See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349915748

Relationships between body dimensions and strength abilities in experienced

olympic weightlifters, powerlifters and bodybuilders

Article · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 41

1 author:

Valentin Panayotov
National Sports Academy Sofia
16 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Valentin Panayotov on 09 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Relationships between body dimensions and strength abilities in
experienced Olympic weightlifters, powerlifters and bodybuilders

V. Panayotova
a
Department of “Weightlifting, boxing, fencing and sport for all”, Bulgarian Sports Academy, Sofia, 1700,
Studentski grad, Bulgaria; [email protected]

Abstract
In this article, the author studies the differences in absolute and explosive strength in competitive athletes of the
three most popular strength sports – bodybuilding, Olympic weightlifting, and powerlifting. Relationships between
body dimensions and strength abilities are also presented and analysed. 42 athletes in total participate in the study, all
of them competitors at the national level. We found that powerlifters are the strongest among the three groups,
followed by Olympic weightlifters (which are the most explosive) and bodybuilders. Strong relationships were found
between body dimensions and strength in bodybuilders and weightlifters (regarding only the absolute strength for
weightlifters) but not in powerlifters. Although athletes of the studied strength sports do not differ in their body
dimensions, differences in their training methodologies determine adaptations and morphological and biomechanical
changes in their bodies, which in turn, beget their sport-specific strength specializations.
Keywords: Olympic weightlifters, powerlifters, bodybuilders, absolute strength, explosive strength

1. Introduction

Resistance training is one of the oldest sports activities practiced by human beings. Ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, and Romans used to exercise with heavy objects for developing their strength. Many artefacts prove
that ancient warriors regularly performed strength exercises and participated in strength tournaments.
Resistance movements were also applied by athletes of the early Olympic Games in Ancient Greece.
Weights were used not only for strength demonstrations but in some track and field disciplines – for
example, long jumps were performed with athletes holding a weight, which they had to throw back an
instance before landing. Bodybuilding, powerlifting, and Olympic weightlifting are popular under the
common name of strength sports. They are similar in their training means: they all use resistance exercises.
Nevertheless, they have different training goals and methodologies. Bodybuilders use strength exercises to
achieve muscle hypertrophy and model symmetric bodies. Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters use these
exercises for developing their strength and lift bigger weights. However, even their training methodologies
differ in many aspects. Powerlifting encompasses muscle efforts that are positioned on the upper part of
the force-velocity curve [1], close to the region of isometric contractions. Competitive movements of the
Olympic weightlifting, on the other hand, are complex and dynamic and require development of the so-
called strength-speed abilities [2, 3, 4]. As training methodologies of strength sports differ, strength
abilities, and physical development of strength athletes also differ [5]. In this article, we explore differences
in absolute and explosive strength and their relationships with body dimensions in competitive athletes of
the three most popular strength sports – bodybuilding, Olympic weightlifting, and powerlifting.

2. Methods

2.1. Aim of the study

1
 The aim of this research was to study differences in strength aspects of physical fitness and their
relationships with body dimensions in competitive bodybuilders, Olympic weightlifters, and powerlifters.

2.2. Objectives of the study

1. To measure body mass and height, and to calculate BMIs (Body Mass Index) of the participants of
the study.
2. To organise a testing procedure for measuring the absolute and explosive strength of the
participants of the study.
3. To analyse the obtained data statistically and test for differences between the three groups of
subjects.
4. To evaluate and compare Pearson regression coefficients between body dimensions and strength
abilities between groups of study participants.
Subjects of the study were competitive athletes in bodybuilding, Olympic weightlifting, and
powerlifting at the national level of sports mastery. They were assigned into three groups as follows:
• 14 bodybuilders: average age 24.70±4.97 years; average sports experience 7.50±4.47 years.
• 11 powerlifters: average age 23.64±3.14 years; average sports experience 6.05±2.37 years.
• 17 Olympic weightlifters: average age 21.29±2.97 years; average sports experience 6.56±3.92
years.
The relatively small sample sizes did not allow us to stratify our participant by weight class.
The study was conducted at Bulgarian National Sports Academy.

2.3. Methodology

Anthropometric measurements:
Body height was measured by a standard anthropometer of Martin type with an accuracy of 0.001
m as the distance between the floor and the vertex (the highest point of the sagittal plane of the skull). Body
mass was measured by a standard Tanita TBF-400A Body Composition Analyzer/Scale with an accuracy
of 0.1 kg. Body Mass Index was calculated as the ratio between body mass in kilograms and the second
power of body height in meters:
𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
𝐵𝑀𝐼 =
𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 2
To measure strength abilities of our participants we used the following tests:
• 1repetition maximum (1RM) in the barbell back squat
• 1RM in the barbell classic deadlift
• Standing bilateral long jump
The first two tests measure absolute strength (in kilograms). We applied exactly these two tests in
particular because strength athletes universally use these exercises irrespective of their sports discipline.
The results in the third test are a proxy for estimating the explosive strength (explosiveness) of the lower
limbs. The test included two consecutive attempts and the result of the better one was recorded.
We used the following mathematical and statistical methods:
• variation analysis: we calculated average values (𝑥 ) and standard deviation (SD).
• analysis of variance (ANOVA): we tested for between-group differences the parameters we
measured. The ANOVA protocol uses the F-test for comparing the factors of total deviation. The
F-statistic is calculated as follows:
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝐹=
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠
• analysis of differences: we used Student’s t-test for independent samples to test for between-group
differences in studied parameters by pairs.
• regression analysis: we calculated and tested for statistical significance Pearson correlation
coefficients between anthropometric measurements and strength abilities. The Pearson correlation
coefficient is used in statistics for measuring whether a linear relationship exists between two sets
of data and how strong is it. It contains information on the amount of coordinated variation of the
samples and is calculated by the following formula:

2
 >?@
𝑟<= = ,
>? >@
where 𝑠< and 𝑠= are the samples’ standard deviations and 𝑠<= is the population covariance.

3. Results

The variation analysis of our results is presented in table 1. Expectedly, our participants are similar
in height with the average Bulgarian male but differ in body mass and BMI [6].
The ANOVA calculations are shown in table 2. We found no statistically significant between-group
differences for the participants’ body mass, height, BMI, biological age and sports experience. The
differences in their test results, however, showed strong statistical significance. To determine which
particular parameters differ between-groups, we performed pairwise Student’s t-test for independent
samples (table 3).

Table 1
Variation analysis of study results
Parameter Bodybuilders Powerlifters Olympic weightlifters
𝑥 (n=14) SD 𝑥 (n=11) SD 𝑥 (n=17) SD
BMI 28.91 2.78 31.18 4.13 28.54 4.00
Body mass (kg) 86.98 13.20 93.00 12.62 85.88 14.32
Height (cm) 172.90 7.21 173.15 6.57 172.50 4.39
Standing long jump (cm) 236.43 16.92 245.45 25.24 255.06 19.65
Deadlift (kg) 197.86 28.80 280.45 35.39 216.76 27.44
Back squat (kg) 164.64 24.37 257.50 35.02 208.82 28.81

Table 2
ANOVA of study results by groups
Sum of Squares df* Mean Square F Significance
Age Between Groups 94.973 2 47.486 3.302 0.047
Within Groups 560.932 39 14.383
Total 655.905 41
Sports experience Between Groups 13.951 2 6.975 0.484 0.620
Within Groups 561.668 39 14.402
Total 575.619 41
BMI Between Groups 50.344 2 25.172 2.076 0.139
Within Groups 472.976 39 12.128
Total 523.321 41
Long jump Between Groups 2676.236 2 1338.118 3.237 0.050
Within Groups 16123.097 39 413.413
Total 18799.333 41
Deadlift Between Groups 45101.642 2 22550.821 24.875 0.000
Within Groups 35355.500 39 906.551
Total 80457.143 41
Squat Between Groups 53226.059 2 26613.030 31.204 0.000
Within Groups 33262.185 39 852.877
Total 86488.244 41
*
. degrees of freedom (df), a parameter used to calculate the corresponding estimate

3
 We found statistically significant differences for the standing long jump between bodybuilders and
Olympic weightlifters but not powerlifters. The results for weightlifters and powerlifters are not significant.
Powerlifters are stronger then bodybuilders and Olympic weightlifters in both absolute strength tests.
Incidentally, we did not find a statistically significant difference between bodybuilders and Olympic
weightlifters in the deadlift, although results show that the latter are better in the other two tests. Although
expectedly, weightlifters are more explosive than powerlifters (according to the results in the standing long
jump test), differences are not statistically significant.

Table 3
Independent Samples Test
bodybuilders vs. powerlifters
*
t df Significance Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the
(2-tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Long jump -1.020 16.706 0.322 -9.026 8.852 -27.727 9.675

Deadlift -6.278 19.133 0.000 -82.597 13.156 -110.122 -55.072

Squat -7.485 17.151 0.000 -92.857 12.406 -119.014 -66.700

bodybuilders vs. Olympic weightlifters

*
t df Significance Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the
(2-tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Long jump -2.854 28.884 0.008 -18.630 6.528 -31.984 -5.275

Deadlift -1.858 27.302 0.074 -18.907 10.176 -39.776 1.962

Squat -4.625 28.967 0.000 -44.180 9.552 -63.718 -24.643

Olympic weightlifters vs. powerlifters

*
t df Significance Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the
(2-tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Long jump -1.073 17.518 0.298 -9.604 8.949 -28.443 9.234

Deadlift 5.065 17.627 0.000 63.689 12.575 37.230 90.149

Squat 3.845 18.462 0.001 48.676 12.660 22.125 75.227

*
. degrees of freedom (df), a parameter used to calculate the corresponding estimate

In table 4 we present Pearson correlation coefficients between the studied anthropometric measures
and absolute and explosive muscle strength. We found strong positive statistically significant relationships
between body dimensions and strength abilities in bodybuilders. Obviously, in this group muscle strength
4
 increases in synchrony with body dimensions. In the other two groups, the picture is more blurred. We
found no statistically significant correlation coefficients in the group of powerlifters. Variances in this
group are too large (results are too noisy) for obtaining definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, all variables
in this group are of lower values compared to the Olympic weightlifters. Interestingly, we found small
(statistically insignificant) correlation coefficients between anthropometric parameters and explosiveness
in both groups – we did not find definitive relations between body dimensions and explosive strength.
Alternatively, absolute strength is strongly (and significantly) correlated to body dimensions (BMI and
body mass, but not height) in Olympic weightlifters. Height is positively correlated (statistically significant)
with explosiveness (the standing long jump test) in bodybuilders and Olympic weightlifters. Although this
parameter is also correlated with absolute strength (the deadlift and back squat) in bodybuilders, in Olympic
weightlifters the correlation coefficient is much smaller and statistically insignificant.

Table 4
Correlation coefficients
Powerlifters n=11 Long jump Deadlift Squat
Body mass Pearson Correlation 0.164 0.391 0.439
Significance (2-tailed) 0.629 0.235 0.177
Height Pearson Correlation 0.333 0.521 0.574
Significance (2-tailed) 0.317 0.100 0.065
BMI Pearson Correlation 0.074 0.274 0.304
Significance (2-tailed) 0.830 0.414 0.364
Bodybuilders n=14 Long jump Deadlift Squat
Body mass Pearson Correlation 0.871** 0.935** 0.960**
Significance (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
** **
Height Pearson Correlation 0.801 0.829 0.849**
Significance (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.000
** **
BMI Pearson Correlation 0.782 0.871 0.900**
Significance (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.000
Olympic weightlifters n=17 Long jump Deadlift Squat
**
Body mass Pearson Correlation 0.203 0.795 0.668**
Significance (2-tailed) 0.436 0.000 0.003
*
Height Pearson Correlation 0.551 0.204 0.244
Significance (2-tailed) 0.022 0.432 0.346
**
BMI Pearson Correlation -0.038 0.853 0.683**
Significance (2-tailed) 0.884 0.000 0.002
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4. Discussion

Explosive strength is related to absolute strength although the relation is not linear [1, 8, 9].
Performance in explosive movements is exercise-specific and depends on the time available for strength
development. In many sports, it is too short and does not allow maximal strength to be fully developed. In
the test, we used (standing long jump) no restrictions on this time were imposed and athletes are able to
exert their maximal explosive strength abilities. Of all three groups of athletes we studied, only the Olympic
weightlifters train purposefully for explosiveness (although powerlifters also use the dynamic effort method
but rather as an auxiliary tool for improving the absolute strength) [3, 10, 11]. For this reason, we expected
5
them to be the most explosive of all groups. Interestingly, our results could not prove the superiority of
Olympic weightlifters in this regard. Admittedly, they are unconditionally better than bodybuilders but not
than powerlifters. In our opinion, the trend in Olympic weightlifting training methodology that was set by
the late coach Ivan Abadjiev of training exclusively only specific movements and abandoning many popular
auxiliary exercises (like for example, the high jumps), changed muscle morphology of weightlifters of
modern times [12]. Although Olympic weightlifters are plyometric trained (both competitive movements
include a serious plyometric component), they do not excel in the standing long jump because this exercise
lacks significant stretch requirements [13].
Expectedly, powerlifters are the strongest of all groups in absolute strength movements as they
purposefully train for developing this muscle strength component [14, 15, 16, 17]. The insignificant
difference we found between results in the deadlift of bodybuilders and weightlifters is somewhat
surprising. In our opinion, it is due to the fact that Olympic weightlifters do not focus on training the classic
deadlift as in their competitive movements this exercise is slightly modified and is definitely not performed
with maximal or near-maximal weights but rather in a strength-speed style [18, 19]. For these reasons,
weightlifters are not expected to be ”record-holders” in the classic deadlift.
We found strong and significant correlations between body dimensions and results in all strength
tests in bodybuilders. These findings are somehow expected as although the main goal in bodybuilding is
achieving muscle hypertrophy, bigger muscles are stronger and for that reason, in bodybuilders, absolute
strength increases (although not linearly) with body mass (and BMI) [12, 19]. Height contributes to
maximal strength as tall bodybuilders are stronger than short ones. It also brings biomechanical advantages
in jumping (although the relationship is not linear) and this is mirrored in our correlation coefficients for
weightlifters and bodybuilders and corroborated by other scholars [20]. In our opinion, in bodybuilders,
bigger body dimensions are associated with increases in absolute and explosive strength entirely due to the
enhanced muscle strength that accompanies muscle hypertrophy. The non-linearity of the relationship
between muscle strength and body mass is demonstrated in the insignificant correlation coefficients
between weight and BMI and long jump results in weightlifters: the rate of force development (which is
incorporated in jump abilities to some extent) does not change linearly with muscle strength [4]. Increases
in absolute strength enhance explosiveness to some extent but after some point, relative strength starts to
decrease with body mass and inevitably calisthenics explosive exercises like standing long jump begin to
suffer. Possibly, the apparent contradiction between these considerations and the regression coefficients for
body mass and BMI in bodybuilders can be explained by the bigger relative strength bodybuilders
demonstrate due to the higher relative amounts of lean body mass they possess [5, 21, 22].
Interestingly, in the powerlifting group, we did not find any statistically significant correlation
coefficients. Although for calisthenics movements (i.e. the long jump), they obey the same biomechanical
considerations as weightlifters do, for absolute strength exercises our data is seemingly contradictory. One
possible explanation concerns the difference between muscle efforts in powerlifting and the other two
strength sports: the results of powerlifters in both absolute strength tests are superior than the other two
groups. As we mentioned beforehand, this is not so in weightlifters because despite they seemingly train
the same muscle abilities as powerlifters do, they do not emphasize on maximal strength enhancement but
rather on the synchronized development of strength, explosive strength, quickness and technique.
Powerlifting stimulates myofibrillar muscle hypertrophy (as opposed to the predominantly sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy bodybuilding does) which is not strongly related to muscle mass: as compared to sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy, myofibrillar hypertrophy does not accumulate much body weight, it is possible that athletes
of different weight classes have similar results [23, 24]. This is especially true for powerlifters with
relatively short sports experiences, as they have not yet accumulated the powerlifting-specific hypertrophy
that experienced lifters achieve with time. Working for overall muscle hypertrophy can correct this trend
and improve their performance by some biomechanical advantages it induces [25].
Based on the analysis, we deduced the following conclusions:
1. Powerlifters are the strongest strength athletes regarding the absolute strength.
2. Olympic weightlifters are the most explosive among strength athletes (although their differences
with powerlifters did not reach statistical significance).
3. Explosiveness of lower limbs (measured in calisthenics exercises) in Olympic weightlifters is not
related to the weight class due to complex technical, morphological and biomechanical advantages
athletes develop with training.

6
 4. In bodybuilders both absolute and explosive strength are positively related to body dimensions
(although definitely not linearly), most probably because their muscles are not morphologically
specialized at any specific movement or strength ability.
5. As powerlifters predominantly train for maximum strength, their results are not strongly dependent
solely on body dimensions but most probably, on complex morphological and biomechanical
characteristics. Emphasizing on hypertrophy of muscles around the main joints that are engaged in
the competitive movements can improve their performance.

References

[1] Zatsiorsky V & Kraemer W. 2006. Science and practice of strength training, 2nd ed., Human Kinetics, USA.
[2] Siff MC. 2000. Biomechanical Foundations of Strength and Power Training, Biomechanics in sport,
Blackwell Science, USA
[3] Tiajalaia atletika, pod obshtei redakciaei profesora A. N. Vorobiova. 1988. Fizkultura i sport. Moskva
[4] Zatsiorsky V., 2000. Biomechanics in sport, Blackwell Science, USA,.
[5] Panayotov, V. 2007. Izsledvane na morfologichnite harakteristiki i vlianieto im varhu silovite vazmojnosti
na sastezateli po kulturizam, silov triboi i vdigane n atejesti. Disertacia. Sofia
[6] Nikolova, G., Yordanov, Y., Dantchev, D. 2018. 3D mathematical model of the Bulgarian man: Study of the
mass-inertial characteristics of its body segments in different regions of the country, Comptes Rendus de
L'Academie Bulgare des Sciences, 71(9), pp. 1222-1229
[7] Verkhoshansky YV. 1977. Osnovi petsialnoi Silovoi Podgotovki i Sporte. Fizkultura i Sport Publishers,
Moskva
[8] Verkhoshansky YV. 1996. Quickness and velocity in sports movements. IAAF Quarterly 2–3, 29–37
[9] Dobrev, P, Gurkov, D, Spasov, A. 1978. Tejka atletika. Medicina i fizkultura. Sofia
[10] Gurkov, D, Spasov, A. 1979. Vdigane na tejesti i silova podgotovka. Sofia
[11] Abadjiev, I, Furnadjiev, W. 1978. Vdigane na tejesti. Medicina i fizkultura. Sofia
[12] Haff G, Triplet T. 2016. Essentials of strength training and conditioning, 4th ed., Human Kinetics, USA
[13] Rippetoe M & Baker A. 2013. Practical programming for strength training. 2-nd edition. The Aasgaard Co.
USA
[14] Sheiko B. 2018. Powerlifting: foundations and methods. Ufa, Russia
[15] Sheiko, B, Gorulev, P, Rumianceva, E, Cedov, R. 2013. Powerlifting – ot nivichka do mastera. Moskva
[16] Simmons L. 2007. The Westside book of methods. Action Printing. USA
[17] Alcazar J., Csapo R., Ara I., Alegre L. 2019. On the Shape of the Force-Velocity Relationship in Skeletal
Muscles: The Linear, the Hyperbolic, and the Double-Hyperbolic . Frontiers in Physiology. VOL10, 769
[18] Everett G. 2016. Olympic weightlfting, Second edition. Catalyst Athletics. USA.
[19] Ratamess N. 2012. ACSM’s Foundations of strength training and conditioning. American College of Sports
Medicine, USA
[20] Andersen JL, Aagaard P. 2010. Effects of strength training on muscle fiber types and size; consequences
for athletes training for high-intensity sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20 Suppl 2:32-38
[21] Andersen JL, Aagaard P. 2010. Effects of strength training on muscle fiber types and size; consequences
for athletes training for high-intensity sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20 Suppl 2:32-38
[22] Schoenfeld, Brad J. 2010. The Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy and Their Application to Resistance
Training, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24, 10, 2857-2872
[23] Brumitt J, Cuddeford T. 2015. Current concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation to strength and
conditioning. Int J Sports Phys Ther 10(6):748-759.
[24] Panayotov, V. 2018. Musculi – kulturizam, fitness, silova podgotovka. Sofia
[25] Vigotsky AD, Contreras B, Beardsley C. 2015. Biomechanical implications of skeletal muscle hypertrophy
and atrophy: a musculoskeletal model. PeerJ 3:e1462

View publication stats