Subby

This article is all I could find from a cursory search, but it references the point that I don't quite understand: "So here we are, upright with a vertical spine that still wants to be horizontal, with all the problems that come along with it, and a very good reason to solve these problems."

I've seen/heard this quote mentioned many times, whilst the article touches on it a little bit, I don't think I've ever heard or read an explanation on what the problems with the human spine are in a bipedal human, compared to a quadruped human.

What exactly are the mechanical flaws that cause back pain that would not do so if we walked on all fours. I've thought about it and the spine, like all structures in the body has evolved to fulfill multiple tasks: It has to weight-bear the entire organism and provide structure whilst allowing mobility, hence the articulated vertebrae design not a single shaft of bone, it has to provide various attachment points for muscles, it has to allow for ligaments to run alongside to maintain positioning on vertebrae on top of each other, it has to protect the spinal cord as well as providing allowances for nerves to enter/leave the spinal cord. And these have various requirements at differing parts of the body, hence the need for 3 separate types of vertebrae.

The only flaw in the design that I can see is that the intervertebral discs compress over time, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism to maintain the clearance of bone on bone contact between vertebral segments. There's definitely body structures that are designed worse. All in all it's pretty good and I doubt I could design something similar.

Mark I was hoping you could point to where you've already discussed what the flaws are in an upright spine compared to a horizontal spine, or elaborate on them here please?

Mark Rippetoe

This is the main problem. As the disc degenerates and the intervertebral spacing degrades, the articular faces of the vertebral bodies respond by generating osteophytes in an attempt to re-space the anatomy, causing unpleasant problems for the nerves and associated structures.

Stop thinking of it as a design, and start thinking of it as the accumulated changes that have occurred over millions of years. This just happens to be where we are right now. Which is fine if nobody gets to be 35.

kevinwillz

In regards to strengthlifting, powerlifting, Olympic weightlifting, have you ever considered that weight classes are not ideal? For example a 220lb 5'4" man is most likely stronger than a 220lb 6'4" man for multiple reasons such as muscle mass, range of motion, and moment arms.

Why not use height classes? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare people of similar height? Then to be competitive you simply need to get stronger/gain weight instead of playing ridiculous games with weight classes and weigh-ins. I would presume that people are already somewhat herded into height classes indirectly due to needing to be competitive in a weight class (with shorter people having more options), but I think directly using height classes would solve problems in the sport. For example, kids wouldn't ever cut weight if they had to compete in height classes. The only option would be to gain weight/strength with no downside to getting too strong by accidentally moving to the bottom range of the next weight class. If someone bests you it's literally because they're stronger than you with very little room for excuses.

When competing for strength, can you really compare the dynamics of a squat between two men of greater than 1' height difference and make statements about their comparative strength based solely on bar weight?

If there is a flaw to height classes that I'm not thinking of, then my next idea would be height/weight ratio classes. Somehow it should be taken into account that a 5'4" person has a drastically different range of motion and moment arms than a 6'4" person that weight classes can't address. Perhaps a 5'4" 220lb man is more accurate compared to a 6'4" 267lb man. The ratio could mitigate the differences in range of motion and moment arms, although perhaps there would need to be more to it than just a linear equation.

Should we be impressed when a short man starves himself to lift "big weights for his weight class" when someone of the same height, but two weight classes above, is clearly much stronger?

Should we be impressed when a huge dwarf of a man competes with weaker tall people instead of tall people with similar muscle mass compared to their frame?

Mark Rippetoe

At the international level, weight classes are in fact height classes. But weight classes are pretty much baked into the cake at this point. We can't even get them to accept the idea of a weigh-out, because it makes far too much logical sense. If you really want to find out who is the strongest, just load the bar to 800 and see who can do the most reps with it. Nobody will enter your meet, but apparently that's not important.

kevinwillz

Yea you're right that weigh-out is a very good improvement to the current situation. And it does make sense that weight classes converge to height classes as you go up in higher competition levels, but doesn't really solve it for lower levels. I guess they don't matter as much though.

I could email the head of USAPL and the Olympic Committee to tell them how stupid they are and CC you. Maybe I'll get every federation in on a mass email chain and we can sort this shit out real quick by making them aware of why weigh-outs and even weight classes are fucking dumb.

Mark Rippetoe

Great idea! Those guys have no vested interest in keeping things the way they are, so I'm sure we can get this done in a couple of weeks.