MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Relationships Between Body Composition And Maximal Strength In Classic Powerlifters: An Update

2021· article· en· W3179084331 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre-Marc Ferland, J E Charron, Fanie St-Jean Miron, Mathieu Brisebois-Boies, Vincent D. Carey, Alain Steve Comtois

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsAV&R (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSquatBench pressStrength trainingLean body massAnimal scienceComposition (language)Body fat percentageBody weightStatistical significanceMedicinePhysical therapyStatisticsObesityInternal medicineBiologyResistance training

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powerlifting measures maximal strength through the squat, the bench press and the deadlift. The total of the heaviest weight lifted in each of these events determines the strongest powerlifter per weight class. PURPOSE: To present the relationships between body composition and maximal strength in classic powerlifters in order to update previously published results with the completion of a second data collection. METHODS: Thirty classic powerlifters (12 females and 18 males, age 29.5 ± 9.0 years, bodyweight 83.7 ± 20.2 kg, height 1.69 ± 0.08 m, Squat 181.1 ± 60.2 kg, Bench 112.7 ± 43.6 kg, Deadlift 206.9 ± 62.2 kg) body composition was analyzed by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA Prodigy Advance, model #8743, GE Healthcare, Madison, Wisconsin USA). Most of the Absolute Maximal Strength (AMS) measures came from the 2018 or 2019 Quebec Powerlifting Federation Provincial Championship with powerlifters scanned 44.6 ± 25.4 days after their powerlifting meet. Relative Maximal Strength (RMS) was calculated with the Wilks formula; validated for both men and women and designed to compare both sexes. Subject’s characteristics are presented as means and standard deviations. Correlations between body composition and maximal strength measures were calculated using a 2-tailed Pearson correlation analysis and were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. RESULTS: Results present multiple significant correlations (p < 0.05) between various body composition measurements and AMS and RMS. Total in kg (AMS) was significantly correlated (p < 0.01) with Years of Experience in Resistance Training (r = 0.49), Years of Experience in Powerlifting (YEP, r = 0.48), Bodyweight (r = 0.69), Height (r = 0.69), Body Mass Index (BMI, r = 0.52), Lean Body Tissue (LBT, r = 0.90), Relative LBT (LBT/Height, r = 0.92), Bone Mineral Content (BMC, r = 0.84) and Bone Mineral Density (BMD, r = 0.70). Total in Wilks points (RMS) was significantly correlated with YEP (r = 0.51, p < 0.01), LBT, r = 0.46, p < 0.05), Relative LBT (r = 0.50, p < 0.01), BMC (r = 0.45 p < 0.05) and BMD (r = 0.50 p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The present results update our previously published results (year 1, n = 15) and help further understand the relationships between body composition variables and maximal strength.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→