Understanding the CFT rationale
I was thinking recently about the CFT and how a lot of people on this forum communicate and compare their progress in lifts, workout times, etc., and how common bases for comparison are really lacking, or at least no one has yet decreed which way is "the way."
Now, the CFT does scale with weight, so I thought maybe I'd do a little normalization and see what sense I could make of it. Attached is a spreadsheet with the values straight from the FAQ pasted on the left side for men and women, and the normalized (by body weight) values presented on the right side. I also created the sheet "Deltas" which examines the differences across levels (Untrained, Novice, etc.) to see how much weight or fraction of their bodyweight one must add to their CFT to move up a level.
After pondering the results for some time, I can't say anything with certainty because I still don't know the thinking that went into creating the CFT in the first place. Sure the guys who made it are experts, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a bunch of educated guessing. Correct me if I'm wrong please. What seems apparent is that lighter people have to be hugely stronger relative to their own body weight to make it up towards the elite level compared to the other end of the weight scale. There is probably some biology behind this but far be it for me to attempt an explanation.
I would like to ask whether it would be more prudent to create a normalized set of standards, perhaps including age as a variable also, although of course that adds a third dimension. I often see people discussing 2X or 3X deadlift etc. and wonder why this normalized terminology hasn't crept it's way into the measurement of "total fitness." Does this mentality conflict with what CF is about? Is absolute strength at the expense of relative strength a worthy tradeoff?
Full disclosure: I do greatly favor BW and Gymnastics style training, but I am not trying to pick a fight for it's own sake.