From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: The new and improved Ted - NOT!
Keywords: lime pie 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:39:39 GMT

 
in <39@fedfil.UUCP>
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
 
] In article <1992Sep26.064510.22665@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
]             tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
]
] > Well, in case it makes you feel better (though I freely admit that I
] > didn't put in nearly the level of effort that you did), he didn't seem
] > to notice my pointing out several respects in which his understanding
] > of powerlifting was seriously flawed either.
]
] I noticed your article, but did not see anything in it which would
] substantially alter the results of the articles I've posted regarding
] powerlifting event ratios and sauropod load-lifting relationships.
]
] I've noted that just standing up for an ultrasaur is equivalent to a 3000
] lb squat, or if you prefer, a 3000 lb lift of SOME sort by a man of
] Kazmaier's size.  I noted that Kaz could dead-lift and/or squat around
] 1000 lbs and, since I'd never heard of him setting the world on fire
] benching, a rather conservative figure of 500 or so.
 
You're kidding, right?  Kazmaier is primarilly known as a bench presser
(holding the world record in the bench press for close to a decade (661
pounds, this record being broken by Ted Arcidi about five years ago) is
about as close to "setting the world on fire" benching as you can get.
(As far as 3000# lifts go, they are far from unknown--note #4 below.)
 
] That would give
] a total lift of around 1500 or so, arms and legs being used to max
] at least once and more like twice;  still far short of what is needed
] for the saur.
]
] Changing the 1500 to 1650 doesn't help the saur an iota.
 
Nope, fortunately for the dinosaurs, that particular quibble with your
reasoning was the least of my points.  (Incidentally, since many people
have squatted above 1000#, it seems doubtful that 1000# is the maximum
limit of human strength.)
 
Let's review the points that would affect the validity of "Holden
Numbers."
 
  1)  From the above (errors in squat and bench press values), the HNT
      (Holden Number Theory) is off by at least a factor of 1.5-2; let's
      be conservative and say 1.5.
 
  2)  The squat bears only the slightest resemblance to how animals get
      up.  In general, animals do not even get up by lifting with all
      four legs simultaneously--instead they lift one end of their
      bodies and then the other, which confers a substantial leverage
      advantage over the squat and allows the animals to shift their
      body weight more over the limbs not being extended at the time.
      Again, being very conservative, this throws another factor of at
      least 1.5 (probably closer to 2) into the HN calculation.
      (So far we're up to at least 2.25 off.)
 
  3)  It's important to remember that humans are not particularly
      designed for strength.  The human musculature and skeletal
      structure are a compromise optimized for the sort of life that
      humans and their ancestors have been living for millions of years
      and it seems safe to say that the proportion of human ancestors
      who were competitive powerlifters was quite small.  The human body
      is much better designed for speed, flexibility, and endurance;
      judging by the strength of other primates who are better adapted
      for strength, with a few simple adaptations, the human body could
      be made 2 or 3 times stronger (to some extent, at the expense of
      endurance and speed).  Again, let's be conservative and say 2;
      that brings the HN error minimum up to 4.5.
 
  4)  The human body is not, by any stretch of the imagination, designed
      efficiently for performing full squats.  The leverage at the
      bottom of the squat is poor and quite a bit of effort is required
      for maintaining balance and control over a body not designed with
      this particular activity in mind.  It seems fairly likely that
      Kazmaier could approach 2000# in a partial squat, and, while this
      wouldn't count in competition, it is probably a closer
      approximation to the range of motion involved in getting up.
      If we start counting lifts such as the back lift where all limbs
      are involved, the range of motion is smaller, and less effort is
      required to keep the load stable, we start to see people (such as
      Paul Anderson) performing lifts of greater than 6000#.  This adds
      an error factor of from 2 to 6 into our calculations; again, let's
      be conservative and say 3 this time, bringing our minimum HN error
      up to 13.5.
 
  5)  The next thing to look at is limb length and muscle attachment; if
      you look carefully at a sauropod, one thing you may notice is that
      their legs, compared to their body size, are quite short--indeed,
      they are incredibly short when compared to humans, whose legs are
      typically longer than their entire torsos.  Why is this so
      important?  Because the primary movers of the limbs (gluteus
      maximus, latissimus dorsi, pectoralis major, etc.) are contained
      in and originate in the torso, if we decrease limb length by a
      factor of two (while keeping the torso size and points of
      insertion unchanged), we would expect lifting ability to double.
      Just as an example of how important lever length can be, consider
      the gastrocnemius/soleus; compared to muscles like the gluteus
      maximus, these muscles are not large at all, yet since they act on
      shorter lever arms (the foot), I can still lift (counting body
      weight in this calculation) twice as much in a calf raise as I can
      in a full squat--despite the fact that this particular lift is a
      single-joint lift which would otherwise put it at a considerable
      disadvantage; further, these muscles are optimized for endurance
      at least as much as strength, since I've done as many as 2000
      single-leg calf extensions at a stretch (switching legs every
      hundred or so repetitions).  Looking at limb sizes for sauropods
      versus humans, this would contribute a factor of 2 to 5 to our
      calculations; we'll be conservative and say 2, bringing our
      minimum HN error up to 27.
 
Even being extremely conservative, we've shown that the Holden Number
"upper limit" that you have been using in your arguments is off by a
factor of at least 27, nearly ten times what you suggest would be
required to make an ultrasaur theoretically capable of standing; I would
think that a discrepancy of this magnitude would alter the results of
the articles you've posted regarding powerlifting and sauropod
load-lifting relationships.  Odds are that there are other biomechanical
considerations and evolutionary adaptations that I haven't even
considered that would work even further in the sauropods favor, pushing
the "Holden Number" even further from the realm of relevance.
 
Trygve

Newsgroups: talk.origins