Bench Press max question

BossArky · 13-09-2007 11:45AM #1

At 70kg bodyweight I can just about bench 4 sets of 75kg at 3 reps each.

I'm looking to get to about 67kg bodyweight. What is the max realistically I can expect to bench at 67kg without supplements?

Is 100kg too much to ask? Just wondering if anyone here knows of people that weight who bench weights like that at that bodyweight. Thanks.

Vegeta · 13-09-2007 11:57AM

BossArky wrote:

At 70kg bodyweight I can just about bench 4 sets of 75kg at 3 reps each.

I'm looking to get to about 67kg bodyweight. What is the max realistically I can expect to bench at 67kg without supplements?

Is 100kg too much to ask? Just wondering if anyone here knows of people that weight who bench weights like that at that bodyweight. Thanks.

firstly benching above your body weight so well done. Just a question though. what do you mean without a supplement??

You sound like me but carrying way less bodyfat. I can bench about the same but weigh 85kg

my goal is to bench that weight (85) squat 120 and deadlift 160.

Also are you trying to get slimmer for some form of competition. 70 to 67 kg

tribulus · 13-09-2007 12:54PM

Short answer: as much as you want depending on the effort you put in, why limit yourself?

100kg x 1 at 67kg is 1.5x bodyweight. It's a nice benchmark (heheh) you could deservedly call yourself a decent bencher then.

Doing it for reps and sets would be even more impressive.

BossArky · 13-09-2007 01:23PM

Vegeta wrote:

what do you mean without a supplement??

Also are you trying to get slimmer for some form of competition. 70 to 67 kg

I mean without protein shakes, whey, etc. No reason, just my preference.

I want to drop from 70 to 67kg so overall lower my bodyfat to single digits, and run faster i.e. less weight to carry around. I'm specifically looking at 5km racing, aiming for 21 or 22 mins for next years sprint triathlon season.

I'm wondering if the loss of 3kg bodyweight will mean it will be exponentially harder to lift more weight due to the loss of muscle too.

Ok Trib, I'll aim for 100 and see what happens :eek:

Colm_OReilly · 13-09-2007 01:42PM

Here's a pdf of strength standards: http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf

At 67Kgs you're currently just shy of "intermediate" by these standards, and 100Kg is attainable.

I'm wondering if the loss of 3kg bodyweight will mean it will be exponentially harder to lift more weight due to the loss of muscle too.

I wouldn't imagine so. If you want to run faster I'd advise you to focus on improving your running technique and times and not worry too much about your weight. If your diet is sound and you're exercising a lot you'll probably lose weight to some degree. BF measures are inaccurate anyway.

Vegeta · 13-09-2007 01:52PM

BossArky wrote:

I mean without protein shakes, whey, etc. No reason, just my preference.

I want to drop from 70 to 67kg so overall lower my bodyfat to single digits, and run faster i.e. less weight to carry around. I'm specifically looking at 5km racing, aiming for 21 or 22 mins for next years sprint triathlon season.

I'm wondering if the loss of 3kg bodyweight will mean it will be exponentially harder to lift more weight due to the loss of muscle too.

Ok Trib, I'll aim for 100 and see what happens :eek:

There's no prob with not taking supplements as long as your diet good. They are supplements after all. On the other hand if you know your diet is lacking something and you can take a supplement to sort it out then its a bit silly not to

don't lose 3 kg of body weight lose 3 kg of fat and you should see no strength loss if you keep protein intake right and keep lifting.

I have no clue about distance running but while they are all usually very thin, to look at them they don't seem to have overly low bf%. So the question for you is, is a single digits bf% wise (sustainable) for distance runners. I certainly don't know

Colm_OReilly · 13-09-2007 04:38PM

Vegeta just reminded me of something.

Distance runners/athletes - or the very least serious ones - have a susceptibility to colds/flus that most norms don't.

I wouldn't classify a 5 or 10K athlete as a distance athlete, but the OP did mention triathlons, so he's in a sport that's lasting 2+ hours.

I've a few friends who are triathletes, and while not being ripped, they are slim enough. Just in case you'd a concern over body image and were competing as a means of staying slim.

Veg's dead right about losing fat, not just weight. A healthy diet will help with that.

BossArky · 13-09-2007 04:47PM

Cheers Colm - handy reference there. I know that running faster isn't all about losing weight, but being lighter may help a tad. I'm hoping to spend more time in the gym over the winter and come out stronger and lighter at the beginning of the year when I'll start back into proper running again.

I've lost 5 or 6 kgs since beginning of this year and added about 20kg to my bench since Jan (as well as squat and deadlift 80kg from basically nothing), so hope to continue this progression towards Christmas, hence the reason for this thread.

One small tin of tuna has approx 37g of protein according to the packaging. What amount of protein should I be taking to ensure I have enough after a decent gym session? I'm not looking to get into world championships or anything... just maintain some progress in muscle gain. I have seen estimates stating that 2g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight should be consumed. Is this too much / too little in your opinion?

crotalus667 · 13-09-2007 07:45PM

BossArky wrote:

I have seen estimates stating that 2g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight should be consumed. Is this too much / too little in your opinion?

Id say too little im on 2g per lb of lean bodymass, (very little carb's except pre and post workout)

tribulus · 13-09-2007 09:00PM

Whatever works really. Generally I'd say you'd need 2g/kg or 1g/lb (roughly the same). I don't think natural trainees would need as much as 2g/lb however if they're progressing without appreciable fat gain then fair enough.

crotalus667 · 14-09-2007 11:25AM

tribulus wrote:

I don't think natural trainees would need as much as 2g/lb however if they're progressing without appreciable fat gain then fair enough.

I am natural (I.e. not juicing) the reason why im on 2g’s per pound of LEAN body mass is because im in the process of dropping weight (a lot of weight over a long period of time) I read in an article (on bb.com I think or it could have been flex) that 2g’s per lb of lean body mass was the right amount to continue making gains while in a calorie deficient state , I have to say that it is working , my strength is up and weight is down , although only by 1kg over the past 6 weeks:( (Id say it would have been a lot more only I fell off the diet wagon in a big way once or twice:rolleyes: ) saying that the decrease in my fat % reflects a bigger fat loss than 1kg

. Im going to be changing my diet around a bit (to speed up the fat loss) so I think Ill start a training log .

I have to say Tribulus hit the nail on the head “Whatever works really” every one is different that’s why there are so many different opinions in all the different training manuals, find what works for your own body ,

BossArky · 15-09-2007 05:10PM

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Here's a pdf of strength standards: http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf

At 67Kgs you're currently just shy of "intermediate" by these standards, and 100Kg is attainable.

What exactly do those strength standards refer to? A one rep max or 3 sets of 8 reps? Something else?

Colm_OReilly · 15-09-2007 07:32PM

One Rep Max

TerrorFirmer · 16-09-2007 10:53PM

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

Colm_OReilly · 16-09-2007 11:25PM

HavoK wrote:

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

This represents the minimum level of strength required to maintain a
reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

Colm

Vegeta · 17-09-2007 09:18AM

HavoK wrote:

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

Yeah i'm with Havok on that one

rubadub · 17-09-2007 10:26AM

HavoK wrote:

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

Yeah, I was shocked until I read the bit in the right corner. I would like to know the real average of the guy on the street. I expect many people cannot do a single pushup, so benching 60kg straight away is not the norm. And as bodyweight goes up the average person could well be lifting less, since the average guy who is 250lb is not that way from muscle.

There was some other site before with average pushup ability and it seemed a bit more realistic.

Linoge · 17-09-2007 01:37PM

rubadub wrote:

There was some other site before with average pushup ability and it seemed a bit more realistic.

I've read that the average is 28. 34 is good.

With regards to the crossfit Basic Strentgh chart, if body weight is in lbs should the bench weight not be in lbs too?? This can't be right either though becasue that puts me in elite:eek:

rubadub · 17-09-2007 01:44PM

Linoge wrote:

With regards to the crossfit Basic Strentgh chart, if body weight is in lbs should the bench weight not be in lbs too?? This can't be right either though becasue that puts me in elite:eek:

It is in lb AFAIK

Are you looking at bench press, 3rd down, or the top one "press" (what is this press? standing military press?)

this was the pressups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushups_as_fitness_levels_in_the_US_military

But that is the military so not the average person off the street, and I am "outstanding", something wrong there!

Linoge · 17-09-2007 01:49PM

rubadub wrote:

It is in lb AFAIK

Are you looking at bench press, 3rd down, or the top one "press" (what is this press? standing military press?)

Thanks for that:o I'm back down to between novice and inter(phew, thought I was really strong there for a min!)

pwd · 17-09-2007 01:58PM

Colm_OReilly wrote:

This represents the minimum level of strength required to maintain a
reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

They think you need a certain level of upper body strength to maintain a reasonable quality of life? What's their rationale behind that it seems like nonsense to me.
Well either nonsense or cynical lies in order to sell fitness programmes and supplements.

BossArky · 17-09-2007 03:40PM

If these are one rep max standards as Colm points out then that makes me feel a lot better! I was basing my new fitness log aims on trying to reach the intermediate levels on all 4 exercises at 3 sets of 8 reps, not just 1 rep max.

However, this may well be impossible We shall see.

BossArky · 17-09-2007 03:43PM

rubadub wrote:

It is in lb AFAIK

....or the top one "press" (what is this press? standing military press?)

Yeah, it is standing barbell military press (if the youtube cross fit press videos are anything to go by).

rubadub · 17-09-2007 04:34PM

BossArky wrote:

Yeah, it is standing barbell military press (if the youtube cross fit press videos are anything to go by).

Cheers. I was the same as you too, thinking of my 8reps since I never really do 1rep max work. Makes sense for them to use 1R figures.

Most "rep calculators" add on about 25% of your 8rep max, to equal your 1rep max. So multiply your 8rep kg weight by 2.75 to get a 1rep estimate in lb i.e. (2.2x1.25). I am between novice and intermediate which should be the case.

Colm_OReilly · 17-09-2007 05:11PM

pwd wrote:

They think you need a certain level of upper body strength to maintain a reasonable quality of life? What's their rationale behind that it seems like nonsense to me.
Well either nonsense or cynical lies in order to sell fitness programmes and supplements.

Mark Rippetoe is Crossfit's powerlifting expert, and is quite adamant about strength being important to your quality of life. Do a search for Starting Strength and you'll get extracts from his book about it's role in healthy living.

Yes, he does sell books and promote his gym - but you can download free instructional clips of Rip teaching from Crossfit.com, get free workouts daily for them or any affiliate sites, get free advice from Certified coaches on our message boards...

We're hardly all about the selling of programs!!!

Crossfit North/Seattle published their athletic skill standards here if people are interested. If anyone has that push up it'd be cool to see that as well.

Colm

Hanley · 17-09-2007 05:19PM

What's that guy in the picture doing?

Btw Level 4 Elite Squat/Bench/Dead... cool

rubadub · 17-09-2007 06:13PM

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Mark Rippetoe is Crossfit's powerlifting expert, and is quite adamant about strength being important to your quality of life.

Similarly you might have some mathematical expert adamant about calculus being important to your quality of life and how being unable to solve differential equations is "untrained", while most get by fine on leaving cert math

Hanley wrote:

What's that guy in the picture doing?

Woody Allen struggling with an upright row...

Hanley wrote:

Btw Level 4 Elite Squat/Bench/Dead... cool

I would be too, if I got a sex change and lost a few pounds:D

ali.c · 17-09-2007 07:33PM

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Crossfit North/Seattle published their athletic skill standards here if people are interested. If anyone has that push up it'd be cool to see that as well.

I like crossfit, i think the goals are great, but tbh not really impressed with

Description of level 1 wrote:

This level is the minimum standard for health. Lacking these basic levels of strength, flexibility and work capacity makes daily life unnecessarily limited

When they say that you should be able to do 3 dips and 3 full pull-ups. There isnt a different amount of excercise for men and women on these two which are *usually* a weak point for women. I havent been able to do dips*3 (i can do one) or a single pull up in a good while and i dont think it negatively impacted on my health.

Though i do have a level 2 deadlift, sweet!!

Colm_OReilly · 18-09-2007 05:37PM

Guys,

Apologies for the lag in replying.

Similarly you might have some mathematical expert adamant about calculus being important to your quality of life and how being unable to solve differential equations is "untrained", while most get by fine on leaving cert math

Nice analogy. I'd argue

A) that a Crossfit approach to life (i.e. become a generalist over a specialist) is a healthy approach to life. So knowing maths does help you get by - the more the better. The level of expertise required differs depending on the individual. I can't teach people how to repair a car, but knowing how to is a useful skill. We don't need to be at the level of mechanics but it helps to have experts.

Without physical health (which we measure on the same scale as Fitness) you can do very little. Strength being an aspect of physical health we've found to have a positive effect on the other areas, hence it's relative importance. So we'll put health/fitness at the base of a triangle of important life areas in terms of things people need. (Think Maslow's hierarchy). On the same line of thought, all the great exercise in the world would mean nothing if you'd a ****ty diet, so diet would be the foundation of a good life.

When they say that you should be able to do 3 dips and 3 full pull-ups. There isnt a different amount of excercise for men and women on these two which are *usually* a weak point for women. I havent been able to do dips*3 (i can do one) or a single pull up in a good while and i dont think it negatively impacted on my health.

I hope I've addressed this above but I can see your point - many people get by without basic physical components. The Levels are there because there was a demand for them, and the originators obvious felt that 3 dips/pull ups were worthwhile.

As i train more people across a wider range of abilities/lifestyles - I see/hear about the benefits getting fitter has had on other aspects of their lives. Sometimes it's just the extra energy they feel from being healthy, others it's the sense of accomplishment they get when they finally can do a Pull Up etc, i.e. they've succeeded in some goal and have more confidence in other areas, others it's just they're more useful round the house.

Humans are particulary obsessed with measurements so these levels help people see their accomplishments and set goals.

Hopefully I've helped explain here, sorry if I've been rambling (Actually, if you've read this far, you don't think I'm rambling or are very patient!)

Colm

rubadub · 18-09-2007 05:56PM

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Nice analogy. I'd argue

My analogy was a bit tounge in cheek, the mathematics comparing to his own "mathematical formula", he had to pick some figure I suppose, for simplicity. It is just it appears a bit black & white, 2 twins step up and one can bench 2kg more than the other so "qualifies" as having a reasonable quality of life, the other might feel branded as not being as happy or something- sort of similar to the BMI formula which is a rough guideline but can be flawed.

I accept the 2 points you made which do make perfect sense.

You also mention the 3 dips/pullups as being a figure they had to choose. I think ali.c is making more the point about women being naturally less muscular and hence less strong. This is reflected in the pdf http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf where women of a given body weight have lower expected weight lifting ability than men. But dips & pullups are equivalent to lifting a given weight, so really I think ali.c is saying they should not be expected to do as many as men- which I agree with. I am around 165lb and see I should be lifting around 55% more than a woman of 165lb, so surely a woman should be only expected to do proportionately less body weight exercise repetitions.

ASIDE:- ali.c -have you tried negative pull/chinups and dips, you stand on a box or chair so you are in the uppermost position adn then slowly lower yourself down, very controlled. This downward negative phase is meant to work the muscles even more and leads to a lot of strength, it also works a lot of muscles used in the upward movement so is better than say doing bicep curls to improve you chinups. When I started I couldnt do a single pullup or chinup, after negative work I could bang them out easily. I still do them, after I am exhausted after normal chins I get on the box and do a last few negatives to really work the muscles.

ali.c · 18-09-2007 06:06PM

yup, i think my point was really more to do with the fact that the starting point is different for men and women so therefore to achieve the same level prior to achieving a begineer status is well a bit skaways esp as they seem to make the distinction for other excercises.

Bench Press max question

Comments