Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Your body weight (but taking your height into account)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    14,259
    I sincerely hope you are kidding ^^^^^^^^

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,940
    Almond, your calculations are off as far as bench max is concerned

    you can't predict bench max by simple mathmatics like this, you are disregarding several factors, here are just some of them

    -mechanical advantage due to length of arm
    -tendon placement
    -density of myocytes
    -ability of CNS to cause muscle contraction

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by Phate View Post
    Almond, your calculations are off as far as bench max is concerned
    The calculation was for a smaller person that's been "blown up" to a bigger size, keeping everything in the same proportions.

    Of course this can't be exact, but I thought it would be pretty damn close.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Almond View Post
    The calculation was for a smaller person that's been "blown up" to a bigger size, keeping everything in the same proportions.

    Of course this can't be exact, but I thought it would be pretty damn close.
    those are off as well, you are forgetting that when you add muscle you also add water, glycogen, etc....

    if you add fat your water weight will increase minimally, lots of variables to account for

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by Phate View Post
    those are off as well, you are forgetting that when you add muscle you also add water, glycogen, etc....

    if you add fat your water weight will increase minimally, lots of variables to account for
    The strength calculation might be off, I admit, because strength has a hell of a lot more to do with than simply the cross-sectional area of muscle.

    However I think the mass one is pretty exact. If mathematics, there's the concept of "similar" objects. If you say two objects are "similar", it means that they're exactly the same except one of them is a "blown up" version of the other, meaning everything is in the same proportions. Regardless of what's inside the object, (e.g. blood, bone, muscle), the volume of all parts of it will increase by the same percentage.

    Have you ever seen the way a person might put a $1 bill next to something small when taking a photograph, the idea is the dollar bill gives an idea of how big the thing is. If you have something on its own in a photograph, without anything beside it to compare the size to, then you've no idea how big it is. What I have in mind, is that when you "blow up" the shorter bodybuilder, he will look exactly the same. The only way you'll be able to tell that he's been "blown up" is if you see the taller bodybuilder standing next to a door frame or something like that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •