View Single Post
Old 08-18-2009, 04:47 AM   #5
Dimitri Dziabenko
Banned Dimitri Dziabenko is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto  ON
Posts: 1,080
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio Leal View Post
Hmm. While I agree CF is task-oriented and the task often doesn't care how much you weigh, saying relative strength is irrelevant is pretty short-sighted to me. Sure ants are way stronger relatively, but what a silly analogy -- I almost feel silly refuting it. We don't compete with ants; ants don't have four limbs and walk upright and get into bar fights. We also write essays and play songs, therefore ants make terrible pianists.

Relative strength is relevant because there are many tasks that do reward the relatively strong and punish the relatively weak. There are tasks that require both absolute and relative strength also (cue Cliffhanger scene where Stallone can't hang on to his friend's wife). I believe CF already acknowledges this and incorporates many relative strength exercises. The dang CF total does account for BW already! I was just trying to understand why it scales the way it does and why it isn't all 2's in the normalized Untrained column, 3's in the Novice, etc.

Katherine seems to have addressed this for me with a very simple reference to olympic lifting records, which practically puts the issue to rest I guess, but still doesn't explain why, physiologically, that discrepancy exists. It seems that as humans add mass we becomes less and less efficient at manipulating that mass, relatively.

If you look at the size of the people, number/type of muscle fibers, the leverage, etc..., it seems clear that the ratios won't be the same. That is, the 250lb guy is likely to be taller than the 125lb guy, and so even if he puts twice as much on the deadlift bar, the torque will be more than 2x of what it was before.

When it comes to moving another object, in real life, your mass is irrelevant and so relative strength is an irrelevant calculation. When it comes to moving yourself, it becomes a relevant metric that helps us to make a judgment. All I was saying was that it wouldn't be right to have relative standards for the CFT, since it makes little sense in real life for this type of task (hence the ants analogy, since all that matters in real life for this task is how much actual weight is lifted).

I will now try to decide which one is sillier, my analogy about the relative strength of ants to show the importance of absolute weight lifted or your attempt to refute it with references to bar fights, essay writing and ant piano players.
  Reply With Quote