should I change my squat to deadlift ratio?

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

God, one of the aspects of the SS community that drives me fricking nuts is that its cultural surrogates claim over and over that benchmarks not only aren't useful, but that they also don't and shouldn't exist in the world of strength. For the SS philosophy to market itself as a scientifically and empirically derived, it is just silly to ignore aggregate population data.

Is a healthy male, age 25, 200 pounds and with average arm and leg dimensions with a deadlift of 235 and a squat of 435 OK in the starting strength model, as long as the deadlift is going up 5 pounds/session, assuming 20 pound squat and 5 pound deadlift increases?

Edited, so it doesn't look like it was written by a 6th grade special ed student. But seriously, can you imagine getting lab data from a with a testosterone level and no benchmark? Instead of a target range, what if the lab simply places a note at the bottom that stated "don't worry about your T level, as long as its increasing, you're doing fine?

Thank god that there is a world outside of here where one can find information that the SS world deems somewhere between superfluous and counter productive.

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

What IS a normal squat/deadlift ratio if you are doing just one set of 5 deadlifts? !

80% - 90% is a good rule of thumb. Ignore those at the tail ends of the distribution (genetic freaks such as world record holders, people in the first few weeks of strength training, people who have emphasized training one over the other, etc...)

[Barry Charles]

Is a healthy male, age 25, 200 pounds and with average arm and leg dimensions with a deadlift of 235 and a squat of 435 OK in the starting strength model, as long as the deadlift is going up 5 pounds/session, assuming 20 pound squat and 5 pound deadlift increases?

Yes this would be ok under any model.


I would say that the individual, in your arbitrary example, should absolutely continue. In 84 more sessions he will be squatting 2115. Is that for sets of 5? Pretty good but also good for a single too. His deadlift will be at 655. Also very good. I would be happy with those numbers.

[Satch12879]

Edited, so it doesn't look like it was written by a 6th grade special ed student. But seriously, can you imagine getting lab data from a with a testosterone level and no benchmark? Instead of a target range, what if the lab simply places a note at the bottom that stated "don't worry about your T level, as long as its increasing, you're doing fine?

Thank god that there is a world outside of here where one can find information that the SS world deems somewhere between superfluous and counter productive.

Nice strawman. Ask any of the SSCs, they'll readily give you gross metrics for various things. The ratio of bench press to press comes to mind. "An adult male weighs 200 lbs" also comes to mind. They don't mean shit given the enormous variability of individual trainees. It's pretty obvious to anyone who stops to think about it for a minute.

And I want you to think good an hard about why your testosterone "analogy" is bullshit. Go on, we'll wait.

80% - 90% is a good rule of thumb. Ignore those at the tail ends of the distribution (genetic freaks such as world record holders, people in the first few weeks of strength training, people who have emphasized training one over the other, etc...)

Says who? You? Did you do the study to come up with this? Is this from your vast coaching experience? Regardless, what use does this serve?

[JD Keip]

Throwing my two cents in, despite my better judgment and limited coaching experience.

... But seriously, can you imagine getting lab data from a with a testosterone level and no benchmark? Instead of a target range, what if the lab simply places a note at the bottom that stated "don't worry about your T level, as long as its increasing, you're doing fine?

Lab value is actually a pretty good analogy. The value can tell you something's going on that requires an explanation. This does not necessarily mean that the value needs treated. What bad things are happening with a wonky ratio?

[Barry Charles]

Throwing my two cents in, despite my better judgment and limited coaching experience.



Lab value is actually a pretty good analogy. The value can tell you something's going on that requires an explanation. This does not necessarily mean that the value needs treated. What bad things are happening with a wonky ratio?

Not a good analogy. Among other things, There are an infinite number of ways that give the same ratio. It is without dimension.

200/400

2/4

5.5M/11M

A testosterone test (flaws and variability understood), is an absolute number. It actually tells you something.

[Satch12879]

Not a good analogy. Among other things, There are an infinite number of ways that give the same ratio. It is without dimension.

200/400

2/4

5.5M/11M

A testosterone test (flaws and variability understood), is an absolute number. It actually tells you something.

Moreover, there is an actual optimum, testosterone level. Too little causes problems and too much definitely causes problems, which is the case with all regulatory hormones. Tell me the optimum strength level.

[JD Keip]

I'm not sure what Barry's objection is; we use ratios to understand things all the time. Would you want a doctor to treat your total cholesterol value, or one who understands the HDL/total ratio is more relevant? (At least for the sake of argument -- I'm not a doctor.)

Moreover, there is an actual optimum, testosterone level. Too little causes problems and too much definitely causes problems, which is the case with all regulatory hormones.

Let's take that as another case then. Would you prefer a doctor who just treated that number, or one who took it as a prompt to investigate further and discovered your sleep apnea?

Tell me the optimum strength level.

This is what we're trying to get out of Gator, at least the significance of the ratio.

I agreed with the lab analogy, but unless persuaded otherwise, do not regard the SQ/DL ratio as something significant as such. If someone were to come to me with a weird ratio, I'd look at their squat. Then their deadlift. Which is what I would do anyway.

[Barry Charles]

I'm not sure what Barry's objection is; we use ratios to understand things all the time. Would you want a doctor to treat your total cholesterol value, or one who understands the HDL/total ratio is more relevant? (At least for the sake of argument -- I'm not a doctor.)

.

I thought about the blood test too. I’m not sure if or why it’s “better” than the individual numbers. To me the math is too trivial but maybe insurance companies like it because it correlates well with a bunch of things and it’s easy.

But in any case, they are derived from individual numbers. My point being, that the individual numbers tell more of the story than the ratio of any combination of numbers.

Interestingly, I’m in an ongoing debate at work where one side argues for multiplying a bunch of estimated parameters together and thinks the result is somehow better than the individual guesses.

They claim this is due to the Fermi Estimate technique. (Enrico Fermi famously estimated the yield of the first nuke by estimating a bunch of parameters).

In reality, anytime you combine estimates, the result is, at least, slightly worse. Furthermore, you can’t go backwards, just knowing the result to get the parameters.

But sure, I conceded ratios are interesting and have a place. But never as useful as the actual numbers.

[JD Keip]

I thought about the blood test too. I’m not sure if or why it’s “better” than the individual numbers. To me the math is too trivial but maybe insurance companies like it because it correlates well with a bunch of things and it’s easy.

But in any case, they are derived from individual numbers. My point being, that the individual numbers tell more of the story than the ratio of any combination of numbers.

Interestingly, I’m in an ongoing debate at work where one side argues for multiplying a bunch of estimated parameters together and thinks the result is somehow better than the individual guesses.

They claim this is due to the Fermi Estimate technique. (Enrico Fermi famously estimated the yield of the first nuke by estimating a bunch of parameters).

In reality, anytime you combine estimates, the result is, at least, slightly worse. Furthermore, you can’t go backwards, just knowing the result to get the parameters.

But sure, I conceded ratios are interesting and have a place. But never as useful as the actual numbers.

I guess the short version is that number + context = action, where number can be a ratio. I can't think of a non-contrived context for SQ/DL ratio though.

Knowing nothing about your possible Fermi problem, would it help to multiply through the tolerances as well? There's a mathy way of doing that which I forget.