What is the history of belts?

[Mark E. Hurling]

The anti-teutonic feelings were very strong after WW1 and the rules of modern weightlifting reflected that(germany was not allowed to compete at the olympics). The clean and the strict military-style press became popular for that reason. But sturdy belts have been used by stone masons and lumberjacks before and after they became popular for lifting. My great-grandfather was a lumberjack in the alps and my grandmother has a lot of his old gear. Heavy duty leather belts and harnesses (for both men and horse) were important equipment before mechanization became more common.

History? Someone asked. I got some history for ya.

As for the continental being denigrated, I'm not sure it was due strictly to anti-teutonic feelings. I remember reading some old tome about how the Brits were the main adversaries against it and also how the French and particularly the Russians (czarist era) were big proponents of it too.

But the Wayback Machine takes us to Mid-19th Century Canada to strongman Louis Cyr. Belts go at least as far back as him. He too, like your forebear, started out as a logger.

[Sean Herbison]

I actually had one of those, I sent it back because of problems with the Lever.

That's the most common problem I've heard. I haven't had an issue with mine, but I'm considering getting a backup lever just in case.

Speaking of levers, I'm interested in the SBD belt that's coming out as well. Hear it's going to be quite pricey though.

[weakKraut]

But the Wayback Machine takes us to Mid-19th Century Canada to strongman Louis Cyr. Belts go at least as far back as him. He too, like your forebear, started out as a logger.[/IMG]

Yeah, the technology (sturdy leather belts) was definitely available and once modern barbells became popular in the 1880s some people probably used belts to help them lift. From what I have read brewery workers around Munich and Vienna were among the first people that started to compete in barbell lifting. And if you look at old pictures of brewery wagons, the big heavy barrels that were used to transport beer and the huge muscular horses that were used to draw those wagons it is probably reasonable to assume that people like that knew how to deal with heavy weights and heavy duty leather long before someone started selling lifting belts.

At least I think so Although I have visited quite a few breweries I have never seen old pictures with brewery workers that wore belts. Only horses with very sturdy harnesses. My great-grandfarthers leather equipment for logging and a few pictures of stone masons of that era are the only historical sources of heavy duty leather belts that I know. But then again: I am just a guy that likes to visit museums

[Meshuggah]

That's the most common problem I've heard. I haven't had an issue with mine, but I'm considering getting a backup lever just in case.

Speaking of levers, I'm interested in the SBD belt that's coming out as well. Hear it's going to be quite pricey though.

Hopefully it holds up for you. The SBD does looks nice, but I cant see paying that price, especially since I hardly wear a belt.

[hamburgerfan]

To discern the true history of belts, we have to look back to the days of ancient greece, and a little known wrestler named Gooboo the Great.

One day, a newborn calf was born near Gooboo’s home. The wrestler decided to lift the small animal up and carry it on his shoulders. The next day, he returned and did the same. Gooboo continued this strategy for the next four years, hoisting the calf onto his shoulders each day as it grew, until he was no longer lifting a calf, but a four-year-old bull. Eventually he grew tired of this monotonous charade, so he slaughtered the cow. After feasting on the meat, he fashioned the tanned hide into a crude "belt" of sorts.

For more information, please consult Mary Galagher's "The Perplexing Primitive"

[Meshuggah]

^ Lol, good stuff there Milo.

[Daverin]

Why weird?

Because of why we use a belt... although then again, I suppose that is assuming they didn't have misconceptions about it from the start. I had a theory about the russian style belt based on if it was a mid-20th century invention, but if it was around as early as the 40s, then it may not hold water... (then again, maybe it could?)

[John Hanley]

Because of why we use a belt... although then again, I suppose that is assuming they didn't have misconceptions about it from the start

Why do we use a belt?

Will the difference in pressure per unit surface area from front to back on a tapered belt be a net-negative when it comes to belt function?

[Daverin]

Why do we use a belt?

Will the difference in pressure per unit surface area from front to back on a tapered belt be a net-negative when it comes to belt function?

If the function of the belt, whatever the exact mechanism (I recall reading through a couple of the threads that involved Savs' take on the belt, which I thought made sense... at least what I made sense thereof), can be traced to the functioning of the anterior trunk musculature, then the back of the belt would be "unimportant" in the sense that excess belt would neither help nor hinder the function of the belt, no? Thus why would they bother with a belt with "unnecessary" material in the back that would require more labor and cost?

Of course, like I said, that is assuming that they figured the work of the belt was regarding the anterior trunk muscles. That said, I have a guess it is related to the form of the Press during the 1950s and beyond... except we have Grimek using a tapered belt. Although even the 1940s may have already involved enough layback for my guess.

[John Hanley]

If the function of the belt, whatever the exact mechanism (I recall reading through a couple of the threads that involved Savs' take on the belt, which I thought made sense... at least what I made sense thereof), can be traced to the functioning of the anterior trunk musculature, then the back of the belt would be "unimportant" in the sense that excess belt would neither help nor hinder the function of the belt, no? Thus why would they bother with a belt with "unnecessary" material in the back that would require more labor and cost?

My hunch is that more belt surface area = more better.

We want to minimize distortions from the truck 'shape' that the yields max tension in trunk musculature (front, back, sides, bottom, diaphragm). Basically, we don't want a changing radius in the trunk shape while we're actively lifting (edit: I'm assuming 'radius' of a messy lookin sphere)