Are Olympic weightlifting records based on mass or weight?

[zanick]

Since we have a .3% change in weight (force) for weights that are lifted from locations on earth, are their rules that focus on mass or weight with olympic weightlifting? In other words, if i wanted to break the world squat record, wouldn't i go to the equator to try and break it, giving that if the lift is near 1000lbs, i could shave off 3lbs. vs trying to do it in alaska.

 

[A.T.]

Since we have a .3% change in weight (force) for weights that are lifted from locations on earth, are their rules that focus on mass or weight with olympic weightlifting? In other words, if i wanted to break the world squat record, wouldn't i go to the equator to try and break it, giving that if the lift is near 1000lbs, i could shave off 3lbs. vs trying to do it in alaska.

You might also qualify for different weight classes, if it goes by body weight.

 

[jbriggs444]

You might also qualify for different weight classes, if it goes by body weight.

Body weight is done by mass. This is simply because essentially all scales are calibrated to measure mass.

 

[russ_watters]

It's 25 years ago, but when I wrestled in high school they used balance scales. Calibration aside I've yet to find a precise/accurate enough digital bathroom [spring] scale for my taste.

Anyway, the specific question would best be answered by a rulebook.

 

[zanick]

I wonder if they control the weight , and not the mass of the weight to be lifted, given that that is what they are actually contesting... how much force a human can exert to determine the "record". the mass vs weight of the individual is an interesting offshoot of that question. Would the mass of the competitor or his/her weight be controlled. which would give an advantage at a different latitude? (ex say, you weighed 200lbs, but had a mass of 90.9kg. at the equator, you now get under the 200lb weight class, and the weight you lift is .3% less... but if it is done by mass, it is only the weight for that class that is acually less for all)

 

[jbriggs444]

Where would you even find weights to lift which are calibrated in pounds force?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where would you even find weights to lift which are calibrated in pounds force?

How would you manufacture such a thing?

 

[jbriggs444]

I suppose you could order from Amazon: "I'd like a 50 pound weight custom shaved to deliver 50 pounds force in Peoria".

 

[BWV]

Records are in kg, which is a unit of mass

 

[zanick]

Records are in kg, which is a unit of mass

if that was the case, then the records near the equator would be easier to achieve by .3%. that's the original question. if you look at the records, the lbs recorded are different than the mass listed. (based on a standard conversion of 2.2lbs per kg)

 

[jbriggs444]

if that was the case, then the records near the equator would be easier to achieve by .3%. that's the original question. if you look at the records, the lbs recorded are different than the mass listed. (based on a standard conversion of 2.2lbs per kg)

You mean 2.20462 pounds (mass) per kg, approximately?

Per Wiki, the ratio is defined exactly as:

In 1959, the United States National Bureau of Standards redefined the pound (avoirdupois) to be exactly equal to 0.453 592 37 kilograms

 

[zanick]

You mean 2.20462 pounds (mass) per kg, approximately?

yes... some times its lower sometimes its higher... have you not seen the conversion disparity?

 

[jbriggs444]

yes... some times its lower sometimes its higher... have you not seen the conversion disparity?

I never do calculations involving pounds where anything past the third decimal matters. If it's worth doing precisely, it's worth doing in SI.

 

[Dullard]

If weightlifting records were really about mass, I expect that the astronauts on the HST repair missions would hold most of the records. The Olympic organizers (or whoever) may say 'kilograms,' but they're thinking 'Newtons,' and are assuming standard g. I suspect that records of this type aren't seen as very important by folks with the capacity to understand the question.

 

[BWV]

What is the weight difference between historical Summer Olympics locations the closest and furthest from the Equator? Just eyeballing a list, looks like Helsinki and Rio. If you are going to worry about this with weightlifting, why not pole vaulting or any other track and field event? Would not figure skating moves be easier if the skater is 0.3% lighter?

 

[anorlunda]

Anyway, the specific question would best be answered by a rulebook.

There's your real answer. It is not a question for physics, but for the rule authors.

 

[zanick]

Where would you even find weights to lift which are calibrated in pounds force?

on the results pages for the world records . ill post a few.. some are heavier and some are lighter. i suppose for the reasons I've mentioned. maybe they are two different records in one ;)

 

[zanick]

All-Time Historical Men’s Powerlifting World Records for Bench Press:

Name	Nationality	Body Weight (Lbs)	Bench Press (KG)	Bench Press (LB)
Andrzej Stanaszek	Poland	114	182.5	402.3
Anton Kraft	Denmark	123	210.0	463.0
Ayrat Zakiyev	Russia	132	225.5	490.5
Kevin Harmon	USA	148	274.4	605.0
Joe Mazza	USA	165	319.8	705.0
Jason Fry	USA	181	340.2	750.0
Sawn Frankl	USA	198	385.6	850.0
Jason Coker	USA	220	410.0	903.9
Rob Luyando	USA	242	410.5	905.0
Scot Mendelson	USA	275	487.6	1030.7
Ryan Kennelly	USA	308	487.6	1075.0

interesting that 410.0 vs 410.5kg can equal 903.9 or 9.05.0 lbs.

 

[zanick]

Where would you even find weights to lift which are calibrated in pounds force?

i don't think you would... i would think that the fair thing to do would to measure weight of the known mass and make the record in Newtons.

 

[zanick]

What is the weight difference between historical Summer Olympics locations the closest and furthest from the Equator? Just eyeballing a list, looks like Helsinki and Rio. If you are going to worry about this with weightlifting, why not pole vaulting or any other track and field event? Would not figure skating moves be easier if the skater is 0.3% lighter?

a few things in the polevault, for example, would cancel out... , and is one of the reasons there is not a tail wind record for the pole vault... but yes, some other events like the shot put .5 or .2 oz is not going to be an advantage as many shots are heavier to meet the specs safely anyway. figureskating, even less... as mass amount would be a dominant effect for most of the maneuvers. the point is, lifting is a measurement of a force that a human can create . this force can move more mass at the equator vs alaska... and its not insignificant. 3lbs on 1000lbs is still 3 lbs.

 

[jbriggs444]

All-Time Historical Men’s Powerlifting World Records for Bench Press:

Name	Nationality	Body Weight (Lbs)	Bench Press (KG)	Bench Press (LB)
Andrzej Stanaszek	Poland	114	182.5	402.3
Anton Kraft	Denmark	123	210.0	463.0
Ayrat Zakiyev	Russia	132	225.5	490.5
Kevin Harmon	USA	148	274.4	605.0
Joe Mazza	USA	165	319.8	705.0
Jason Fry	USA	181	340.2	750.0
Sawn Frankl	USA	198	385.6	850.0
Jason Coker	USA	220	410.0	903.9
Rob Luyando	USA	242	410.5	905.0
Scot Mendelson	USA	275	487.6	1030.7
Ryan Kennelly	USA	308	487.6	1075.0

interesting that 410.0 vs 410.5kg can equal 903.9 or 9.05.0 lbs.

Let's try some of those numbers out for size.

182.5 kg * 2.20462 = 402.34 lbm. Round down to 402.3. Check
210.0 kg * 2.20462 = 462.97 lbm. Round up to 463.0. Check
225.5 kg * 2.20462 = 497.14 lbm. Compared to a claim of 490.5 lbm. Plausibly a typo for 222.5 kg.

Confirmed. Gotta love Google sometimes.

23.05.2006

17th World Open Men's Bench Press Championship

Miskolc, Hungary

Open

-60kg

222.5

1

274.4 kg * 2.20462 = 604.94 lbm. Round up to 605.0. Check
319.8 kg * 2.20462 = 705.03 lbm. Round down to 705.0. Check
340.2 kg * 2.20462 = 750.01 lbm. Round down to 705.0. Check
385.6 kg * 2.20462 = 850.10 lbm. Round down to 850.0. Check
410.0 kg * 2.20462 = 903.89 lbm. Round up to 903.9. Check
410.5 kg * 2.20462 = 904.99 lbm. Round up to 905.0. Check
487.6 kg * 2.20462 = 1074.97 lbm. Compared to a claim of 1030.7. Plausibly a typo from the next line.
487.6 kg * 2.20462 = 1074.97 lbm. Round up to 1075.0. Check.

Looks like the conversion factors are fine but the data transcription leaves something to be desired.

As for 410.0 kg going to 410.5 kg causing a delta of 1.1 pounds in the converted result, that seems like exactly what one would expect, given 2.2 lbm per kg.

 

[BWV]

this force can move more mass at the equator vs alaska... and its not insignificant. 3lbs on 1000lbs is still 3 lbs.

But there has not been an Olympic games close to the Equator, Rio and Mexico City are the closest, both just inside the respective tropics. The games over the next decade are all in roughly the same latitude (unless you think the gravity difference between Paris and LA is significant)

 

[zanick]

Let's try some of those numbers out for size.

182.5 kg * 2.20462 = 402.34 lbm. Round down to 402.3. Check
210.0 kg * 2.20462 = 462.97 lbm. Round up to 463.0. Check
225.5 kg * 2.20462 = 497.14 lbm. Compared to a claim of 490.5 lbm. Plausibly a typo for 222.5 kg.

Confirmed. Gotta love Google sometimes.

23.05.2006

17th World Open Men's Bench Press Championship

Miskolc, Hungary

Open

-60kg

222.5

1

274.4 kg * 2.20462 = 604.94 lbm. Round up to 605.0. Check
319.8 kg * 2.20462 = 705.03 lbm. Round down to 705.0. Check
340.2 kg * 2.20462 = 750.01 lbm. Round down to 705.0. Check
385.6 kg * 2.20462 = 850.10 lbm. Round down to 850.0. Check
410.0 kg * 2.20462 = 903.89 lbm. Round up to 903.9. Check
410.5 kg * 2.20462 = 904.99 lbm. Round up to 905.0. Check
487.6 kg * 2.20462 = 1074.97 lbm. Compared to a claim of 1030.7. Plausibly a typo from the next line.
487.6 kg * 2.20462 = 1074.97 lbm. Round up to 1075.0. Check.

Looks like the conversion factors are fine but the data transcription leaves something to be desired.

As for 410.0 kg going to 410.5 kg causing a delta of 1.1 pounds in the converted result, that seems like exactly what one would expect, given 2.2 lbm per kg.

so, the moral of the story is to do bench press and squats as near the equator as possible? ;)

 

[zanick]

But there has not been an Olympic games close to the Equator, Rio and Mexico City are the closest, both just inside the respective tropics. The games over the next decade are all in roughly the same latitude (unless you think the gravity difference between Paris and LA is significant)

maybe they should look at buoyancy as well...that would be greater in LA vs mexico (high altitude), but then you lose the centrifugal gain, maybe its a trade off. ;) (along with the gravity being less in mexico as well)

 

[jbriggs444]

so, the moral of the story is to do bench press and squats as near the equator as possible? ;)

I expect that the fellows who do this for a living do it at sanctioned meets rather than hopping on a jet, climbing to the top of Mount Nevado Huascarán, arranging for certification and doing their lifts there (sneaking oxygen enriched uranium hexafluoride into the venue for optimum performance, of course).

 

[Mister T]

In commerce, by international treaty and law, weight is synonymous with mass. That is likely the definition used in sporting events.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Oblig. xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/852/

 

[Baluncore]

If variation of little g was a problem, then so would buoyancy due to variation of atmospheric density. I prefer to do my weight lifting under water.

If you do your weight lifting on the top floor, g will be lower, while buoyancy is less. I wonder which dominates, and when.

 

[jbriggs444]

If variation of little g was a problem, then so would buoyancy due to variation of atmospheric density. I prefer to do my weight lifting under water.

If you do your weight lifting on the top floor, g will be lower, while buoyancy is less. I wonder which dominates, and when.

My recollection is that variations in gravity are in the second or third decimal place (roughly) and that corrections for buoyancy are in the fourth.

But you are after something a little more precise than that. You want variations due to gravity between floors and variation in buoyancy between floors.

Let us start with the variation due to altitude. It is the back of an envelope, so I will use numbers rather than algebra (even though I advise students to use symbolic quantities rather than numbers).

The Earth is around 6000 km. Let us arbitrarily assume a 100 meter height difference. That's 6 million meters. 100/6000000 is 0.0016 percent. Edit: Forgot inverse square law. Since the radius is squared, we need to double that relative error to 0.0032 percent.

So the differential effect of altitude on gravity over 100 meters at sea level is a deviation of about 3.2 in the fifth decimal.Let us look at buoyancy. We will start with the raw effect of buoyancy and then compute the deviation.

Steel is about 8000 kg / m³. Air is about 1.2 kg /m³. That's 0.015 percent. As it stands, buoyancy is having an effect of about 1.5 in the fourth decimal. [This matches my recollection and gives me a warm feeling about the result].

But we are not after the raw effect of buoyancy. We want the delta in the effect of buoyancy over an altitude change of 100 meters. The variation in absolute pressure over that altitude delta is about 0.01 percent -- four more decimals down. [I used tables based on adiabatic lapse rate and the central heating system may mean that isothermal would have been better, but four decimals is still about right].

So the differential effect of buoyancy on apparent weight of steel over 100 meters at sea level is a deviation of a bit more than 1.5 in the eighth decimal.Conclusion: The loss of buoyancy is negligible. Go for the top floor.

 

[PeroK]

I expect that the fellows who do this for a living do it at sanctioned meets rather than hopping on a jet, climbing to the top of Mount Nevado Huascarán,

The Peruvian weightlifting championships take place on the summit of Huascarán Sud, the large peak right of centre:

 

[andrewkirk]

The impact of altitude on sporting records has been officially recognised in athletics since at least the 1968 olympics in Mexico City, at which athletes set new records for jumps and sprints were broken that stood for unusually long times after that. Mexico City has altitude approx 2240m. The thin air provides a considerable advantage for jumps and sprints. For distance events, the opposite effect arose, as the shortage of oxygen slowed down the athletes. However in cycling, where air resistance has much greater importance because of the higher velocities, Mexico City became a favoured venue for attempts on the world record for distance ridden in one hour.

Apparently, official track and field world records now exclude performances at altitudes above 1000m.

This thread makes me realize that in addition to the thin air, Mexico City advantages runners by reducing their weight, since at latitude 19 degrees, Mexico City would still be materially affected by the equatorial bulge. But for distance events the weight effect would be much more than offset by the lack of oxygen. For short sprints, the advantage of lower weight would be greatest for 200m or 400m as, for 100m or 60m, the acceleration at the start plays a crucial role, and that is governed by mass rather than weight.

NOAA tells us that the Earth's surface gets furthest from its centre at Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador.

 

[swampwiz]

What is the weight difference between historical Summer Olympics locations the closest and furthest from the Equator? Just eyeballing a list, looks like Helsinki and Rio. If you are going to worry about this with weightlifting, why not pole vaulting or any other track and field event? Would not figure skating moves be easier if the skater is 0.3% lighter?

The "world's strongest man" achieved his feat in Thailand:

Even the top individual lift (clean & jerk) was done in Australia: