Optimum Physique without need to meet weight class?

[Crosswind117]

Hi Everybody,

I've mulled asking this question in these forums for quite some time, but I keep on stopping myself because there are just so many caveats, exceptions, situational issues, etc. Full disclaimer, I have absolutely no martial arts experience and I'm just thinking out loud and looking for wisdom.

In the broadest sense, the question is this:

"If a competitive martial artist did not have to make weight in order to compete fairly against similarly-sized opponents, what optimum physique would be desired that gives the best overall performance against the middle 80% of the Earth's human ambulatory population in terms of height and weight?"

In other words, we are assuming that we're not going up against the top 90th percentile tallest and heaviest people on Earth and we're not going up against the bottom 10th percentile shortest and lightest people on Earth. In terms of being "ambulatory" we're implying that we're not going up against wheelchair-bound people, amputees, blind people, etc. And lets slap on a minimum age limit of 12 years old as it's not a stretch of the imagination to find child soldiers in some war zones.

The reason for this question is that in all competitive hand-to-hand combat sports, participants at the highest levels, whether it's MMA, boxing, Judo, BJJ, Karate, Wrestling, etc., all work themselves to the bone to squeeze into their desired weight class in order to maximize their strength-to-weight and reach-to-weight ratios. The heaviest weight classes of each discipline are exceptions, in that there's no upper limit; however, I'm writing this post as a guy that topped out at 5'-9" and I have three young sons that'll range from 5'-6" to 5'-11" when they become adults. In addition, elite athletes are typically matched against other elite athletes with comparable skills and experience, so the lion's share of their training and preparation is for opponents with similar size and reach.

Forgive me for the very crude example I'm about to put forth. Say you have a young boxer with sound skills and some competitive background visit a boxing gym, but there was nobody around to spar with that was in his weight class. Just for the fun or novelty of it, a boxer that is 2 weight classes above him agrees to some light sparring; the smaller boxer experiencing severe reach disadvantage and the bigger boxer practicing punching at a more downward angle. After the sparring session and after returning home to think about it, if the smaller boxer didn't have to worry about making weight, what could the smaller boxer do to improve his chances of defeating the larger, taller opponent? Would bulking up and building more muscle help? Or would the extra muscle only slow him down or drain stamina quicker?

The other reason why I'm asking this question is that my oldest son (due to be 9 years old this year) is asking about lifting weights. He and my second son (6 years old) have been attending BJJ lessons for just over 3 months. I don't anticipate either of them becoming professional athletes that need to control their fitness and diet religiously, but I'm certainly not against them developing strong bodies that can handle most of what real life can dish out. The question is: to what level? Having broad shoulders and imposing biceps will stop a good number of people from messing with you, but it seems like flexibility, agility, and stamina would be compromised if there's too much focus on looking like a body builder. So for a average 5'-9" or 5'-10" male height, what would be the most suitable build as a non-pro athlete?

Sorry for the long post and appreciate any and all feedback and advice!

 

[Buka]

There is definitely a type. That type is someone who shows up and trains.

Broad shoulders and and imposing biceps are nifty for clothing ads, usually. Doesn't do much for people who want to mess with somebody, especially when liquor is involved.

Being in your best physical shape, not looks wise but performance wise, is key.

 

[MetalBoar]

Hi Everybody,

I've mulled asking this question in these forums for quite some time, but I keep on stopping myself because there are just so many caveats, exceptions, situational issues, etc. Full disclaimer, I have absolutely no martial arts experience and I'm just thinking out loud and looking for wisdom.

In the broadest sense, the question is this:

"If a competitive martial artist did not have to make weight in order to compete fairly against similarly-sized opponents, what optimum physique would be desired that gives the best overall performance against the middle 80% of the Earth's human ambulatory population in terms of height and weight?"

In other words, we are assuming that we're not going up against the top 90th percentile tallest and heaviest people on Earth and we're not going up against the bottom 10th percentile shortest and lightest people on Earth. In terms of being "ambulatory" we're implying that we're not going up against wheelchair-bound people, amputees, blind people, etc. And lets slap on a minimum age limit of 12 years old as it's not a stretch of the imagination to find child soldiers in some war zones.

The reason for this question is that in all competitive hand-to-hand combat sports, participants at the highest levels, whether it's MMA, boxing, Judo, BJJ, Karate, Wrestling, etc., all work themselves to the bone to squeeze into their desired weight class in order to maximize their strength-to-weight and reach-to-weight ratios. The heaviest weight classes of each discipline are exceptions, in that there's no upper limit; however, I'm writing this post as a guy that topped out at 5'-9" and I have three young sons that'll range from 5'-6" to 5'-11" when they become adults. In addition, elite athletes are typically matched against other elite athletes with comparable skills and experience, so the lion's share of their training and preparation is for opponents with similar size and reach.

Forgive me for the very crude example I'm about to put forth. Say you have a young boxer with sound skills and some competitive background visit a boxing gym, but there was nobody around to spar with that was in his weight class. Just for the fun or novelty of it, a boxer that is 2 weight classes above him agrees to some light sparring; the smaller boxer experiencing severe reach disadvantage and the bigger boxer practicing punching at a more downward angle. After the sparring session and after returning home to think about it, if the smaller boxer didn't have to worry about making weight, what could the smaller boxer do to improve his chances of defeating the larger, taller opponent? Would bulking up and building more muscle help? Or would the extra muscle only slow him down or drain stamina quicker?

The other reason why I'm asking this question is that my oldest son (due to be 9 years old this year) is asking about lifting weights. He and my second son (6 years old) have been attending BJJ lessons for just over 3 months. I don't anticipate either of them becoming professional athletes that need to control their fitness and diet religiously, but I'm certainly not against them developing strong bodies that can handle most of what real life can dish out. The question is: to what level? Having broad shoulders and imposing biceps will stop a good number of people from messing with you, but it seems like flexibility, agility, and stamina would be compromised if there's too much focus on looking like a body builder. So for a average 5'-9" or 5'-10" male height, what would be the most suitable build as a non-pro athlete?

Sorry for the long post and appreciate any and all feedback and advice!

Before Covid I owned a small strength training gym and because I do martial arts a lot of my clients were martial artists of one sort or another and many of those practiced BJJ. Without exception, every single one of them told me that strength training made it a lot easier to submit people. I never asked them about weight classes, but they all seemed to think that the strength training as an overall benefit.

EDIT: I'll also add that there are different kinds of weight lifting and while most, if not all of them, will likely improve your grappling game, some are going to be better than others.

EDIT, EDIT: It's also important to note that for most people (who don't take steroids and aren't genetically unusual) lifting weights is not going to have an enormous impact on their physique. If the average person is sedentary and starts lifting they'll likely become visibly more muscular, but someone who is already athletic is unlikely to suddenly look like Mamdouh Elssbiay.

Unless your son is genetically unusual, weight lifting will not have a negative impact on flexibility and is only likely to improve agility. Stamina is a little more complicated, more muscle might indeed decrease stamina for extreme endurance activities like running marathons, but is likely to have negligible impact on, or improve stamina for, something like BJJ, especially if he's actively training in BJJ at the same time.

I've never worked with anyone quite as young as your son, but I have worked with a pair of 11 year old twins (for over 10 years, they only stopped training with us at 21 y.o. because the 'Rona shut our gym down) and several young teenagers. The main challenge, as a personal trainer, working with people that young is their focus. If your son wants to weight lift there is no reason he shouldn't do it, as long as he get's qualified instruction (from a trainer or someone else who knows what they're doing).

With kids that age, however, I do think it's important to meet them where they are when it comes to strength training. He is unlikely to have the drive and dedication of a teenager or an adult and that needs to be OK. Making strength training something that is accessible and achievable and developing good form and habits is far more important than pushing for hard work or specific results. Strength training is something that you should be able to do your entire life, getting a good start that ingrains a happy and healthy attitude towards it should be the focus at that age.

 

[isshinryuronin]

There is definitely a type. That type is someone who shows up and trains.

There is no substitute for practice and fitness.

So for a average 5'-9" or 5'-10" male height, what would be the most suitable build as a non-pro athlete?

There is no "best" build - It's all relative. There are pluses and minuses to any of them. There have been champions in a variety of builds. What's important is knowing how to maximize the strengths of your build while minimizing those of your opponent. And minimizing your build's weaknesses while taking advantage of the opponent's. This is nothing new, it's TACTICS. This is the "magic" that allows you to fully utilize your capabilities.

 

[Dirty Dog]

There is no ideal.
The people for whom making weight is really a concern are not in that middle of the road group you're talking about. In that group, a fight will be over in seconds, most of the time.
So as Buka said... the best body type is the type that shows up and trains.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The reason for this question is that in all competitive hand-to-hand combat sports, participants at the highest levels, whether it's MMA, boxing, Judo, BJJ, Karate, Wrestling, etc., all work themselves to the bone to squeeze into their desired weight class in order to maximize their strength-to-weight and reach-to-weight ratios. The heaviest weight classes of each discipline are exceptions, in that there's no upper limit; however, I'm writing this post as a guy that topped out at 5'-9" and I have three young sons that'll range from 5'-6" to 5'-11" when they become adults. In addition, elite athletes are typically matched against other elite athletes with comparable skills and experience, so the lion's share of their training and preparation is for opponents with similar size and reach.

I won't answer the rest of the question, as @MetalBoar is much more qualified than me to do so and already put in his thoughts, but just wanted to address this. Not all highest-level athletes work themselves to the bone to fit specific weight classes. There are plenty in whichever sport that either accept whatever weight class they fall into, or try to push for the upper limit rather than the lower. It's not common, but it does happen.

More importantly, not all combat sports have weight-classes. The one that comes to mind (because I was watching it just a few minutes ago), is sumo wrestling. In the top division, the tallest and heaviest wrestler (ichinojo) clocks in at 6'3 and 465 pounds. The smallest and shortest wrestler (terutsuyoshi) is 5'5 and 245 pounds, and they've both competed in the top division for a couple years at least, which is something though to stay in as a sumo wrestler.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Hi Everybody,

I've mulled asking this question in these forums for quite some time, but I keep on stopping myself because there are just so many caveats, exceptions, situational issues, etc. Full disclaimer, I have absolutely no martial arts experience and I'm just thinking out loud and looking for wisdom.

In the broadest sense, the question is this:

"If a competitive martial artist did not have to make weight in order to compete fairly against similarly-sized opponents, what optimum physique would be desired that gives the best overall performance against the middle 80% of the Earth's human ambulatory population in terms of height and weight?"

In other words, we are assuming that we're not going up against the top 90th percentile tallest and heaviest people on Earth and we're not going up against the bottom 10th percentile shortest and lightest people on Earth. In terms of being "ambulatory" we're implying that we're not going up against wheelchair-bound people, amputees, blind people, etc. And lets slap on a minimum age limit of 12 years old as it's not a stretch of the imagination to find child soldiers in some war zones.

The reason for this question is that in all competitive hand-to-hand combat sports, participants at the highest levels, whether it's MMA, boxing, Judo, BJJ, Karate, Wrestling, etc., all work themselves to the bone to squeeze into their desired weight class in order to maximize their strength-to-weight and reach-to-weight ratios. The heaviest weight classes of each discipline are exceptions, in that there's no upper limit; however, I'm writing this post as a guy that topped out at 5'-9" and I have three young sons that'll range from 5'-6" to 5'-11" when they become adults. In addition, elite athletes are typically matched against other elite athletes with comparable skills and experience, so the lion's share of their training and preparation is for opponents with similar size and reach.

Forgive me for the very crude example I'm about to put forth. Say you have a young boxer with sound skills and some competitive background visit a boxing gym, but there was nobody around to spar with that was in his weight class. Just for the fun or novelty of it, a boxer that is 2 weight classes above him agrees to some light sparring; the smaller boxer experiencing severe reach disadvantage and the bigger boxer practicing punching at a more downward angle. After the sparring session and after returning home to think about it, if the smaller boxer didn't have to worry about making weight, what could the smaller boxer do to improve his chances of defeating the larger, taller opponent? Would bulking up and building more muscle help? Or would the extra muscle only slow him down or drain stamina quicker?

The other reason why I'm asking this question is that my oldest son (due to be 9 years old this year) is asking about lifting weights. He and my second son (6 years old) have been attending BJJ lessons for just over 3 months. I don't anticipate either of them becoming professional athletes that need to control their fitness and diet religiously, but I'm certainly not against them developing strong bodies that can handle most of what real life can dish out. The question is: to what level? Having broad shoulders and imposing biceps will stop a good number of people from messing with you, but it seems like flexibility, agility, and stamina would be compromised if there's too much focus on looking like a body builder. So for a average 5'-9" or 5'-10" male height, what would be the most suitable build as a non-pro athlete?

Sorry for the long post and appreciate any and all feedback and advice!

This reminds me of the discussion of strength vs being strong. people with big muscles and week. People with smaller muscles but have strong grips and and good endurance cooking bigger props out. Smaller animals like snake that can put fat in a stronger larger human.

There's alot of this to consider. Move like a tank or be quick like a fighter jet. The answer to your question. The best build is the one that allows you to maximize function. It sounds vague but it gets specific when you identify the function.

 

[Alan0354]

At 5'5", of cause I think taller is better, but it's not up to me!!! To a great extend, physique has a lot to do with genetics. Not everyone workout can look like a body builder NOR can be very strong no matter how hard you try. You can only train to your potential. So just work as hard as you can afford and be happy about it. That doesn't mean you blindly train. Like MA, you have to learn how to do weight training to get the maximum, it's not like just push the barbell. So learn, research for the best way that suit you(not everyone are the same, what works for others might not work for you). Some people train one year and they get big and strong, some spend their whole life training just as hard and get very little to show. Nobody say life is fair.

All that said, I believe in strength training. If two people are just as good in MA or fighting, the stronger one win for sure. I don't buy into if you have the technique, then you don't need strength to win a fight. Sure, when you are in perfect position, a little strength can break the joints of the opponent. THE PROBLEM is you need strength to tussle to the perfect position. It's not like the opponent just stay still and you can take your time to get to the perfect position. You need strength to overcome the opponent to get to the position.

I was in Judo before, Judo people kept saying you don't need strength to throw the opponent down. TRUE........BUT when you are in sparring, you try to pull, the other guy know what you are doing, he can move and resist. You end up using raw strength to pull the guy in more time than you think.

I myself spend 50:50 between MA(I call aerobics) and weight training. You need both. Forget the physique, you get what you get.



If you talk in total theoretical sense, let me ask you, what is the best physique for a football player? You can't answer that, it all depends on what position you are talking. same as here, depends on what style you are using also. But like I said before, even though a corner back doesn't need a lot of muscles, but you definitely have an advantage if you are stronger as long as the muscle don't weight you down too much.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you talk in total theoretical sense, let me ask you, what is the best physique for a football player? You can't answer that, it all depends on what position you are talking.

Yep, function determines build.

 

[MetalBoar]

Yep, function determines build.

Function determines the optimal build for a given athletic endeavor. Genetics determines how closely any individual can possibly approximate that optimum. Knowledge, effort, and circumstance determines how close any individual can come to reaching their personal genetic ideal for a given activity.

EDIT: I say this because I think it's important for people to understand.

Most people get this when it comes to height. If you're 5' 6" there isn't really anything you can do to be 7' if you want to be an NBA center. That's the average height right now, so for the way the game is played at present that's probably pretty close to optimal. That doesn't mean you can't be an NBA center if you're shorter, but the shorter you are the more you're going to have to make up for that lack of height with your athleticism and other attributes.

Playing more basketball isn't going to make you taller. Stretching isn't going to make you taller. Your genes and your childhood nutrition have given you the height you've got and that isn't going to change. Even if you did everything you could think of as a kid (barring growth hormones) you wouldn't have been any taller unless you experienced nutritional deficiencies, injury, or disease that stunted your growth.

The same is true, to a somewhat lesser degree, when it comes to the rest of your physique as well. If someone has a small frame and wiry muscles with short muscle bellies, lifting weights will make them a little bigger and noticeably stronger, possibly much, much stronger, but they aren't going to start looking like a professional body builder (the muscular, genetic equivalent to being over 7' tall) no matter how dedicated they are to lifting. They're extremely unlikely to look like a pro body builder even if they take pro body builder quantities of steroids. On the flip side, if someone has a large frame, bulky muscles, and long muscle bellies, there aren't any healthy ways to make them small and wiry.

It's true that if a child is small at nine they may grow to be a lot bigger as an adult, but the length of their muscles bellies and most other factors that determine their potential for structural size are set before they're born. Lifting isn't going to alter that potential, merely allow them to maximize how close they come to it.

 

[Crosswind117]

Thanks for all the replies everybody.

For me, one of the most illuminating responses was by Monkey Turned Wolf:

"Not all highest-level athletes work themselves to the bone to fit specific weight classes. There are plenty in whichever sport that either accept whatever weight class they fall into, or try to push for the upper limit rather than the lower. It's not common, but it does happen."

This had never occurred to me and I didn't realize such cases existed. Worded in that way, to me, now that I think about it, that seems to be the closest and broadest answer to my question.

You can't help but respect a fighter that foregoes a potential for a competitive advantage (cutting weight to enter a weight class) and instead focuses on becoming as strong, as fast, and as skilled as possible with the body they were born with, while encounter larger opponents in the higher weight class.

To clarify the other essence of my original question, imagine for a given adult with a given height, there is a spectrum for body weight ranging from malnourished to obese. Of course, any of these extremes aren't going to be optimal when were talking about combat sports.

Assuming an adult male 5'-9" tall, examples of high-level competitors would be at around the following typical weights:
- 145 lbs (MMA)
- 140 lbs (Boxing)
- 163 lbs (Wrestling)
- 128 lbs (Taewondo)
- 161 lbs (Judo)

For busy adults with non-athletic occupations, I'd say it'd be very challenging, if not borderline impossible, to maintain those fighting weights on an ongoing basis (especially as one ages). Assuming a young adult male decided to try out a variety of disciplines like the above examples, what weight range would be considered "maintainable" and not cause undo hinderance to proficiency?

Thanks and appreciate any and all input!

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Assuming an adult male 5'-9" tall, examples of high-level competitors would be at around the following typical weights:
- 145 lbs (MMA)
- 140 lbs (Boxing)
- 163 lbs (Wrestling)
- 128 lbs (Taewondo)
- 161 lbs (Judo)

For busy adults with non-athletic occupations, I'd say it'd be very challenging, if not borderline impossible, to maintain those fighting weights on an ongoing basis (especially as one ages). Assuming a young adult male decided to try out a variety of disciplines like the above examples, what weight range would be considered "maintainable" and not cause undo hinderance to proficiency?

Thanks and appreciate any and all input!

at 5'7" I could keep myself at 118 pretty easily in high school, and 122 in college. That said, I probably should have done a lot more weight training than I did, and would have been better off closer to 130. Since getting a job sitting at a desk, doing less martial arts than I used to, and not exercising nearly what I used to, that has obviously changed, and it would take a lot of effort for me to get back to that. You can extrapolate that to other heights/weights, but keep in mind that body type and metabolism are both important here too so it's tough to give an exact answer.

 

[Alan0354]

at 5'7" I could keep myself at 118 pretty easily in high school, and 122 in college. That said, I probably should have done a lot more weight training than I did, and would have been better off closer to 130. Since getting a job sitting at a desk, doing less martial arts than I used to, and not exercising nearly what I used to, that has obviously changed, and it would take a lot of effort for me to get back to that. You can extrapolate that to other heights/weights, but keep in mind that body type and metabolism are both important here too so it's tough to give an exact answer.

5'7" at 130 is way too skinny. I was 5'5" 140 when I was young, I had no muscle at all. Too bad people gain muscle with fat together, it's hard to gain muscle only without gaining fat. When I gained muscles, I blew up to almost 200lbs!!! That's why it's so so so so hard to be a body builder, not only about building muscles, it's to keep at below 5% body fat that is hard and very expensive to maintain. I am 176 now, I don't even want to go below 170. I want to keep whatever little muscle I still have. I can live with one big pack of "muscle" on my belly!!! )

I remember it my 140lbs days, I barely benched 100lbs. That's how bad it was.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

5'7" at 130 is way too skinny. I was 5'5" 140 when I was young, I had no muscle at all. Too bad people gain muscle with fat together, it's hard to gain muscle only without gaining fat. When I gained muscles, I blew up to almost 200lbs!!! That's why it's so so so so hard to be a body builder, not only about building muscles, it's to keep at below 5% body fat that is hard and very expensive to maintain. I am 176 now, I don't even want to go below 170. I want to keep whatever little muscle I still have. I can live with one big pack of "muscle" on my belly!!! )

I remember it my 140lbs days, I barely benched 100lbs. That's how bad it was.

I think you ignored the body type portion. For some, 130 at 5'7 would be an issue, but for me 130 was the perfect weight for me. I was "Wiry" would be the best word for it, could do a hundred pushups in a row, and won a pull-up contest at west point. My muscle was definitely not body builder muscle, but it was there, and more than enough for my purposes. I also just checked a bmi calculator, which admittedly is flawed, but 130 is pretty solidly in the "healthy" bmi level.

Also, just FYI even at 122, I didn't bench often, I think once a week or so amidst my other workouts (again I could have done a lot more weight-training). But I'd bench 5 reps 3 times (that's still my go-to amount of reps/sets), and I think at that time I was benching around 125 typically (I tried to stay slightly above my body weight). Just a way to show that two people at the same weight don't equal the same level of muscle, fitness, bodyfat, etc. Again, it depends on body type and metabolism, which makes providing numbers kinda pointless.

 

[Alan0354]

I think you ignored the body type portion. For some, 130 at 5'7 would be an issue, but for me 130 was the perfect weight for me. I was "Wiry" would be the best word for it, could do a hundred pushups in a row, and won a pull-up contest at west point. My muscle was definitely not body builder muscle, but it was there, and more than enough for my purposes. I also just checked a bmi calculator, which admittedly is flawed, but 130 is pretty solidly in the "healthy" bmi level.

Also, just FYI even at 122, I didn't bench often, I think once a week or so amidst my other workouts (again I could have done a lot more weight-training). But I'd bench 5 reps 3 times (that's still my go-to amount of reps/sets), and I think at that time I was benching around 125 typically (I tried to stay slightly above my body weight). Just a way to show that two people at the same weight don't equal the same level of muscle, fitness, bodyfat, etc. Again, it depends on body type and metabolism, which makes providing numbers kinda pointless.

Yes, I was weak at the time, I never do weights at the time, that's why I only could do a few of 100lbs bench. People that are in reasonable shape should do a little more than their body weight. When I was almost 200lbs, I benched 225lbs. Now that I lost weight, it did went down. I stop going to the gym after the shutdown, instead I am doing it at home. I don't have bench(too big for the house and garage is full already) at home, so I got two weighted jackets stuffed them to total of 75lbs and wear them to do pushups with feet on about 3ft high. I am doing 4 sets of 26, 24, 20 and about 13 the last sets.

There is a certain minimum amount of weight for a person to survive. The head, the bones, the vital organs take up a minimum amount of weight, at low weight, one cannot have too much weight in muscle as most of the weight are in the vital stuffs like brain, bones, organs.

I am making up some number, not accurate, and over simplistic. but you get the idea. Say the minimum of those essential organs are 120lbs. So if a person weights 140lbs, there is only 20lbs maximum of muscle. But say another person of same height, but is 160lbs. That person can have up to 40lbs of muscle. That's double the amount of muscle.

Of cause in real life, there is body fat to consider, ONLY in ideal example that the 160lbs person has 20lbs more muscle. Just say 10lbs of the extra weight is fat, STILL the 160lbs person has 10lbs more muscle.....That is 50% more muscle mass.

I've been in the gym for like 30years. I never saw anyone that is say 140lbs bench over 200lbs not even close(I put 200lbs to cover my behind, honestly, I don't recall I've seen any small guy push over 155lbs). BUT I've seen people that looks like 160lbs bench way OVER 225lbs. I believe there is a certain minimal weight in order to have enough muscle. I know a guy, he cannot be over 160lbs soaking wet. He bench 4 sets of 10 reps of 265lbs. he's even shorter than me!!! Seen a lot of guys that are like 200lbs benching over 365lbs. Go to some serious gyms, it's common. The one I went to was Gold's Gym. I was one of the very weak one there thanks to the genetics. I so wish I have better genes.

Everyone has different goal, I respect what you decide. I just want more strength. I believe in balance both aerobics(I treat MA as aerobics) and strength. There is a lot more benefit to weight training other than getting stronger. Weight training is very important for injury recovery. That's part of the reason I still doing 50:50 between aerobics and weights in my exercise all these years.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yes, I was weak at the time, I never do weights at the time, that's why I only could do a few of 100lbs bench. People that are in reasonable shape should do a little more than their body weight. When I was almost 200lbs, I benched 225lbs. Now that I lost weight, it did went down. I stop going to the gym after the shutdown, instead I am doing it at home. I don't have bench(too big for the house and garage is full already) at home, so I got two weighted jackets stuffed them to total of 75lbs and wear them to do pushups with feet on about 3ft high. I am doing 4 sets of 26, 24, 20 and about 13 the last sets.

There is a certain minimum amount of weight for a person to survive. The head, the bones, the vital organs take up a minimum amount of weight, at low weight, one cannot have too much weight in muscle as most of the weight are in the vital stuffs like brain, bones, organs.

I am making up some number, not accurate, and over simplistic. but you get the idea. Say the minimum of those essential organs are 120lbs. So if a person weights 140lbs, there is only 20lbs maximum of muscle. But say another person of same height, but is 160lbs. That person can have up to 40lbs of muscle. That's double the amount of muscle.

Of cause in real life, there is body fat to consider, ONLY in ideal example that the 160lbs person has 20lbs more muscle. Just say 10lbs of the extra weight is fat, STILL the 160lbs person has 10lbs more muscle.....That is 50% more muscle mass.

I've been in the gym for like 30years. I never saw anyone that is say 140lbs bench over 200lbs not even close(I put 200lbs to cover my behind, honestly, I don't recall I've seen any small guy push over 155lbs). BUT I've seen people that looks like 160lbs bench way OVER 225lbs. I believe there is a certain minimal weight in order to have enough muscle. I know a guy, he cannot be over 160lbs soaking wet. He bench 4 sets of 10 reps of 265lbs. he's even shorter than me!!! Seen a lot of guys that are like 200lbs benching over 365lbs. Go to some serious gyms, it's common. The one I went to was Gold's Gym. I was one of the very weak one there thanks to the genetics. I so wish I have better genes.

Everyone has different goal, I respect what you decide. I just want more strength. I believe in balance both aerobics(I treat MA as aerobics) and strength. There is a lot more benefit to weight training other than getting stronger. Weight training is very important for injury recovery. That's part of the reason I still doing 50:50 between aerobics and weights in my exercise all these years.

This would make sense, if your numbers weren't pulled out of the air. Pretty much no one has their essential organs adding to 120 lbs. Maybe if you're like 7 feet tall, but otherwise no.

There is not a minimal weight to have a certain weight. It goes by ratio. Theoretically someone who benches regularly but doesn't focus on it should be able to bench around 1.25 their body weight. So someone at 130 should be able to bench around 160, while someone 140 should be able to bench around 175. If someone's exceeding that, it doesn't have to do with their weight, it has to do with their focus on that aspect of training. Someone benching 265 while weighing 165 must spend a lot of time benching. Again, it doesn't have much to do with weight, when you focus on ratio.

That said, I focused on strength in terms of body weight. I'm not saying I did not, and that I focused more on aerobics, just that I could have been even stronger than I was. Like I said, I won a competition at west point (a military academy) for pullups done. I could also do (and did) over a hundred pushups if chose to. I remember one day that I did over 1k leg lifts, and stopped out of boredom, rather than difficulty (it took me over an hour and I had other things to do). I could also do one-handed and clap pushups, one-legged/pistol squats, and pretty much any ab challenge thrown at me (half of these happened while I was drunk, since I was in college).

This is not to brag about myself, but to point out that pure pounds of weight is not the best measure of fitness level or individual weight ability. But to point out that just because you were not fit at 140 pounds, does not mean others cannot be, or be fit at even less. And keep in mind that being 170 at 5'5 means you're about 20 pounds overweight.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

@Alan0354 I realized after writing that out, that most of this is ignoring OP's questions, and going off on a tangent. If you want we can start a separate thread about it.

 

[Alan0354]

This would make sense, if your numbers weren't pulled out of the air. Pretty much no one has their essential organs adding to 120 lbs. Maybe if you're like 7 feet tall, but otherwise no.

There is not a minimal weight to have a certain weight. It goes by ratio. Theoretically someone who benches regularly but doesn't focus on it should be able to bench around 1.25 their body weight. So someone at 130 should be able to bench around 160, while someone 140 should be able to bench around 175. If someone's exceeding that, it doesn't have to do with their weight, it has to do with their focus on that aspect of training. Someone benching 265 while weighing 165 must spend a lot of time benching. Again, it doesn't have much to do with weight, when you focus on ratio.

That said, I focused on strength in terms of body weight. I'm not saying I did not, and that I focused more on aerobics, just that I could have been even stronger than I was. Like I said, I won a competition at west point (a military academy) for pullups done. I could also do (and did) over a hundred pushups if chose to. I remember one day that I did over 1k leg lifts, and stopped out of boredom, rather than difficulty (it took me over an hour and I had other things to do). I could also do one-handed and clap pushups, one-legged/pistol squats, and pretty much any ab challenge thrown at me (half of these happened while I was drunk, since I was in college).

This is not to brag about myself, but to point out that pure pounds of weight is not the best measure of fitness level or individual weight ability. But to point out that just because you were not fit at 140 pounds, does not mean others cannot be, or be fit at even less. And keep in mind that being 170 at 5'5 means you're about 20 pounds overweight.

I think this has a lot to do with the physique, it's not off the topic.

I am not trying to disrespect you. You saw small kids on monkey bars and hanging one hand on the rope and slide. It's so easy for them only because they are light? It makes a huge difference if he is light. To compare strength, you have to use real weights, not using body weight.

If you are 130, you can do a lot of things a heavier person cannot do even though he's a lot stronger. there's nothing wrong being smaller and faster. But here we are talking about strength. You cannot compare using body weight exercise. Look at the Ninja Warriors, nobody that is heavy can do the run no matter how strong they are because a lot of the stuffs are body weight dependence.

Yes, I really simplified in the example like I put in BOLD letters, it's too complicate to be exact. BUT you do have minimum weight for the essential organs and bones. AND I am comparing two people of same height. More importantly, the heavier guy usually has more fat. BUT if they both work out, the heavier guy likely have more muscle. You have to compare using real weights, not compare by by doing body weight exercise. Compare strength, you go to the bench and look at the absolute weight. I am pretty sure you will see what I am talking about.

Yes, I am over weight, but if I have the same amount of muscle BUT lighter weight, I am sure I can do a whole lot of pushups and pullups also. I really never try to do by the numbers. I feel doing over 30 is a waste of time. If I can do 20reps, I would increase resistance. I only wear 75lbs jackets to do push up because it's getting very bulky even using steel ball bearing and nuts and bolts. Also, it's hard to hold overhead and put it on if it is too heavy and bulky. I would have to use LEAD to reduce the size to increase the weight. I might have to go to 3 jackets to get to 100lbs. So I just do 26 reps with the jacket. You don't gain muscle doing high reps, it should be using weights to do 10reps max, not even 26reps. But at this point, I really don't care, I am 69, the only way I am going is down. So I am just doing my best within reasonable. I am not strong by any measure, but for 69, I think I am doing fine. I do 3 sets of 10 reps of dumbbell bicep curls with 40lbs dumbbell. For legs(remember I am 175lbs), I do 3 sets of 12 squats with total 150lbs of weights on me. Twice a week, I do keep horse stance walking( like Karate stance with front thigh almost 90deg and back leg straight) for 7 1/2mins non stop and do lunges with 40lbs dumbbells on each hand. Like I said, it's nothing to write home about, but for 69years old, it can be a whole lot worst.

 

[Alan0354]

I think you ignored the body type portion. For some, 130 at 5'7 would be an issue, but for me 130 was the perfect weight for me. I was "Wiry" would be the best word for it, could do a hundred pushups in a row, and won a pull-up contest at west point. My muscle was definitely not body builder muscle, but it was there, and more than enough for my purposes. I also just checked a bmi calculator, which admittedly is flawed, but 130 is pretty solidly in the "healthy" bmi level.

Also, just FYI even at 122, I didn't bench often, I think once a week or so amidst my other workouts (again I could have done a lot more weight-training). But I'd bench 5 reps 3 times (that's still my go-to amount of reps/sets), and I think at that time I was benching around 125 typically (I tried to stay slightly above my body weight). Just a way to show that two people at the same weight don't equal the same level of muscle, fitness, bodyfat, etc. Again, it depends on body type and metabolism, which makes providing numbers kinda pointless.

I want to make sure that you know I was not putting you down for being too light at 130lbs. I am just more amazed that you are 5'7", 2" taller than me and weight 10lbs lighter than me back in the days. Not many people in US this thin!!! Even in Hong Kong now a days, people are bigger.

I had to really watch my diet and starved myself to be that light at the time. You should consider lucky that you are naturally thin and you can eat anything you want. Now that I am old, I just eat whatever I was and gain weight. Yes, even I workout, still a lot of fat.

 

[punisher73]

I guess if I had to stereotype an "optimum physique" for martial arts it would be an Olympic gymnast. They are able to use their body and have the flexibility/agility/strength to perform any of the moves that would be required of them.

A lot of what we see in the realm of "martial arts physiques" is going to be dictated by culture and diet. For example, a Shaolin monk is usually a wiry low fat build because of their training and lifestyle but not overly muscular (as in big muscles, not definition). A person living in the US has access to a different diet and for the most part isn't going to be doing a lot of manual labor to get stronger and develop muscles through work. Most likely, they will be supplementing with other training. Depending on their approach will dictate how their physique turns out. Do they select a bodybuilding type approach that is focused on hypertrophy? Do they select crossfit? Do they focus on bodyweight/parkour?