Relationships Between Anthropometry and Maximal Strength in Male Classic Powerlifters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have determined the influence of physical characteristics on strength. The present quantified the relationships between anthropometry and maximal strength. Male classic powerlifters (n=59) were measured before a championship. Two-tailed Pearson correlation analysis was used. Powerlifters that presented higher relative maximal strength (RMS) in the squat and bench generally had higher body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), torso circumference (C), waist C/height, torso C/height (r=0.26 to 0.49, p<0.05), and smaller lower leg length (L)/height and forearm L/torso C (r=-0.31 to -0.45, p<0.05) ratios. Powerlifters with a higher % of their deadlift on their total generally presented a smaller BW, BMI, body fat percentage (BF%), waist and torso C, trunk L, waist C/height, torso C/height, trunk L/height, waist C/hip C, thigh L/lower leg L, trunk L/thigh L ratios (r=-0.26 to -0.49, p<0.05) and higher lower leg L, lower leg L/height, reach/height, and forearm L/torso C ratios (r=0.32 to 0.51, p<0.05). Stepwise regressions revealed that a bigger torso positively predicted absolute maximal strength (AMS) in the squat (β=0.41, p=0.04), the bench (β=0.77, p<0.01), the deadlift (β=0.88, p<0.01) and the total (β=0.89, p<0.01), that a higher torso C/height ratio positively predicted RMS in the squat(β=0.48, p<0.01), the bench (β=-0.87, p<0.01) and the total (β=0.66, p<0.01), and that reach/height positively predicted RMS in the deadlift (β=0.37, p<0.01) and it's % on the total (β=0.31, p<0.01), but negatively predicted RMS in the bench (β=-0.25, p=0.02) and its % on the total (β=-0.24, p=0.04) As all of the stronger correlations came from AMS, powerlifters should focus on increasing AMS (weight lifted) instead of RMS (Wilks pts).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it