weight lifting calculators

Foghorn Leghorn

Hi,
I've been lifting weights for approx 12mths now and was wondering if anyone can help me with this.

Is there just thing as a weight calculator that would tell me how much roughly I should be able to do of one excerise compared to another so I'm not over training one part of the body and neglecting others.

Example: if I can squat 100kg how much roughly should I be benching or lifting on the shoulder press etc.

Sorry in advance if this A) Has been covered already
Is a stupid question

Nate--IRL--

Here is the Table from Starting Strength that somebody (I forget who) kindly converted to kgs.



Nate

itsallaboutheL

i need a decent powerclean

xgtdec

So does that mean that "average Joe" off the street should be able to bench press 60kg straight off?

brianthebard

xgtdec wrote: »

So does that mean that "average Joe" off the street should be able to bench press 60kg straight off?

If they weigh 90ish kilos, apparently.

xgtdec

how embarrassing for me!!!

brianthebard

tell me about it

Lantus

There are many different ways to train and so the 'measure' of whats your working edge is going to vary. By way of example I work on a 3 day split. I ensure that I'm consistent on all my exercises. 3 sets of each and I aim for 8 to 12 reps of each.

The last 3 reps should be approaching the point of failure and the last one should be 'virtually' to failure. i.e. I can no longer perform the move with proper technique and maintain posture.

Train at that level. If you can do 12 reps then up the weight a bit ensuring that you can always do at least 8. When it gets easier and you reach 12 up the weight again. This for me a very consistent and accurate way to ensure I am always making real and measurable gains.

As long as your not cheating your way to larger weights (the lean back and swing your arms so I can pull off heavy bicep curls brigade) then you will always be making real gains.

Everyone has strong and weaker areas. I have good leg muscles, good back muscles and a well developed upper body. But my chest is my weak point. Even as my legs improve every few weeks my chest remains stubbornly weak refusing to make any significant improvement. I find bench pressing as hard now (on virtually the same weight) as I did 4 months ago. Annoying but thats the way it is. I just need to keep training and keep consistency, focusing on my weak areas.

itsallaboutheL

Lantus wrote: »

There are many different ways to train and so the 'measure' of whats your working edge is going to vary. By way of example I work on a 3 day split. I ensure that I'm consistent on all my exercises. 3 sets of each and I aim for 8 to 12 reps of each.

The last 3 reps should be approaching the point of failure and the last one should be 'virtually' to failure. i.e. I can no longer perform the move with proper technique and maintain posture.

Train at that level. If you can do 12 reps then up the weight a bit ensuring that you can always do at least 8. When it gets easier and you reach 12 up the weight again. This for me a very consistent and accurate way to ensure I am always making real and measurable gains.

As long as your not cheating your way to larger weights (the lean back and swing your arms so I can pull off heavy bicep curls brigade) then you will always be making real gains.

Everyone has strong and weaker areas. I have good leg muscles, good back muscles and a well developed upper body. But my chest is my weak point. Even as my legs improve every few weeks my chest remains stubbornly weak refusing to make any significant improvement. I find bench pressing as hard now (on virtually the same weight) as I did 4 months ago. Annoying but thats the way it is. I just need to keep training and keep consistency, focusing on my weak areas.

ooooookay...

Brian?

Lantus wrote: »

There are many different ways to train and so the 'measure' of whats your working edge is going to vary. By way of example I work on a 3 day split. I ensure that I'm consistent on all my exercises. 3 sets of each and I aim for 8 to 12 reps of each.

The last 3 reps should be approaching the point of failure and the last one should be 'virtually' to failure. i.e. I can no longer perform the move with proper technique and maintain posture.

Train at that level. If you can do 12 reps then up the weight a bit ensuring that you can always do at least 8. When it gets easier and you reach 12 up the weight again. This for me a very consistent and accurate way to ensure I am always making real and measurable gains.

As long as your not cheating your way to larger weights (the lean back and swing your arms so I can pull off heavy bicep curls brigade) then you will always be making real gains.

Everyone has strong and weaker areas. I have good leg muscles, good back muscles and a well developed upper body. But my chest is my weak point. Even as my legs improve every few weeks my chest remains stubbornly weak refusing to make any significant improvement. I find bench pressing as hard now (on virtually the same weight) as I did 4 months ago. Annoying but thats the way it is. I just need to keep training and keep consistency, focusing on my weak areas.

What's that got to do with the OPs question? He asked for a chart and got one.

G86

That tables great Nate thanks!

rubadub

xgtdec wrote: »

So does that mean that "average Joe" off the street should be able to bench press 60kg straight off?

I think it's just them being macho men overestimating what is normal -like guys who would post "he's not muscular at all" about pics of celebs who are obviously muscular etc

They are in effect saying 95%+ of people I know are incapable of enjoying a reasonable quality of life, its laughable.

d'Oracle

I hate that goddamn table.

Setanta1974

Is the above chart for 1 maximum rep or 10 reps or what?

Nate--IRL--

Setanta1974 wrote: »

Is the above chart for 1 maximum rep or 10 reps or what?

TBH I don't know for sure but I assume it is 1 rep, otherwise I'd guess the rep range would be stated.

Nate

itsallaboutheL

d'Oracle wrote: »

I hate that goddamn table.

i luff it

dave80

d'Oracle wrote: »

I hate that goddamn table.

Why, your lifts not upto an acceptable standard?

I think its a good

d'Oracle

dave80 wrote: »

Why, your lifts not upto an acceptable standard?

What is an acceptable standard?

itsallaboutheL

d'Oracle wrote: »

What is an acceptable standard?

i think that's subjective, don't you?

cardio,shoot me

that chat just reinforces everything ive known about my lifting, deadlift-ok
everything else-****

d'Oracle

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

i think that's subjective, don't you?

I dunno.
Who's standards are these?
There isn't anything about being acceptable in the table.

The only standard I have is get stronger.
Am I a novice? Untrained?
I prefer to call myself Cormac.

itsallaboutheL

d'Oracle wrote: »

I dunno.
Who's standards are these?
There isn't anything about being acceptable in the table.

The only standard I have is get stronger.
Am I a novice? Untrained?
I prefer to call myself Cormac.

Acceptable to yourself is what i was hinting towards.

I have no idea who set these standards, but it's nice to see them laid out and have something to aim towards

dave80

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Acceptable to yourself

Exactly

its a good guide to show if you squat x then you should roughly be deadlifting y etc, doesn't matter if your novice or watever

d'Oracle

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Acceptable to yourself is what i was hinting towards.

I have no idea who set these standards, but it's nice to see them laid out and have something to aim towards

Look at the text in the bottom of the chart.

It seems arbitrary to me.
I'm trying to get strong, not conform.

I read a quote from Wendler recently.
"A novice is a guy who keeps asking himself if he is a novice."

d'Oracle

dave80 wrote: »

its a good guide to show if you squat x then you should roughly be deadlifting y etc, doesn't matter if your novice or watever

Thats not true though.
Its all about novice etc. and nothing to do with what you are doing in one lift as to another.

Some people might squat more than the chart says yet can't deadlift what it says.
For various reasons. Cos they are very different lifts.

itsallaboutheL

d'Oracle wrote: »

Thats not true though.
Its all about novice etc. and nothing to do with what you are doing in one lift as to another.

Some people might squat more than the chart says yet can't deadlift what it says.
For various reasons. Cos they are very different lifts.

I must be perfect so.

All my lifts are ~10kg over what it says they should be for the particular classification. Except my powerclean which sucks balls.

I remember looking at this before and not being anywhere close to achieving parity across the lifts.

Maybe i just like it because it's telling me what i want it to.

dave80

d'Oracle wrote: »

Thats not true though.
Its all about novice etc. and nothing to do with what you are doing in one lift as to another.

Some people might squat more than the chart says yet can't deadlift what it says.
For various reasons. Cos they are very different lifts.

Not sure wat you mean by its all about novice? As its clearly not, squats and deadlift are different exercises but should not be too far out of wack unless you have one arm etc

Frogdog

Well I'm definitely a novice (started weight lifting and SS 10 weeks ago) and it's nice to see that table. I was losing a bit of heart there recently with some stalling and less progression in the lifts as workouts went by but going by my weight and my inexperience I am already ahead in the squat and the deadlift, my bench should be achievable in 2 weeks hopefully, my power clean in maybe a month and my press, well let's just say I can't have everything!

But I think all my figures are achievable in the 3-9 months timeframe for a novice, so time is on my side. Some lifts I'm going to excel in. And afterall, Starting Strength is a novice training program. It gives guys like me (and girls) that have just started out something realistic to aim at and once we hit those figures we can work from there.

rubadub

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

I have no idea who set these standards, but it's nice to see them laid out and have something to aim towards

It has 3 names in the bottom Rippetoe being one of them, from reading some of his other quotes it doesn't surprise me that he would brand people as being unable to have a reasonable quality of life if they cannot bench X-kg.

Depending on the sport or your daily activities it could change, so different authors might have different charts. I heard Chinese olympic gymnasts work up to a 2xBW squat, so they would only an "intermediate". In a gymnastics forum I saw a guy asking how to lose muscle in his legs. One coach did not allow an gymnast to cycle for fear of hypertrophy.

There was a thread similar to this before where I said

rubadub wrote: »

I personally do not bother much with legwork, and people would probably say I have a disproportionately strong upper body. Fact is when working and doing tasks I don't think I have ever been limited by a lack of leg strength. The way I see it people are walking around on their legs all day and are already getting a lot of resistance training. If I walked around doing handstands all day then my legs might be flagging behind! -of course there is the hormonal release effect etc of doing deadlifts & squats, but for me I see far more benefit in a stronger upperbody than legs. I could deadlift maybe 140kg but nothing I lift in real life is that shape, I can barely pick up a 50kg box and put it on a shelf/table, legs are not an issue in doing this.

Roger Marbles

Are these for 1 rep maximum lift or 3x5 etc?

d'Oracle

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

I must be perfect so.

You are.

d'Oracle

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Are these for 1 rep maximum lift or 3x5 etc?

1rm

rubadub

Many people might not know their 1RM, you can get an estimate by using calculators (which is what I thought this thread was going to be about).

I like this one as it goes to higher reps, most calculators only go to 10reps. If you go to reps past 15 or so this starts to output strange results though.
http://www.naturalphysiques.com/tools.php?itemid=18

Mellor

xgtdec wrote: »

So does that mean that "average Joe" off the street should be able to bench press 60kg straight off?

I would of guessed thats about right for a guy just under 90kg.

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

All my lifts are ~10kg over what it says they should be for the particular classification. Except my powerclean which sucks balls.

I'm pretty much at the same level across each with the exception of power cleans too.

rubadub wrote: »

I heard Chinese olympic gymnasts work up to a 2xBW squat, so they would only an "intermediate".

Check it again. 2xBW is advanced With the exception of the first too (intermediate) and the last two (elite). A lower BW obviously makes it easier to get to higher BW factors so that sounds right to me.

rubadub

Mellor wrote: »

I would of guessed thats about right for a guy just under 90kg.

Most 14 stone guys I know could not do it, most are fat and do no manual labour at all so I would be quite shocked if they could manage it. I suppose you could look at studies -many have got "untrained" subjects with 1RMs listed, but in most studies they are doing curls or leg extensions.

I think many people might forget how low their figures were the first time they lifted, I can't remember mine but do recall increasing lifts by a large % after just a few months.

Mellor wrote: »

Check it again. 2xBW is advanced With the exception of the first too (intermediate) and the last two (elite).

On the chart for the male squat a 2xBW squat only becomes advanced at 89.8kg where 175.5kg is "advanced", and obviously most Chinese gymnasts are lighter.

DamienH

I think Rubadub's right. It all depends on your idea of what an average "Jo Bloggs," is. My brother started lifting weights and he started off around 60kg (think it was 55) on the bench but that's because he does a fair amount of manual labour in his job. In comparison I was easily 22/23stone and I can remember when I first started benching, the weight was around 45kg. That was mainly due to the fact that I spent years 12-16 sitting on my ass eating hunky dorys and drinking coke

brianthebard

rubadub wrote: »

Most 14 stone guys I know could not do it, most are fat and do no manual labour at all so I would be quite shocked if they could manage it. I suppose you could look at studies -many have got "untrained" subjects with 1RMs listed, but in most studies they are doing curls or leg extensions.

I think many people might forget how low their figures were the first time they lifted, I can't remember mine but do recall increasing lifts by a large % after just a few months.

I see what you are saying but there is a provision on the table for proper form, most untrained people will flop down on a bench and struggle with a low weight but if they are shown proper technique and actively resist the weight they would almost certainly improve their lift immediately. This would still be considered an untrained individual.

Hanley

I got one of my mates to a novice standard having never trained before in < 3 months. Whoop di do. The standards are good ones.

ApeXaviour

Love the table... Am seriously lagging in my press/bench though it would seem, one class below everything else.

@rubadub, if you like upper body exercises because of their aesthetic effects (a fair reason!) or because you like climbing around on monkey bars etc. then awesome. They don't really build raw strength though IMO. I think it's misleading to call squats/deadlifts/powercleans "leg" exercises. If you want to lift a rock or a table or a box or whatnot it's mostly about leverage and CNS. Boxers will say the same, very little of their punching power comes from their arms.

to be on topic somewhat... using the formula from Wendler's 531 to estimate your 1rm it's weight*reps*0.0333+weight

d'Oracle

I prefer to use one of the online ones.
Less effort.

AntiVirus

What kind of study was done for this chart? What age groups is this chart for? who would even use this chart?

I'd guess very little real study was done.

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

What kind of study was done for this chart? What age groups is this chart for? who would even use this chart?

I'd guess very little real study was done.

I believe it's called "experience"

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

I believe it's called "experience"

Are you serious?

Molly

Yes it says so on the chart itself.

brianthebard

Its broscience brah.

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

Are you serious?

Do you know the guys who wrote the chart?

Are you just upset you don't rank as high as you think you should or something?

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

Do you know the guys who wrote the chart?

Are you just upset you don't rank as high as you think you should or something?

Rank higher in fact! Thats why in looks very strange, for instance to go from novice to intermediate takes 3-9 months. Thats a pretty big gap, makes it look abit like guess work. I did it in 3 months without any help.

dave80

AntiVirus wrote: »

Rank higher in fact! Thats why in looks very strange, for instance to go from novice to intermediate takes 3-9 months. Thats a pretty big gap, makes it look abit like guess work. I did it in 3 months without any help.

Intermediate is up to 2 years so you fall into tat bracket, are you elite on all the lifts? If not keep training its only a guide

itsallaboutheL

AntiVirus wrote: »

Rank higher in fact! Thats why in looks very strange, for instance to go from novice to intermediate takes 3-9 months. Thats a pretty big gap, makes it look abit like guess work. I did it in 3 months without any help.

Your squat is high :pac:

AntiVirus

dave80 wrote: »

Intermediate is up to 2 years so you fall into tat bracket, are you elite on all the lifts? If not keep training its only a guide

I lift weights to keep fit, I only up them when I can complete all my sets. I've never done a 1rm, I've only used the online calculator that rudadub posted. So maybe its a bit lower or a bit higher.

I just think the people who compiled the chart should have done different age groups. They really don't seem to have spent much time on it?

BobbyOLeary

AntiVirus wrote: »

I just think the people who compiled the chart should have done different age groups. They really don't seem to have spent much time on it?

Why should they do different age groups? Does it really matter?

This chart was put out by Rip and Kilgore aaaaaages ago. It's a nice tool to measure yourself against because we all know that as humans we like to have an external objective measurement to compare ourselves to. It's not the definitive weight lifting standards. It's a chart Rip made up out of his own experience coaching people how to lift barbells. Nothing more and nothing less.