# weight & strength



## MissToodles (Jun 8, 2007)

During my life, I've heard the claim by virtue of being really big, that it makes me physically stronger. I don't think I have super-human strength, I can't lift a car with both arms (but I can push a saab  )

At my last job, I was relegated to more physical tasks--lifting tables, sacks etc. One of my co-workers was impressed by my ability to do such things. She was thin and short. 

I don't think I really have much upper body strength like most women, but has anyone noticed this? Is it just a myth? I want to start lifting weights for cardiovascular health so many I can be the "strong girl" that everyone perceives me to be. 

I hope I wrote this on the proper board, as well!


----------



## imfree (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm about 420 lbs and I can quickly stand straight up out of
a chair without having to push up with my hands, LOL. OMG!!!, but it DOES take a lot of oxygen when I do that!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 8, 2007)

I think this is "use it or lose it." I do think a person who is routinely active with more mass is going to be able to lift more than a person with less mass who isn't. It just takes more energy to lift 300 than 200 or whatever, but ultimately it's contingent on whether or not the person is active.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Jun 8, 2007)

I think weight, height and body mass _do _have a lot to do with strength. I've long heard that fat people have certain muscle groups (legs, for instance) that are comparatively quite strong, simply by virtue of the fact that we have to move a much heavier body along every day. Also, a larger body is going to have longer and larger muscles (depending on general health, of course), so it's logical that they will be stronger. It's all contingent on whether you actually move, however - sedentary bodies will be considerably weaker, and likely in pain as well. 

There's a book called "power of 10" which I recommend. It focuses on very slow weight lifting, and you can really feel the effect. It also states that you don't _have _to add any cardio -but I don't agree with or support that. I think the best plan is to alternate weight lifting with some heart-pumping cardio. That's part of why I chose the Resistance Chair, because I can do both upper-body weight lifting and cardio simultaneously.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 8, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I think this is "use it or lose it." I do think a person who is routinely active with more mass is going to be able to lift more than a person with less mass who isn't. It just takes more energy to lift 300 than 200 or whatever, but ultimately it's contingent on whether or not the person is active.



I have to concur..it's kind of a self fulfilling thing...because of size you're called on to do more strength requiring things...which builds actual strength...which leads to being called on by others and self to do more, and so on. A nifty little circle.

I was a BIG kid from early on...by age 8 I was helping my dad carry full size vending machines around. By 10-11 at my full adult height and over 200lbs...responsible for all the heavy lifting around the school (office equipment, library tables, book cases, etc). By high school, with no weight training at all, finished 8th overall and 2nd and 3rd in 2 events in a school wide mandatory weight room competition. In my 20s I lifted car motors. By my 40s, Degenerative Joint Disease had set in, my mobility and therefore strength took a nose dive, and by 48 I couldn't do what I did at 8. I'm a living testimonial to the use it or lose it.


----------



## tjw1971 (Jun 8, 2007)

In general, a person in "average health/physical shape" is going to be able to lift a certain percentage of their body weight.

I remember all the way back in high-school P.E. classes, when we did a weight-lifting segment of the class, our coach wasn't concerned with how much a given person was lifting relative to others in the class. That didn't signify very much. It was all about how much they were lifting relative to their size.

(EG. If you're a 120lb. woman and you're bench-pressing 175lbs. - that actually makes you much "stronger" than a 200lb. woman who can bench press 210lbs.)

But still, in the "real world", people are more impressed with the "grand total". (Which I suppose makes sense when you don't really *care* how big the individual is, as long as heavy item X can get moved to where you need it, right?)

It even impresses people more if you're the type that weighs a lot more than it appears you do. My ex was like that. She could easily pick up a 250lb. guy and carry him around, which used to totally freak most of them out. But they also always guessed her weight as around 150... not the 210 or so she actually weighed.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm going to agree with all the original theories. When I started going to the gym, by the way I was feeling I figured I was as weak as a leaf, especially in the upper body. On the first day I ever appeared at the gym however I started adjusting the weights and noticed that my comfortable weight was almost double that of every other woman in the room. I'm on equal footing with the hard core muscle goddesses that go there in every move except the overhead lift. For some reason I have to keep that on the lowest weight setting and I can barely make it through the sets on that. Otherwise I appear to be twice as strong as the others without even trying and I still feel like crap.


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 8, 2007)

tjw1971 said:


> In general, a person in "average health/physical shape" is going to be able to lift a certain percentage of their body weight.
> 
> I remember all the way back in high-school P.E. classes, when we did a weight-lifting segment of the class, our coach wasn't concerned with how much a given person was lifting relative to others in the class. That didn't signify very much. It was all about how much they were lifting relative to their size.
> 
> ...



*Absolutley- in most weightlifting competitions they go by the Schwartz formula to award the best lifter and it's usually - the lighter weights that lift the most weight "relative" to their bodysize. Some Olympic Lifting competitors are lifting twice their weight over head - while the heavier lifter are lifting anywhere 200-250lbs over their weight-but, not twice... * 



MissToodles said:


> During my life, I've heard the claim by virtue of being really big, that it makes me physically stronger. I don't think I have super-human strength, I can't lift a car with both arms (but I can push a saab  )
> 
> At my last job, I was relegated to more physical tasks--lifting tables, sacks etc. One of my co-workers was impressed by my ability to do such things. She was thin and short.
> 
> ...



*Well MissToodles- you certianly have the functional strength to do the daily task and combining cardio and strength is just coming up with the rep scheme that is good for you.* 



imfree said:


> I'm about 420 lbs and I can quickly stand straight up out of a chair without having to push up with my hands, LOL. OMG!!!, but it DOES take a lot of oxygen when I do that!



*The fact that you are doing chair squats is awesome- what better way to build leg strength.*



TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I think this is "use it or lose it." I do think a person who is routinely active with more mass is going to be able to lift more than a person with less mass who isn't. It just takes more energy to lift 300 than 200 or whatever, but ultimately it's contingent on whether or not the person is active.



*I guess it depends on the lifting style as powerlifting requires more "brute" strength while Olympic Lifting - more athletic ability (strength-speed and flexibility)*



SamanthaNY said:


> I think weight, height and body mass _do _have a lot to do with strength. I've long heard that fat people have certain muscle groups (legs, for instance) that are comparatively quite strong, simply by virtue of the fact that we have to move a much heavier body along every day. Also, a larger body is going to have longer and larger muscles (depending on general health, of course), so it's logical that they will be stronger. It's all contingent on whether you actually move, however - sedentary bodies will be considerably weaker, and likely in pain as well.
> 
> There's a book called "power of 10" which I recommend. It focuses on very slow weight lifting, and you can really feel the effect. It also states that you don't _have _to add any cardio -but I don't agree with or support that. I think the best plan is to alternate weight lifting with some heart-pumping cardio. That's part of why I chose the Resistance Chair, because I can do both upper-body weight lifting and cardio simultaneously.



*Absolutley true- though it makes you wonder.. you rarely see strength athletes performing in their 60's or 70's..... *



LillyBBBW said:


> I'm going to agree with all the original theories. When I started going to the gym, by the way I was feeling I figured I was as weak as a leaf, especially in the upper body. On the first day I ever appeared at the gym however I started adjusting the weights and noticed that my comfortable weight was almost double that of every other woman in the room. I'm on equal footing with the hard core muscle goddesses that go there in every move except the overhead lift. For some reason I have to keep that on the lowest weight setting and I can barely make it through the sets on that. Otherwise I appear to be twice as strong as the others without even trying and I still feel like crap.



*To hell with hard core muscle goddesses- I'd rather see hard core BBW goddesses.....*


----------



## BBWTexan (Jun 8, 2007)

I'd be willing to bet that I have some of the strongest legs out there. After all, they have been carrying me around all of these years - and believe me, that takes a lot of muscle.

However, as far as upper body strength is concerned, I don't have any more than normal - unless it's something where I'm pushing and can put my weight behind it.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 8, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> <snipped>....
> 
> It also states that you don't _have _to add any cardio -but I don't agree with or support that. I think the best plan is to alternate weight lifting with some heart-pumping cardio. That's part of why I chose the Resistance Chair, because I can do both upper-body weight lifting and cardio simultaneously.



There may be some truth to the idea of not having to necessarily add any cardio work to an already thorough weight training routine. I found that weight training enhanced every active movement I was already performing from day to day. It's a five minute walk to and from my gym from the subway, I commute to work, I don't own a car so I take the subway everywhere - I found that I reduced sizes despite my intentions not to do so. In addition to all that, my job and part time singing are all sedentary gigs, I only weight trained two to three days a week and my eating habits did not change - in fact I found I ate more. If you're looking to lose weight adding cardio would definitely be a boon but I'm inclined to agree with the notion that weight training alone may be all that is needed for an otherwise normal active adult. I would neither describe myself as normal nor active and was astonished at the results of weight training alone on my body.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and eating in moderation would probably add to weight loss intentions as well. My whole reason for working out in the first place though is to insure that I don't have to.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Jun 8, 2007)

I agree that you can certainly see good results with weight training only - but for cardiac and overall health, stamina and endurance, I think you have to get the heart rate up to a certain level for a somewhat sustained time, regularly, several times a week. And I'm speaking of health regardless of the desire for any weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno - but I just think it's good to get the heart working, body sweating, etc., its certainly done wonders for me. YMMV.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 9, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> I agree that you can certainly see good results with weight training only - but for cardiac and overall health, stamina and endurance, I think you have to get the heart rate up to a certain level for a somewhat sustained time, regularly, several times a week. And I'm speaking of health regardless of the desire for any weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno - but I just think it's good to get the heart working, body sweating, etc., its certainly done wonders for me. YMMV.



I agree though the target heart rate for cardio and endurance benefit can be reached easily with moderate activity. There are repeated studies that show the activity does not necessarily have to be done in one fell swoop but can be spread throughout the day equaling 20 to 30 minutes and still have benefit. You can reach target rates from walking the dog, working in the yard, vacuuming, running errands during your lunch hour, etc. It seems obvious in my mind at least that sustained controlled exercise over an extended period during the day may be optimal best. It's better to make sure you're doing the best you can to improve and maintain your health but suiting up in spandex needn't be a part of it. If someone is certain that their daily rituals adequately address cardio requirements they can begin a weight program without adding cardio and it would be fine.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Jun 9, 2007)

but... but... I LIKE suiting up in spandex! 

_...kidding_! 

You're correct again, Lilly... I think for fat bodies - nearly _any _movement is good movement. I also believe that what might be considered 'light activity' (such as those you described) to a smaller sized body can be considered cardio activity for us. 

"Move it or lose it" applies in a very real way for fat bodies. The real danger for us comes when one becomes too sedentary - it has an impact on everything, vital organs, muscles, joints, clot formations... all sorts of nasty things that have a cumulative effect.


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 9, 2007)

The one method of adding cardio to your weight routine is increased reps.
Not the most exciting kind of a workout ;but, something that could be utilized for good results. 

*One Hundred Reps Weight Training *

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459605


*Strength Training and Specialty Workouts *

http://exercise.about.com/od/exerciseworkouts/Strength_Training_and_Specialty_Workouts.htm


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 9, 2007)

The biggest thing that surprised me about the weight program that I didn't expect was that my asthmatic breathing problems seemed to vanish almost immediately. A few things you should know first (cause I like using bullets):


I was a smoker for many years and quit less than two years ago
I was never "officially" diagnosed with asthma, it was merely a guess by my doctor
inhalers didn't help
I've had pulmonary emboli in the past

I've done some moderate walking in my day to day travels and once or twice have tried to include more cardio specific activities in my daily rituals but found the fatigue to be a great nuisance. I had begun avoiding it completely in fact because I found it so exhausting but I noticed that when I started lifting my lungs began to clear themselves during routines. My cardio work never seemed to have any effect except to make my breathing more difficult yet by the time I got to the second weight machine on the first day of my workout my lungs began coughing and clearing. I was too focussed on the workout to give it too much notice but I do recall being a bit startled by it though seeing it as a positive. Weight training had a tremendous impact on cleaning out my lungs which was totally unexpected and my breathing improved dramatically by the end of the week. I don't recall ever hearing any studies that connect a link between weight training and lung function. Cardio routines are often credited as being beneficial specific to lung function yet my attempts were often marked by fatigue and stress with no improvement. The weights totally took that away making me more inclined to add cardio to my workout routine. 

It's quite likely I'm just a weirdo though I've become a big cheer leader for weight training. I believe that weight training leads to other deviant behavior -- like using the treadmill, accepting invitations to go out places, carrying up your own groceries instead of calling for delivery.  It's immoral, but I like it.


----------



## chickadee (Jun 9, 2007)

Just my 2 cents: I have noticed that when I pair cardio with weight lifting, I have more strength and I can lift more. 

Also, when I take a week or two off from lifting and then go back to my regular schedule, I can lift a lot more- sometimes almost twice as much as before!!! I wonder why this happens...


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 9, 2007)

Well having a break from lifting is always good as well as changing your routine every month or two. Just having a break gives a chance for the bosy to recuperate. 

Weight training does offer tremendous benefits - in factone of the *best* upper body exercise is the *straight arm pullover*. 
If you are able to use a nautilus weight machine fine- but, below are clips of barbell and dumbell pullovers. Great exercise for expanding the rib cage.

*Dumbbell Pullover*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlcHISffkx0 


*Barbell Pullover *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDH1ir-vbBo


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 9, 2007)

tonynyc said:


> Well having a break from lifting is always good as well as changing your routine every month or two. Just having a break gives a chance for the bosy to recuperate.
> 
> Weight training does offer tremendous benefits - in factone of the *best* upper body exercise is the *straight arm pullover*.
> If you are able to use a nautilus weight machine fine- but, below are clips of barbell and dumbell pullovers. Great exercise for expanding the rib cage.
> ...




Tony is that you, someone you know or just some dude? Those clips are great.


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 9, 2007)

LillyBBBW said:


> Tony is that you, someone you know or just some dude? Those clips are great.



Hi Lilly:

Nope don't have the pleasure of knowing the lifters (just some dudes) on the youtube clips- however, I enjoy showing clips of how the exercise is done and this way - you get both visuals as far as working out with both dumbbells and barbells. I'll see what Lady lifters I can come up with as well.
I didn't not want to show the standard 'bodybuilding' clips as I wanted to show everyday folks working out. 

* Dumbbell PullOver - Another Link * 

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/PectoralSternal/DBPullover.html 

Now this is a program that was originally listed in John McCallum's Key to Progress. Great routine for Scuba Divers

Original Program

**Warmup two hand snatch - light wt. 20 reps
Full Squats 3X12
Light Pullover (alternate with squat) 3X15
Bench Press 3X8
** Power Clean 5X5
Rowing 3X12
*** Press Behind Neck 3X8
Curls 2X8
Leg Raises incline 1X25
Twisting Situps 1X25

(now this is a routine that was used in the 1960s as a sample weight training schedule for scuba divers)

============================================

*Modification to Above Program*

workouts 2-3X a week M-W-F or Tues-Th-Sat 

1.Warmup arm circles 20 reps

2. Squats (Weight - Bodyweight - Dumbell or Chair) 3X12
3. Light Pullover (alternate with squat) 3X15

4. Bench Press or Pushups 3X8
5. Rowing 3X12
6. Shoulder Press 3X8
7. Curls 2X8
8. Crunches 1X25
9. Trunk Twisting 1X25

Pullovers stretch the sternum and ribcage to build powerful lungs.


----------



## Aurora (Jun 11, 2007)

Interesting topic!

I'm currently around 340 pounds, and I recently was able to move 720 pounds on a squat machine at my college surrounded by onlookers. I didn't do a full squat, and it probably wasn't very safe to do, but I thought it was pretty cool that my body could move that kind of weight upward. When I got off the machine some of the big beefy football players tried to do it and it didn't even budge for them. I was told if I had done a full squat it would have broke the school's record but I didn't want to risk it without working up to it.

I guess I attribute it to the fact that I've been big all my life, and my legs have had plenty of exercise hauling my fat ass around. 

My arms are fairly weak though. I don't think I can bench more than 75 pounds.


----------



## tjw1971 (Jun 12, 2007)

Aurora, I've found that women, in general, are more likely to have good lower-body strength, whereas for men, it's upper-body.

I've always kind of had "a thing" for strong women. Not sure if that qualifies as a "fetish" or anything -- but whatever. It's just something cool that gets my attention whenever I notice it.

I've actually known several women who could leg-press upwards of 900-1100lbs. on the "Universal" machines like you find in clubhouse gyms, at the local YMCA, etc. (I'm told that the "sled" type leg presses using free weights are actually a little bit harder to do - but I can't speak with first-hand experience there.) In any case, all of them were bigger gals with noticeably larger-sized legs, and none of them were "gym rats" by any stretch of the imagination either.

I also know (from doing my share of reading and research) that doing a full squat is NOT supposed to really be "bad for the knees", like it is often rumored to be. In fact, the current line of thinking is that you should try to do as full of a motion as possible when squatting weights, so you don't end up training your muscles for only an unnaturally short portion of travel. (If you think about it, I guess it makes perfect sense. As soon as you're lifting the weight, the load is there, pressing on your knees and everything else. Your movement after that doesn't add any additional load. Only more weight would do that.)

Just curious. Was that the most you found you could possibly lift, or was that just a random amount of weight you tried because someone set up the machine with it? It is a GREAT lift though, either way!




Aurora said:


> Interesting topic!
> 
> I'm currently around 340 pounds, and I recently was able to move 720 pounds on a squat machine at my college surrounded by onlookers. I didn't do a full squat, and it probably wasn't very safe to do, but I thought it was pretty cool that my body could move that kind of weight upward. When I got off the machine some of the big beefy football players tried to do it and it didn't even budge for them. I was told if I had done a full squat it would have broke the school's record but I didn't want to risk it without working up to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aurora (Jun 12, 2007)

My friend kept adding weight to it until it was about to the max of what I could push. Way back in 8th grade I did 410 pounds on what I think is similar to what you call a leg press (I believe it was called a hip slide at my school, you sit low to the ground and push weight with your legs at an angle). That was a pretty big deal for me then, and I wanted to see what my legs could do now. I am still curious of what I could now do on that hip slide!


----------

