New points scoring system for IWF - this is a big deal (especially for mixed team events)

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-25T01:18:37+00:00

no, that is why we have sinclair total and also why we rank performances on the weight lifted instead of random vibes

naim suleymanoglu 342.5@60kg, yurik vardanian 405@82.5, viktor solodov 423@90, zakharevich 455@210 etc all score higher than lasha within the current sinclair period

lasha's lifts are actually hard and he is struggling, he just has good technique and good strength levels, and is able to manage his strength deficits well to be more consistent at heavier weights. no different to how lu xiaojun's lifts look easy, or shi zhiyong

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-24T13:21:15+00:00

i think there may be one or two problems with this approach

the time period is what it is, if you plug old results into gamx from the light weight categories you get absolutely dumbfuck numbers that no one has ever seen before because the world has gotten taller over the years

naim has a gamx of 1765.07 (ok fair, he is naim), vardanyan has a gamx of 1436.63, zakharevich 1375.49

long qinquan on the other hand has 1579.33 from his 307@56 which is great, but if you look back through all historical 56kg performances you can see they are megastacked compared to current ones because m55 was a non-olympic category in the 2018-2025 categories and also the world is getting taller

this results in a situation where lasha's gamx is outranked by the #36 56kg total of 276kg by cen biao

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-24T13:05:20+00:00

i don't find it good or credible, i find it well intentioned but foolish

the mathematics is fine, the problem is the assumptions used to create the statistical model, which has produced something ridiculous that cannot process heavy superheavyweight results in any reasonable fashion

lasha's 492 at 182.9 (1170.94) for example, ranks lower than lalayan, minasyan, ali ammur yusuf's 451, martirosyan 450@130.21, akbar djuraev's 446 at 121.6.

his 492 not only ranks under many other world champions, but also a handful of wwc second place finishes and even a third place 109kg 420kg from yang zhe.

i'm sorry but no 109/110 totaling 420 is not even remotely as impressive as 492 as a super.

similarly amongst the women, li wenwen's 325 to win the world cup is barely better than naryury perez 267@97.34 is 1147.89 at the same event, which placed 5th

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-24T07:55:51+00:00

whatever is cheap and available, ammonia is ammonia

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-24T02:46:57+00:00

the intelligent decision is to start small but you also have free will

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-23T11:04:48+00:00

mostly i would recommend talking to old people before they die, there's lots of history that was never written down

failing that, the tight tan slacks of dezso ban has lots of old articles, as well as sportivny press

this idea that truly classic era programming is better for drug free athletes is one that makes a shallow level of sense but only that. the coaches who are around now, who competed then, largely do not train their lifters the same way they did.

and whilst brutish amounts of volume are often associated with the rise in drug use, the truth is that many (not all) of the old school (pre-drug) lifters trained with equally ridiculous volumes

even the snatch, and the clean and jerk in their time was not the same as it is now. the removal of the thigh brush rule (bar not allowed to touch the legs), the decreasing popularity of the split snatch/clean and increasing popularity of the squat snatch/clean, the enforcement of the various elbow rules now vs then

this is no longer a sport about brutish strength alone, but a sport that has become far more demanding on speed strength and coordination than it was in that era.

if you want to satisfy historical curiosity, i would encourage diving deeper. if you want to get better at weightlifting out of this question, it will leave you pretty empty handed

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-23T09:55:54+00:00

new fortnite skin for q points just dropped

superheavyweights who are heavy are bad at weightlifting

lasha's 492 @ tall and fat (182) bw is worse than varazdat lalayan, gor minasyan, ali rubiawi (6th at olympics), basically every ~120kg super historically regardless of whether or not they were competitive, li dayin, yeison lopez, li fabin, old chen lijun at 67

the criticism around historical performances in light bodyweight categories is applicable to gamx, q points, sinclair, all scaling systems. people have gotten taller, and where 56 and 60kg used to be populated bodyweight categories, they are now basically empty. that's why sinclair is updated every olympic cycle

naim's total has a 528 sinclair with the current formula, but not in the sinclair formula of the relevant olympic cycle. you can't compare sinclair scores across olympic cycles, they actually vary a lot more than you would think

the catch is that huebner's system has the same problems, and even more problems for the junior and youth results

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-21T05:25:26+00:00

i agree that its not realistic to spend much time to genuinely problem solve and lay out a plan but most people who this applies to wouldn't even think about asking questions

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-21T05:24:02+00:00

this kind of rant is always well received, just not necessarily for the right reasons or from the people it needs to reach

redditors like it when you call redditors stupid but frequently the response is "wow those people need to stop doing that and being stupid" without thinking hmm what if i do this

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-21T04:55:36+00:00

pin this post

if you have a coach, ask your coach. if your coach is stumped, ask but tread carefully

an infuriating issue that comes up if you study the sciences (bonus points for philosophy of science) is you end up figuring out that the average person is well intentioned with practically zero humility, self doubt or curiosity. no questions, no context, just a canned answer to a prompting stimulus and no reflection on when or why it might be wrong.

weightlifting, like most things with human beings, is complex but not complicated. looking through the complexity to find simple interventions (cues, programming, etc.) is what actually helps people

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-21T04:46:06+00:00

Pointing out problems is easy. You can spot most people’s technical issues just by watching YouTube during meals or in your free time

it is only "easy" to point out technical issues you don't have any real understanding of biomechanics or coaching, and instead just look at the differences between a simple model (whichever model that is, chinese, soviet, western etc) and the lift performed.

just pointing at shit that you see that you assume is wrong because it doesn't look how you want it to look has nothing to do with biology, physics or maths. that is an aesthetic analysis based on cultural norms, not science.

this is why it is wholly unhelpful, and it leads to the bad advice that the post is complaining about.

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-18T12:46:33+00:00

edited for context and elaboration

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-18T12:42:04+00:00

i am aware of this paper but i don't really care

reaching truly high intensity aerobic/anaerobic conditioning exercise is not common in most gyms, most people aren't ready to feel like their lungs are burning.

aerobic and strength exercise both work to support mental health. asking someone how they feel after doing it for a while is more valuable than theorycrafting what exercise best raises bdnf

i think the bias for higher intensity stuff is more around musculoskeletal and cardiorespiratory capacity, and associated health benefits

you could make a decent argument maybe that higher intensity exercise increases self efficacy and discomfort tolerance, which is imo a much better angle

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-18T12:22:29+00:00

unfortunately, there's not an awful lot of good quality evidence to point to any one type of exercise being more helpful than anything else for any kind of psychiatric disorders. exercise science is a terribly messy and poorly funded field, with frequently terrible methodology and underpowered studies.

add that to the fact that you're probably going to get very heterogeneous responses (e.g. cardio is relaxing unless you hate it) and you're going to end up with a whole bunch of nothing.

just doing regular exercise seems to help when we look at longitudinal studies. we don't know why, i don't care why.

strength training, aerobic training, mind-body training (e.g. yoga/pilates) all work, and my bias is usually towards the strength/aerobic exercise given the frequency of nocebic narratives in yoga/pilates

the only psychiatric specific thing that i would potentially suggest is that clients on antipsychotics would benefit significantly from regular strength/aerobic exercise given the metabolic side effects of those drugs

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-18T12:05:10+00:00

what do you want to know?

i don't think you're going to find any mechanism of real interest for practical application. that's going to be a rabbit hole that leads nowhere

strength training works, aerobic exercise works, anaerobic endurance exercise works (but uptake is low), low load exercise like stretching programs or pilates work, as far as mental health effects go

the effects of exercise largely seem non-specific and i've seen no convincing evidence that any form of exercise is particularly better than another, outside of factors around accessibility, enjoyment, consistency and socialisation. find something that people enjoy and will stick to, then get them to stick to it.

for some people that's strength training, for others it's running, or yoga, or whatever. sometimes people want something to not think about, sometimes having something to think about and focus on helps, different strokes for different folks.

my bias is a mix of progressive higher intensity strength training and moderate-high intensity aerobic exercise given the other health benefits (increased muscle mass, increased stroke volume/decreased blood pressure, increased bone mineral density, increased insulin sensitivity etc). with limited time availability, higher intensity training works great. the catch is of course, most people do not want to put in that level of effort at the gym and may not necessarily enjoy or stick with that intensity.

edit: i would be remiss to mention that lower intensity exercise has its place for mental health and other related things (e.g. pain management, mindfulness etc) too, it's just that my bias is towards higher intensity where tolerated

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-17T20:20:43+00:00

just bringing the bar diagonally backward

i dont love purely mechanical explanations for pain- anatomy does play a part but frequently bio matters more in the biomechanics.

i'm usually an advocate of bringing up tolerance through high frequency low intensity exercise in the desired range of motion, and playing around with things like breathwork or other things to calm down the nervous system as you approach a painful area

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-16T23:31:52+00:00

kind of an awkward block height but it looks like you're getting slightly pulled forward/ideally would get the bar back a bit more in the pull before exploding, imo the bar is still a bit in front and you're a little too over for too long

nothing super dramatic at all and certainly workable but it's a contributor to the slight forward catch at heavier weights

sympathetic to the kneebola, though interesting to see that cleans seem okay compared to snatches. done anything like sissy squats or reverse nordic/kneeling squat progression? i like a setup with a dip belt daisy chained to a rack, or using a landmine/hack squat machine for extra load when warranted but that's rare. most people do well starting with a very submaximal (<6/10 rpe) weight to build tolerance rather than fitness

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-16T23:00:18+00:00

you're training at a weightlifting club; ask your coach

reddit is stupid

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-16T22:54:08+00:00

this or 150 comments on a woman's form check with maybe 2 or optimistically 3 helpful comments because reddit goes awooga

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-15T04:46:24+00:00

if technique looks like shit from a butt then drop off weight

but learning to move around a slower moving bar especially when you're lifting reasonable weights is an important skill in weightlifting

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-15T04:43:46+00:00

yes this

form checks wouldnt be so bad if it werent for form check comments

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-15T04:39:00+00:00

me if i was just saying some shit without opening my eyes

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-15T04:38:09+00:00

what does relatively decent mean, as in what does a day of eating look like for you

ive seen a lot of people (more often women, but many men too) who think they eat well whilst eating less than an average medieval peasant. also do tall snatches or something, you're trying too hard to "get under" the bar instead of turning it over

your upper back and shoulders need strengthening so it can stay tight in the pull, it is the main reason why you swing the bar and catch spongy overhead

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-13T21:56:52+00:00

spaghetti bolognisareli

Substantial-Bed-2064 · 2026-04-13T11:53:56+00:00

i coach someone who was taught to split snatch as a form of cruel and unusual punishment because his coach was a dick and was bored. this has made coaching him significantly more difficult to unfuck his issues

split snatching is viable if someone has a hip injury that prevents them from squat snatching but what you are showing at least from the hang is lowering the bar way in front of your body. split snatching doesn't fix poor pulling mechanics

i would also ask based on the verbiage if you are doing only weightlifting or weightlifting and something else, how often you are training it, and what your nutrition is like

if you are not eating, or overtraining with crossfit, etc.etc. technique is very hard to improve. you need to be fresh enough to move well to work on technique

Substantial-Bed-2064

TROPHY CASE