had exceeded) their
predicted muscle or strength potential, but who were still confident they
had plenty of room for improvement and weren’t nearing a wall.
One thing I noticed was a pretty even division between Defeatists and the
Realists among people who were predicted to have plenty of room to grow.
About half were pleased by the news, and about half called bullshit, confident
they’d never exceed mediocrity.
The other thing I noticed was that Optimists vastly outnumbered Nihilists.
Almost everyone within spitting distance of their predicted muscle or
strength potential was confident the models were lowballing them.
I think those trends are telling.
Of course, it’s impossible to unravel cause and effect here. It could be that the
most gifted people had come to expect continued progress, while a sizable
portion of the less gifted people had come to expect stagnation, based on their
prior experiences. However, it could also be that the people with the best
outcomes were more likely to have the proper frame of mind on the outset.
Or, most likely, both of those factors are in play. You can read more about
how high expectations lead to high achievement, and self-limiting beliefs set
you up for failure here and here.
Belief in yourself and your potential is a two-edged sword.
On one hand, if you believe you have high potential, you’ll almost certainly
achieve more than you would if you had less flattering beliefs about yourself
and your potential. However, such beliefs set you up for greater
disappointment if you fail to live up to your expectations. High expectations

almost inherently go hand-in-hand with an internal locus of control; you revel
in your success (and you’re more likely to be successful), but you also place the
weight of your failures squarely on your own shoulders.
On the other hand, if you believe you have low potential, you’ll almost certainly
achieve less than you would if you had elevated beliefs about yourself and your
potential. However, such beliefs also give you a safety net when you fail. Low
expectations almost inherently go hand-in-hand with an external locus of
control; you derive less joy from your victories (of which there will likely be
fewer), but you’re not as negatively impacted by your failures, because you
write them off to factors outside your control.
At the end of the day, locus of control is something that’s multifactoral; it’s
partially innate, partially influenced by your environment, and partially based
Recent Posts
on personal decisions. To some degree, you have a choice concerning your Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why
beliefs about yourself. and How
Either you choose to aim high, set yourself up for success, but be more open to
disappointment, or you choose to aim low, place a shallow ceiling on what
1,900 Powerlifters
you’ll achieve, but feel better about yourself when you fall short.
This series has equipped you with the necessary information to get an objective The Science of Autoregulation
idea of what you can achieve. Maybe your potential is a little lower, or maybe
it’s a little higher, but the information in this article series should be enough to
put you in the right ballpark.
What you do with that information is up to you.
Share this on Facebook and join in the conversation

•••
Next: YOUR Drug-Free Muscle and Strength Potential: Part 1 →

YOUR Drug-Free Muscle and Strength Potential: Part 2 →
Spread the love
 Facebook 223  Twitter  Google  LinkedIn  Reddit  Tumblr  More
Related
The Steroid Strength How To Get Strong: What is YOUR Drug-Free Muscle and
Advantage: A Theoretical Strong? Strength Potential: Part 2
Approach April 18, 2017 October 1, 2015
November 22, 2016 In "Articles" In "Articles"
In "Articles"
Written by Greg Nuckols · Categorized: Articles, Genetics and Strength Potential ·

Tagged: greg, nuckols, objective, standards, strength, strengtheory, theory
About Greg Nuckols

Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar, and a BS in Exercise and
Sports Science. He’s held 3 all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220 and 242
classes.

He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person. He’s
written for many of the major magazines and websites in the tness industry, including
Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and
Schwarzenegger.com. Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn
from numerous record holders, champion athletes, and collegiate and professional
strength and conditioning coaches through his previous job as Chief Content Director
for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work here on Stronger By Science. Recent Posts

His passions are making complex information easily understandable for athletes, and How
coaches, and tness enthusiasts, helping people reach their strength and tness goals,
and drinking great beer.
1,900 Powerlifters
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube
Comments
Robo Girl says
October 8, 2015 at 1:56 pm
These are great, but I assume that they are for senior lifters? 22-40 years old? Will you be
extrapolating someday for master’s athletes (both male and female)? I’d be curious how the
numbers change as sarcopenia becomes a factor.
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

Yep. That’s a hard one to account for, though. I have a series on aging coming up soon.
Nutrition next, then probably nishing up the sex di erences series I put on the back burner,
then probably aging after that. Based on what I’ve read thus far, it’s a bit of a convoluted
mess. On one hand, sarcopenia is a major factor for sedentary people, but there’s data in
athletes showing that muscle loss doesn’t actually occur to a large degree until someone’s at
least in their 60s or 70s. However, most of that data is on primarily aerobic athletes. And
there’s some con icting data about muscle strength per unit of cross-sectional area as well.
Some studies show that it doesn’t decrease with age (often comparing people in their
20s/30s to people in their 50s/60s), and others show that it does (comparing people in their
20s/30s to people who are 70+). It’s also hard to account for the general wear and tear on
your body of lifting for a long period of time. Some people are wrecked after a decade, and
other people like Ed Coan get both hips replaced and still squat 700+ for reps in spite of not
training to compete anymore.
Reply
Kyle Schuant says

October 9, 2015 at 3:14 am
In terms of both potential lifts and wear and tear, there’s also a di erence between a
55yo who started at 50, and a 55yo who started at 20.
It’s worthwhile looking at master’s records, for example women in their 60s get about
2/3 the numbers of open women. But there’s a lack of depth there…
Recent Posts
Reply Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why
and How
Dominique says
January 7, 2016 at 11:14 am What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
1,900 Powerlifters
I’m turning 44 next April and I’ve been training for three years. I don’t think my
age is too much of a factor yet for strength and muscle; I’m 6’1” 258 lbs (1,85 m,
117 kg) with bodyfat in the low 20’s, so I’m already nearing my muscle potential
(either this, or I’m ridiculously gifted), and my lifts should improve a lot with good
practice. I’ve done two strongman meets — physically, I pretty much look like the
other competitors, drug-free or not, but I need to practice the basic lifts!). There
are great models for guys my age: I’ve watched Mark Felix making it to the
World’s Strongest Man Finals 2015 at 49 years of age; I’ve also watched Beau
Moore destroying 800 in the deadlift when he was 48. Data show that
performance drop occurs sooner in power-based lifts such as weightlifting, but
that doesn’t mean a 250-lb lifter can’t power clean 315 because he’s 45!
Reply
Dominique says
January 7, 2016 at 1:42 pm
Note: It’s important to mention that I’ve lifted several years, on very varied
programs, from my teens to late twenties; this likely explains why my
muscle mass took such a jump (I probably still had more nuclei when I
started back a decade later). One (possibly) interesting fact: I have done no
squatting at all in the last three years; I’ve used a broad variety of deadlifts
to grow lower body.
Sergio TL says
This series is one of the most interesting things I’ve come across since I started to get interested
in the world of strength. Thank you Greg for such valuable info.
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

Thanks Sergio! Glad you enjoyed it!
Reply
Michael Clark says

Recent Posts
Thanks for the mention Greg. I really like your unique perspective on strength standards.
and How
We are looking at incorporating age/height in the future. One interesting part of the height
problem is that certain body types are more specialised for some movements, for instance Lamar What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
Gant deadlifted 5x bodyweight and you could put a lot of that down to his exceptionally long limbs 1,900 Powerlifters
versus torso. Do you think height is enough of an indicator or do you need the limb length to
estimate the distance travelled by the barbell? The Science of Autoregulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXVGdlLx-I
-Michael Clark
Founder, Strength Level
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

In general, I’d be hesitant to extrapolate TOO much based on limb lengths.
1) there’s very very little published data on it (Lovera and Keough had a study showing that
crural index was predictive of performance in the squat and total, if memory serves, but I
haven’t seen much else)
2) I’m not sold that distance of bar travel is all that important. You miss a lift, not because
you were too weak through the entire movement, but because you were too weak at your
single weakest point in the movement. Regardless of how far you have the lift the bar, the
weak range is similarly small for everyone.
3) Based on unpublished data (the creator of the multi-year weight training app for IOS
collects limb length data from his users, and has let me know about some of the stu he’s
found) the only limb length that’s moderately correlated with performance in any lift is arm
length for the bench press. He’s found that, at least among his several thousand users, no
other segment length correlates very strongly with performance in the other two lifts.
Now, it wouldn’t be too hard to construct a model estimating distance of bar travel and peak
joint torques based on segment lengths, but I’m not sure it would have very much predictive
power for anyone except outliers.
Reply
Robert Frederick says

To expand on point 3 a bit, arm and leg length, shoulder width, various segment ratios
and height are all correlated with each other as are bench, squat and deadlift 1RMs but
there is no correlation between those two groups among a population of typical lifters.
That’s not to say that there isn’t among elite lifters though.
Reply
Recent Posts
and How
Clem says
October 8, 2015 at 4:06 pm What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
1,900 Powerlifters
Really enjoying comparing myself, but I noticed that for my weight (75kg) and height (77cm) that
a solid squat is 410 while a solid deadlift is 363. As much as I love having an easily formidable The Science of Autoregulation
deadlift, shouldn’t these be reversed?
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

It’s based on the top allometric scaling score of all time for each lift, and at the top levels,
most people squat more than they pull.
Reply
Clem says
Buncha weirdos I say! Thanks for the quick reply man. This last series has been
phenomenal.
Reply
Brett says
November 4, 2015 at 7:03 pm
If I might enquire… are you sure you’re 2’6″ tall?
Reply
Jonathan says ARTICLES GUIDES PRODUCTS COACHING MASS

Hey Greg, just wondering what the di erence is supposed to be for the percentages here and the
e ciency percentages in part 2.
Aren’t they looking at the same thing?
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

Recent Posts
Yep, pretty much. But I can’t bank on everyone reading the entire series.
and How
Reply

Jonathan says 1,900 Powerlifters
Sorry for the late reply, but to answer my own question, I guess the reason this part’s
numbers would be lower is that they’re a percentage of the records at your weight
class. Whereas the numbers in the rst part would be the percentage of the records of
people with the same amount of FFM as you. Is that correct?
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

yep!
Reply
Piotr Tomaszewski says

Very interesting article. Some of other calculators I have seen also mentioned the press – have you
seen data on this lift?
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

nope
Reply
Zack says
Awesome series Greg, thanks for doing this.
Sidenote: “normal” lifters – non powerlifters – are going to feel pretty sad when they look at these
:/. Hopefully they realize that a normal gym rat isn’t going to stack up against a specialized athlete!
Reply
Recent Posts
Greg Nuckols says Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why
October 9, 2015 at 1:29 pm and How
One would hope. People like being told they’re special, though. What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying
1,900 Powerlifters
Reply
Paul says
Are the rst set of numbers, after putting in sex height (cm) and weight (kg), in pounds or kg?
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

October 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm
It’s all in metric
Reply
Andy says
I felt pretty awesome when I thought the results were in pounds…
Reply
Rodrigo Vaz says

LOL, I had the same question and disappointment.
Reply
Philipp says
Hi Greg, awsome work on that series of articles – this changed my perspective on training quite a
bit (least to say)
You mentioned within the comments on article no.1 one that you have the calcs in an spreadsheet
– I would love to get my hands to that to make my now, tracking-based training a bit easier.
Is there a chance to grab a copy of that spreadsheet? Recent Posts

Re
and How
Reply
1,900 Powerlifters
Greg Nuckols says
October 16, 2015 at 12:54 am
I’m still working on it. Right now, I’ve got it all in a huge spreadsheet I’m using for about 6
di erent projects so it’s still a mess, and it’s not very user-friendly. I still need to separate
these particular calculations from the rest of the spreadsheet and work on making it more
intuitive.
Reply
jay ehrenstein says

December 19, 2015 at 12:34 pm
Brother through what program did you create the formula input
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

Jazzy Forms
Reply
jay ehrenstein says

Thank you so much!
Reply
Cool dude says

March 27, 2016 at 11:48 pm
The height and weight based calculator to nd lifts isn’t working
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

March 28, 2016 at 12:14 am
Recent Posts
I just checked man. They’re working just ne. It may be your browser.
and How
Reply
1,900 Powerlifters
Omari Crawford says The Science of Autoregulation

May 7, 2016 at 9:26 pm
Hey Greg, really appreciate this article! Just wanted to get your input on something. So,my bench
and deadlift both fall under the “not-to-shabby” category, and should both easily reach “solid” by
the end of the year. However, my squat is barely at novice level. I’m thinking of using the 3x Week
Beginner template from the Sample programs spreadsheet, and just sandbagging everything else
for recovery purposes. Is this a sound plan? How would you address such a disparity? Is it realistic
for me to try and have my squat reach “solid” by the end of the year with the other lifts? Any help
is appreciated, thanks
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

May 8, 2016 at 4:06 pm
I think that sounds like a pretty decent approach, although I’m not sure you’d need to
sandbag the other lifts – you should still be able to train them pretty hard as well.
Reply
John says
September 22, 2016 at 11:24 am
I think your formula is currently con gured to take weight in lbs, not kilograms as it says. I’m
183cm and 89 kg, plugging those numbers in says that if I bench over 185 I have a ridiculous bench.
I don’t think so…
Reply
Greg Nuckols says

September 22, 2016 at 5:59 pm
That would have placed in 4th in the bench in the 83kg class at the last IPF worlds, and tied
for 6th in the world at 93kg. Maybe not ridiculous for a world-class PLer (ridiculous among
the people who are already ridiculous to most people), but pretty damn strong.
Reply
Darin says
July 24, 2017 at 1:19 pm Recent Posts
Greg, can I assume that these numbers are raw lifts or knee wrap only? I competed in a and How
federation that allowed bench shirts and squat suits which a ect the numbers
tremendously!
1,900 Powerlifters
Reply

Greg Nuckols says
July 24, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yep, it’s for raw
Reply
Terje Myrvold says

August 11, 2017 at 7:53 am
Would love to see this one also adjusted for by age.

Myself 50 yrs – and blace around 50% – which is quite all right by me when compared to young
guys 25 – 40 🙂
Reply
Trackbacks
Gainz Of The Week – (10/11/15) – Anyman Fitness, LLC says:
October 10, 2015 at 12:47 pm
[…] E ect: Why We Want Things We Don’t Need – And What To Do About It by James Clear
Objective Strength Standards by Greg Nuckols (we all love to compare ourselves, right?) The Best
Cardio For Strength, Mass, and […]
5 Ways We Sabotage Success With Cognitive Biases • Strengtheory says:
October 28, 2015 at 10:21 pm
[…] about this phenomenon near the end of this article about the mind’s in uence over the body,
and this article about strength standards. Sometimes, it doesn’t hurt to put the narrative bias to
work for you […]
Анаболен Прозорец – част 2Aestheticbyscience | Aestheticbyscience says:

December 11, 2015 at 8:14 am
[…] статус не е свързан със стажа в залата, а със силовото представяне на даден
индивид спрямо други хора със сходно лично […]
Realistic is Overrated • Strengtheory | Brain Food @ Get Fitter says:

May 7, 2016 at 5:11 pm
[…] HAVE written a few articles to give people a reasonable idea of what they can expect to
accomplish (one, two, three), but I always make sure to note that these articles deal with ranges Recent Posts
and averages, not […]
and How
How Much More Muscle Can You Build With Steroids? • Strengtheory says:
May 8, 2016 at 4:48 pm
[…] Objective Strength Standards […]
1,900 Powerlifters
Realistic is Overrated – Anomaly Athletics – Live Greater Than Average! says:

May 23, 2016 at 9:04 pm The Science of Autoregulation
accomplish (one, two, three), but I always make sure to note that these articles deal with ranges
Realistic is Overrated • Strengtheory says:

May 27, 2016 at 4:20 pm
accomplish (one, two, three), but I always make sure to note that these articles deal with ranges
Leave a Reply
You have to agree to the comment policy.
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
POST COMMENT
Recent Posts
Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Implementing Flexible Training Templates: Why

and How
Notify me of new posts by email.

1,900 Powerlifters
Search this website …
ABOUT TERMS PRIVACY C O N TA C T
COPYRIGHT © 2017 · ALTITUDE PRO THEME ON GENESIS FRAMEWORK · WORDPRESS · LOG IN

Objective Strength Standards - Stronger by Science

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Objective Strength Standards - Stronger by Science

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

10/10/2017 Objective Strength Standards • Stronger by Science

ARTICLES GUIDES PRODUCTS COACHING MASS

Home » Objective Strength Standards

major function of “strength standards” is to get an idea of your skill as a

Needs some work Needs some work

Needs some work Needs some work

Height (in cm)

Wrist Circumference (between your hand

Ankle Circumference (at its narrowest

Bodyweight at Maximum Muscular

The only all-time record I’m “throwing out” is Andrezej Stanaszek’s

Weight (kg) Recent Posts

Manner of Competing What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying

Relative Strength Compared To The Best

Your best bench (kg)

Relative Strength Compared To The Best

Your best deadlift (kg)

Relative Strength Compared To The Best

Your best total (kg)

Relative Strength Compared To The Best

I think those trends are telling.

Belief in yourself and your potential is a two-edged sword.

disappointment if you fail to live up to your expectations. High expectations

What you do with that information is up to you.

Share this on Facebook and join in the conversation

Next: YOUR Drug-Free Muscle and Strength Potential: Part 1 →

Spread the love

 Facebook 223  Twitter  Google  LinkedIn  Reddit  Tumblr  More

Written by Greg Nuckols · Categorized: Articles, Genetics and Strength Potential ·

ARTICLES GUIDES PRODUCTS COACHING MASS

About Greg Nuckols

The Science of Autoregulation

Greg Nuckols says

Kyle Schuant says

Greg Nuckols says

Thanks Sergio! Glad you enjoyed it!

Michael Clark says

Greg Nuckols says

In general, I’d be hesitant to extrapolate TOO much based on limb lengths.

Robert Frederick says

Greg Nuckols says

If I might enquire… are you sure you’re 2’6″ tall?

Jonathan says ARTICLES GUIDES PRODUCTS COACHING MASS

Aren’t they looking at the same thing?

Greg Nuckols says

What I Learned About Injury Rates from Surveying

Greg Nuckols says

Piotr Tomaszewski says

Greg Nuckols says

Awesome series Greg, thanks for doing this.

Greg Nuckols says

It’s all in metric

I felt pretty awesome when I thought the results were in pounds…

Rodrigo Vaz says

LOL, I had the same question and disappointment.

Is there a chance to grab a copy of that spreadsheet? Recent Posts

jay ehrenstein says

Greg Nuckols says

jay ehrenstein says

Thank you so much!

Cool dude says

The height and weight based calculator to nd lifts isn’t working

Greg Nuckols says