women are stronger

[Tank]

Pound for pound, females actually have stronger legs than males. That is, of course, if they properly trained.

[ergie]

No offence to women but I disagree

[Tank]

Test it out look up the wilks formula and calcualte a well trained female on squats compared to you. Doesnt mean if you squat 400 and she squats 200 your stronger look up the wilks formula and calcualte the weight of the individual and the weight lifted then you will agree my friend. All other bodyparts males are stronger.

[IronRobi]

my woman has bigger and more muscular legs than most guys, so I'll believe it. Years of soccer/ringette. It's a shame when my 5ft 4 gf has bigger calves than me hahaha

[MizzFitt]

I believe that!! I know I can give a lot of guys a run for there money with leg training!!

[69challenger]

I believe that!! I know I can give a lot of guys a run for there money with leg training!!

me too!

[KLM]

^^^ Werd

[BigWheel]

WOMEN'S OPEN
SQUAT
44.0 100.0 K.TASCONA MB 24-Jan-87 VANCOUVER,BC
48.0 132.5 D.D’ANGELO ON 27-Oct-90 CAMBRIDGE,ON
52.0 141.0 J.SANDHU BC 28-JAN-07 VANCOUVER,BC
56.0 175.0 J.BURT NL 13-Nov-89 SYDNEY,NS
60.0 175.0 H.AYLES PE 07-MAY-05 SACKVILLE,NS
67.5 183.0 R.FOWLER SK 06-APR-06 CHILLIWACK,BC
75.0 217.5 R.FOWLER SK 10-APR-08 ST.CATHERINES,ON
82.5 182.5 D.PANTING MB 01-Jun-87 PERTH,AUSTRALIA
90.0 210.0 R.MARION AB 29-MAR-07 DARTMOUTH,NS
90+ 215.0 R.MARION AB 04-SEP-07 LAGARDE,FRANCE

MENS OPEN
SQUAT
52.0 192.5 D.MACVICAR ON 10-NOV-83 GOTHEBURG,SWE
56.0 222.5 H.TRAN QU 10-JUN-06 STE.MARIE,QU
60.0 237.5 D.FEAKES MB 07-Oct-89 WINNIPEG,MB
67.5 251.0 L.NOPPERS AB 10-APR-08 ST.CATHERINES,ON
75.0 287.5 K.FOUGERE AB 08-Jun-91 WINNIPEG,MB
82.5 297.5 B.MARKHAM MB 17-Feb-96 WINNIPEG,MB
90.0 320.5 D.WEATHERBIE PE 20-MAR-04 KITCHENER,ON
100.0 335.5 D.WEATHERBIE PE 08-APR-06 CHILLIWACK,BC
110.0 365.0 J.EMBERLEY ON 07-JUL-07 OTTAWA,ON
125.0 365.0 K.BANNER AB 09-APR-05 CALGARY,AB
125+ 367.5 M.HOLLOWAY NL 16-JUN-07 GANDER.NL

These are the CPU records, sorry ladies, but they speak for themselves.

[MizzFitt]

Wow, maybe I should look into powerlifting instead of figure!!!

[spankmonkey]

Don't know the science or stats, but during college and my own..., personal research, I would have to agree. My wife grew up training in ballet and she has a set of incredibly balanced legs.

[Tank]

Ok if you use the wilks formula http://powerliftingaustralia.homestead.com/WilksFormulaCalculator.htm you will then see what I mean.

Here is a stat to look up based on USA powerlifting 132 class.
Male Damario Holloway squated 573
Female Bettina Altizer squated 451
When you use the wilks formula you will note the female is alot stronger pound per pound.

[dainbramaged]

Test it out look up the wilks formula and calcualte a well trained female on squats compared to you. Doesnt mean if you squat 400 and she squats 200 your stronger look up the wilks formula and calcualte the weight of the individual and the weight lifted then you will agree my friend. All other bodyparts males are stronger.


Not to hijack the thread but this also applies to guys who may not weigh as much too. A big guy may lift more but pound for pound may not be stronger than a smaller guy. I have seen some women though who could squat and dead some serious weight.

[wrought]

Decent general explanation of what's wrong with this argument. While I may not be a powerlifter the coefficients used in the formula are derived from curves of total weight lifted, not single lifts... using them to evaluate single lifts like a squat will give inaccurate results.

http://www.isu.edu/~andesean/wform.htm
***The problem here is that the Wilks vales were developed for t-o-t-a-ls and not for individual lifts. Therefore it is even more inappropriate to use any of the systems for ranking anything but what they were determined for - namely TOTALS. Therefore when the Wilks coefficients are applied to single lifts different effects occur. Bench increases most with body weight so when the Wilks coefficients are used to rank bench press meets this greatly favors the heavier lifters. When the Wilks coefficients are used on a single lift deadlift meet it greatly favors the lighter lifters since deadlifts alone do not increase as fast with body weight as total does. It may be appropriate for squats but it probably favors the lighter lifters again if it is applied to single lift squats. A fit to individual lift data is what is needed if individual lifts are compared. (Thanks to Dr. Dave Bracken, an Los Alamos nuclear physicist and world champion powerlifter for this answer!)]

[Tank]

excellent response I have never heard one lift couldnt be used for an accurate reading.

what about these formula's? I love Siff's stuff so maybe it is more accurate give me your input WROUGHT

A closer look at the supported formulas

The formulas are presented in a rough chronological order, oldest to newest. The available background information for some of them is scant, more information would be highly appreciated (again, e-mail at the bottom of this page). Please let me know if there is any formula you think should be added.

Each formula presentation is linked to the formula table on the Internet that was used in creating this calculator. Mistakes have since been uncovered in most of these formulas (see the Development history for the gory details) which have been fixed in this calculator according to the best of my ability; corrected tables can be retrieved using the formula dump function above. At the end of each presentation, the characteristics of each formula is briefly listed together with the default handicaps conventionally used for that formula. You will note that most formulas by default adjust for age using the independent Foster Age Coefficients for Teen lifters and the McCulloch Numbers by Eugene McCulloch for Masters lifters (this formula was revised some time ago to be more conservative, here's what I believe is the old version).


Schwartz/Malone formula: In the 1970s, Dr. Lyle Schwartz created a classification standards for men. Dr. Schwartz was a lifter and official associated with both the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU), which pioneered powerlifting meets by officially sanctioning the sport in 1964, and The United States Powerlifting Federation (USPF) formed in 1980 as the new national governing body. Later Pat Malone, a champion for women's powerlifting, created the Malone formula to give women a fair scoring. With agreement from Dr. Schwartz, the two formulas were henceforth combined into the male/female Schwartz/Malone formula that allows men and women to compete in the same arena. The Schwartz Masters Formula coefficients, probably of later origin, allow handicaps for Master lifters between 40 and 80 years of age (to my knowledge, there are no teen coefficients). The popularity of the Schwartz/Malone formula decreased as the Wilks formula was popularized, but many federations still consider this to be a less biased, and hence, better, formula. This calculator uses what I believe is the original pounds formula; an Excel spreadsheet with a kilogram formula also exists, which appears to have been created by converting the bodyweights into kilograms and then interpolating to an accuracy of 100 grams. In effect, this formula uses the pound coefficients with kilogram totals leading to a result that is roughly 2.2046 times lower than when using the pound table (this is supported by testing the accompanying Schwartz-Malone kilogram calculator).
[Granularity: men 90-362 lbs (40.8-164.2 kg), women 90-250 lbs (40.8-113.4 kg), 1 lbs (0.45 kg) jumps. Default handicaps: bodyweight, gender, masters 40-80 years]
Reshel formula: Created by American Powerlifting Federation (APF) Technical Officer Greg Reshel for use in APF/World Powerlifting Congress (WPC) meets. Since replaced by the Glossbrenner formula.
[Granularity: men 50-175 kg (110.2-385.8 lbs), women 40-119 kg (88.1-262.3 lbs), 0.25 kg (0.55 lbs) jumps. Default handicaps: bodyweight, gender, teens 14-23 (Foster's), masters 40-90 years (McCulloch)]
Siff formula: The origins of the Siff formula goes back to 1971 when South African sports scientist Dr. Mel C Siff and McSorley, a South African engineering student, created equations to fit all world records up to the 110kg class for the last three years in weightlifting. In 1998, Dr. Siff adjusted the formula by statistical regression of "the mean of the ten best lifts ever achieved in each of the 11 bodymass classes in weightlifting history for bodymasses up to about 165 kg". At the same time, Dr. Siff also created formulas for powerlifting based on data up to 1987. Unlike the other formulas, there are separate formulas for the three individual lifts (available in a separate calculator). The equations are presented in Siff's classic book Supertraining (see chapter 3.3.5) where example data can also be found for verifying that the calculator is correct. Whereas most other formulas give an adjusted total, the Siff value is a percentage of a World Record performance; for example, a Siff total score of 89.2 means that the total was 89.2% of a world record total in that class. Supertraining goes on with extensive discussions on adjusting for gender and age, but unfortunately only in reference to weightlifting. Even if the formula fits the data well on paper, it has not gained much of a following in powerlifting (no federation I know of relies on Siff). Read this (or in French) for Siff's take on other handicapping systems, especially on Wilks.
[Granularity: mathematical formula, supports any bodyweights. Default handicaps: bodyweight]
Wilks formula: Developed by Robert Wilks of Australia, the Wilks formula was adopted for use in the The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) in January 1997 and a year later for USA Powerlifting (USAPL) meets. Similar to most of the other formulas, the Wilks adjusted total is usually calculated using a coefficient table (in pounds), but this calculator uses the actual mathematical formula. This makes it preciser, but might lead to minor discrepancies when compared to table generated results, especially if bodyweights are not given as increments of 0.1 kg/0.25 lbs. For those interested in research, here's a paper that validates the formula for use with bench result and totals.
[Granularity: mathematical formula, supports any bodyweight. Default handicaps: bodyweight, gender, teens 14-23 (Foster's), masters 40-90 years (McCulloch)]
NASA: The NASA Outstanding Lifter (OL) & Drug Free Lifter Coefficient Standard is used in Natural Athlete Strength Association (NASA) meets. I am grateful to NASA founder Rich Peters for providing me with detailed information on this formula and for allowing me to use it despite it being copyrighted. In Mr. Peter's own words:
I developed the co-efficient formula myself. I noticed years ago that all of the formulas of the day were based on lifters that had used or were using Steroids. Thus, heavier body weights translated to more muscle mass. But, in reality, in drug free lifting, heavier bodyweights mean more body fat in almost 90% of all instances. This has to be taken into consideration when developing a formula for Drug Free Lifters.
We first changed all our records and drug tested ALL of our new records starting in 1996 and then we tested ALL AR's for the next 2.5 years. This established a pattern and a standard for Drug Free Lifters that were truly Drug Tested and passed. We felt that by also dividing the actual weight lifted by the lifters bodyweight that it would lend more credibility to the performance by each lifter. After we did this, we included the new Formula as the multiplier.
What we found was that our OL's went from the customary 181-220 lb winners to OL'ers from all weight classes based on their performance. Some have questioned the fact that our top 100 Lists are heavy with 181-242 lifters. I have pointed out that by comparison and percentage or NASA lifters, the numbers are quite even. Yes, we have many 181-242 lb lifters in our top 100, but their percentage of our Total Membership is equivalent to their representation. Lifters should also remember that our larger lifters also come from a variety of other "strength" sports such as wrestling and football.
Those that helped me with these calculations were Mike Ewoldsen (math) and David Oyler (selecting mean numbers. We invested about $40,000.00 in testing developing this formula and it has been a very effective method of test selection and OL coefficients.
It is important to realize that when doing OL'ers, a meet director will notice a distinct line in the sand with these formulas. this line lies between the 140-170 lb. bwt lifters. To adjust for this, we usually split our OL'ers are given for light and heavy portions of the meet that day in the smaller meets.
Either way you use our formula, a lifter that goes over 10.0 in NASA is a hell of a Drug Free Lifter. In the Lighter weights, a 9-9.6 coeff is awesome as well.
Is our system perfect? NO! None of the OL coefficients are. But is ours the most efficient for Drug Free Lifters? We think so, we actually did the research to develop the system.
What many do not take into consideration when developing these formula's and what the "old timers" didn't address, was the drug free lifter into the equation. You cannot have an efficient Coeff if you are mixing drug free lifters with non-tested lifters. This is the main reason I copyrighted it in 1998.
[Granularity: 119-326 lbs (54-147.9 kg), 1 lbs (0.45 kg) jumps. Default handicaps: bodyweight]
Glossbrenner formula: Created by Powerlifting USA statistician Herb Glossbrenner in 2004, this formula is an average of the Schwartz and Wilks formulas. The reasoning behind combining these two is that Schwartz formula allegedly favors lighter lifters and Wilks heavier lifters, hence an average should balance things out. Replaces Reshel in the APF-AAPF-AWPC. Note that Glossbrenner supports any bodyweight above the listed 231 kg for men and 169 kg for women via interpolation, but this is not as of yet baked into this calculator.
[Granularity: men 40-231 kg (88.1-509.3 lbs), women 40-169 kg (88.1-372.6), 0.05 kg (0.11 lbs) jumps. Default handicaps: bodyweight, gender, teens 14-23 (Foster's), masters 40-90 years (McCulloch)]

[bigdaddydrew123]

I believe that!! I know I can give a lot of guys a run for there money with leg training!!
this i know is true she out squats some well trained men, well alot of well trained men.

[bigdaddydrew123]

uh tank thats so fukkin complicated, if i could read it id argue with you but ,ill agree theres some friggin strong women out there and one area ive seen they can excel in is lower body strength , upper body is different story. ive had two girl training partners and they can both kick ass with intensity, but luckily i was a little stronger

[Shortdave]

Co-efficients are for weak people.

[shithead]

All my gfs over the years always put up a huge fight in the "Indian Leg Wrestle" some even beating me.

[Muscle MPP]

Yvette Balla female hungarian bodybuilder

[GTZ3]

With respect to strength below the rib-cage women tend to be p4p more effective than men ... but not really. The ratio of muscle/size of a women ass and thighs comparitive to her upper body in most cases is disproporationate to the scale of most men. A square cm of muscle in males and female generate between 16 and 32 newtons of force--- depending on the extent of the neural recruitment present (which is influenced significantly by the frequency and intesity of training)

*basically, p4p men and women are the ame strength, but the disparity between lower body muscle size in men and women is considerably less when comapring upper body muscle mass.

Moral of the story... a round ass = good at squats, period.

[coel]

In my gym thats true as for amount of time spent training legs. Every jackass in my gym does chest and arms mon wed fri and delts and arms tues thurs sat. hahah pretty damn sad. But the girls do want the sexy short short legs so they tend to train them a bit harder, well at least my g.f and the girls at my gym do. The guys are just walking around in the sleeveless medium Tapout tees thinking they are jacked as Balls with tiny chicken legs

[Mr.Meat]

Yvette Balla female hungarian bodybuilder



This probably is the worst example for this thread, maybe its just the angle but A. she's doing arm curls and B. her leg development sux!

[steve_d]

Ok if you use the wilks formula http://powerliftingaustralia.homestead.com/WilksFormulaCalculator.htm you will then see what I mean.

Here is a stat to look up based on USA powerlifting 132 class.
Male Damario Holloway squated 573
Female Bettina Altizer squated 451
When you use the wilks formula you will note the female is alot stronger pound per pound.

I know this thread is really old, but I just joined this board, and noticed this post. Even if wilks formula was valid for individual lifts and totals, You can't compare a girls wilks to a guys wilks and conclude she was stronger pound for pound. I am not an expert on the wilks formula, but the coefficients were calculated by fitting the polynomial assuming that the top lifters in each class in the world should have equal "pound for pound strength".

Not only that, the coefficients were determined for men and women separately so you are comparing apples to oranges here.

They could have easily created a formula that adjusted for gender as well, and then you would have had 1 single formula for men or women (with the adjusted factor)...but then in that case the argument for women stronger then men pound for pound would be false by definition. (IE = the formula assumes the top men and top women would be equal in strength, unless of course we include an interaction term in the model).

So anyway - pound for pound, the results speak for themselves, the strongest man in the world at 1 weight has a higher lift then the strongest woman in the world at identical weight.

[melanie tan]

Thank you for that simple fact. I know it will feed my brain. Please share more facts to others and good luck. More power!

[JacktheThriller]

men are stronger, comparing them is stupid because women carry more fat then men naturally so we can assume equal weights the woman is carrying more fat automatically than the man 3% more or so, so pound for pound men have less fat and more muscle, women have more fat and less muscle. If you are trying to compare unrealistic people just muscle and no extra fat weight to skew poundages and your arguement is that men have muscle spread out and women just have legs, well men can also produce more muscle in the abdomen and posterior chain which is escential for lifting large poundages.

[CanadianIron]

I would say that pound for pound, with no muscular training what so ever, maybe I would agree with the OP... but all other experience would dictate otherwise. I've personally never seen a natural woman squat more than 225 and she was a good 150lber. I've seen some pretty small dudes squatting 3+ plates with very little effort.

[guest]

the pound for pound strongest human muscle belongs to women. the uterus.....and they can keep it.

[CanadianIron]

I think you meant the womans tongue...

[Maria]

There are exceptions. Some women can lift real heavy with their upper bodies just like their lower bodies and some natural women are very strong and squat 225lbs. under 150lbs.

[Dryvrgrl]

I would say that pound for pound, with no muscular training what so ever, maybe I would agree with the OP... but all other experience would dictate otherwise. I've personally never seen a natural woman squat more than 225 and she was a good 150lber. I've seen some pretty small dudes squatting 3+ plates with very little effort.

Leigh=120 pounds
weight squatted =285

now you've seen it.

[tex]

but thats not even 2.5 x bodyweight....still impressive tho

[steve_d]

Leigh=120 pounds
weight squatted =285

now you've seen it.

the weight looks less than 285 ;). Seriously though, tuns of natural women can squat 225 CanadianIron. But I still can't agree with the OP.

[Dryvrgrl]

the weight looks less than 285 ;). Seriously though, tuns of natural women can squat 225 CanadianIron. But I still can't agree with the OP.

I put the wrong pic!! lol it was like 5:30 am!! (p.s. that's the 55 pound bar)

2.5X her body weight comming at you in about a week and a half!

I don't really have anything to add to who is stronger, men or women... both genders have thier own strengths and weaknesses.

[tex]

I put the wrong pic!! lol it was like 5:30 am!! (p.s. that's the 55 pound bar)

2.5X her body weight comming at you in about a week and a half!

I don't really have anything to add to who is stronger, men or women... both genders have thier own strengths and weaknesses. right on!! I agree with the last statement.....

[BigT]

My wife is 152lbs right now and throws 405 lbs on the squat for prolly around 8 to 10 reps...to a bench tho. like the Box Squat ..but she uses one of the gym benches. She my little tank !!! We are both getting ready for our Provincials in April. By no means discrediting anyone elses lifts..Just gloating about my wife cause i am so proud of her ...and Pound For Pound...She is Stronger than me...Except in the bench...lol

[ms_moneypenny]

265 in the pic...video was more.

I agree with strong legs but naturally less upper body than men. i seem to recall something from university in my biomechanics class, but it escapes me!!

that was an intelligent post...lol!!