True test of strength

man, I am way late for this discussion.

I was immediately going to answer the "snatch" as I believe for my personal goals, it is the best test of ability (one smooth motion from the floor to overhead, then stabilize). But as I read on, I took the snatch and clean/jerk off the list as I believe these are tests of POWER more than strength, and a test of strength is something completely different.

With that said, I believe a true test of strength lies with the DL because, as many have stated, requires more of your body to complete the lift than a squat or bench. However, I believe tests on DL AND the squat will give some indication, if your an athlete, how you will perform on the field. These two exercises transfer well into everyday and sport activities.
 
Imo the ultimate test of strength is, "TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES."
 
I'm on the fence here. With a back thats all jacked up I'm still too ****y to deadlift anything real heavy. But my squat, bench and military press numbers are good.

I think Tony has a really good point too. Pull ups are a true measure of how good of shape you are in. So many people can barely do 1.
 
pullups is good for measuring relative strength (strength compared to BW) but person A is 200 lbs and can do one pullup with 100 lbs attached and person B is 300 lbs and can do 1 pullup with 10 lbs attached, person B is still the strongest person, but person A has way more relative strength..

For a discussion like this you really have to define strength.
 
Karky said:
pullups is good for measuring relative strength (strength compared to BW) but person A is 200 lbs and can do one pullup with 100 lbs attached and person B is 300 lbs and can do 1 pullup with 10 lbs attached, person B is still the strongest person, but person A has way more relative strength..

For a discussion like this you really have to define strength.
Click to expand...

I think you just defined it pretty well there, which is why I think pull ups aren't a good measure of strength. They're good for relative strength, power or general fitness but I consider strength to be how much weight you can shift regardless of your general fitness level
 
Last edited:
I just got back from a strength and conditioning session with FSU track and i witnessed and 100m sprinter hang snatch 345lbs. Thats one strong b!tch.
 
Don't humans generally measure the strongest man by the speed they flip tires, drag airplanes, place boulders on stands, the amount of time they can hold timber in place and the distance they can throw a toilet?
 
Excder said:
ok, well i was havung another argument with a friend today that is one of thoses "im always right" personalities. Any who....

I bet you all have had it, you are talking to a friend and he pulls the "I bench more than you" card. I always reply, "i dont care, i can squat more than you and throw more weight above me head than you" and the reply is always the same, "who care what you squat?" And thats where i loose it. So.....


In you personal opinion which lift is a true test of strength and signifies a truly strong individual.

Bench Press
Squat
Clean & Jerk
Snatch
Deadlift
Click to expand...

It depends. I think at minimum, you should be able to do your body weight on each of those.

However, to be honest, the best test of strength would have to be pull ups. If you can't do a single pull up, the numbers on everything else doesn't matter because you can't even lift your own weight.

The one thing I noticed at the gym is that a lot of large people lift more than a person of smaller size. But then one day I thought about, and this one dude weighs in at about 250-300 pounds, and he can bench quite a lot more, but the thing is, he can't even bench his weight... so is he stronger than me? Or is he weaker? And the answer I think is weaker because he can't lift his own weight.
 
Last edited:
Dallen said:
this one dude weighs in at about 250-300 pounds, and he can bench quite a lot more, but the thing is, he can't even bench his weight... so is he stronger than me? Or is he weaker?
Click to expand...

He's stronger because he can lift more, you have more relative strength though.

You don't see bodyweight factored into Strongman competitions do you?
 
I think that's faulty. The strongman competition is about lifting stuff. Weight isn't a factor because it isn't about a single person's weight, but whether or not you are able to lift a certain object. Only the biggest, strongest person would be able to do well in those shows only because the more muscles you have, the more you'll be able to sustain an extended lift such as deadlifting a car. But it is factored into every other sports though.

I mean could you imagine if a 250 pound man boxed a 125 pound man? I mean it would be murder. The fact is that your size has everything to do with how much you're going to lift or ever going to lift. Therefore strength should be relative to your size and with that how you compare to someone of equal or larger size.

I think strength should be about how much a single person can do based on his size and weight. If a 250 pound man can do 5 pull ups, he is stronger than the 150 pound man who can only do 2 pull ups, and vice versa.
 
Dallen said:
I think strength should be about how much a single person can do based on his size and weight. If a 250 pound man can do 5 pull ups, he is stronger than the 150 pound man who can only do 2 pull ups, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

But it isn't though, that's relative strength. Would you say an Ant was stronger than an Elephant? An Elephant tries to keep at least 3 feet on the ground at all times because if it stood on two it's legs might buckle under the weight but an ant can carry many times its own body weight.
In relative terms an Ant is stronger but if you wanted someone to push start your car who would you go to?

Strength is about the resistance you can apply, not how that relates to your size
 
I just found this definition which I think sums it up pretty well

2. Power to resist force; solidity or toughness; the quality of bodies by which they endure the application of force without breaking or yielding; in this sense opposed to frangibility; as, the strength of a bone, of a beam, of a wall, a rope, and the like. The brittle strength of bones.
 
Typhon said:
I just found this definition which I think sums it up pretty well

2. Power to resist force; solidity or toughness; the quality of bodies by which they endure the application of force without breaking or yielding; in this sense opposed to frangibility; as, the strength of a bone, of a beam, of a wall, a rope, and the like. The brittle strength of bones.
Click to expand...

great definition.

You may want to add "crushing beer cans on head" to that list.
 
I vote deadlift because I believe it to be one of the most deep-seeded functional lifts. Mankind has been performing deadlifts for survival since we lived in caves and had big ass foreheads (homo neanderthalis). Pulling a huge ass rock and picking it up to carry to the resting grounds, it was a must. Picking up that huge slab or freshly killed meat, was a must.
 
Last edited:
But here's the thing, we're not pushing cars. The TC wanted to know how to measure strength, and I think to measure it, one must apply it to themselves in relative terms.

If we were to ask who can lift the most, one could easily say it's the person who... lifts the most. However, if we were to ask who is the strongest, we could say that it's the person who can lift the most relative to his weight. In your example of the ant and elephant, I would say the ant is the strongest only because in term of its weight and size, it can lift more than the elephant, therefore it is the strongest of the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top