It's more about technique. The worker knows the proper way to lift the bags. A bag of cement weighs roughly 94 lbs. A stack of 4 equals 376 lbs. The bodybuilders would definitely be able to pick up a barbell with 300+ lbs worth of plates on it.
Yeah the technique the bodybuilders used was horrible. The worker kept his back straight and seemed to be relying on leg muscles. the bodybuilders had arched backs and were trying to use their torsos
It's less about technique and more about body composition.
Look how short their arms are compared to the labourer. The bags are hitting their pecs before their hands even reach the bottom bag.
I'm not the strongest guy, I have a bunch of friends that are way stronger than I am. But I am 6'8 with long arms and big hands so I can carry things that they simply can't, like a fridge, up several flights of stairs.
There's always that guy at the gym who's kind of mid in all their lifts, but has *just* the right body composition for deadlifts, so absolutely mogs everyone in that one department
Yea that's what I'm peculiar about cuz whenever I do workout, most techniques were thought to straighten ur back for good form or else I get lower back pain.
Ah yes, the straight back fitness myth. Of course lower back is going to be weak if you never train spinal flexion. And if it’s weak and you’re put in a position where you have to bend your back (like any heavy lift off the ground), it’s gonna hurt.
Just so you know... You should really avoid ever lifting with your back folks, bend the knees and lower yourself then lift, you should not be using your back for lifting.
I also think, apart from just lack of training, there's an aspect of specifically trying to keep one's back straight that causes the pain itself. You exert a lot of force to try to keep it straight, then at heavy enough weight, you're unable to do so and your back jerks quickly into a rounded position, resulting in a tweak. I don't know if that's really the explanation, but it fits my observations.
But it's futile trying to dispel the 'round back' myth when even OSHA is perpetuating it. People will continue to believe it regardless of its correctness, because it vaguely fits with their anecdotal experience (even if there are better explanations for those experiences, eg the one I proposed).
That's just factually incorrect. You should avoid suddenly jerking or loading your back without preparation, which is often what people do when they have no lifting experience and lift with their back (eg try to lift with a straight back, it's too heavy and they're incapable of doing it, so they suddenly jerk into a rounded position, or don't even try to brace in the first place), but it's literally impossible to do certain lifts at sufficiently high weight (relative to personal strength) with a straight back, and there's nothing bad about that in the slightest.
As an anecdote, I stopped getting back pain from deadlifting when I stopped trying to keep my back straight, instead allowing some lower back rounding, and more than 'some' upper back rounding. Up until that point, I'd tweak my back slightly about once a month or two. Made the change 4+ years ago, haven't tweaked my back once since, either while deadlifting or while lifting anything else.
Strongmen, wrestlers, bjj martial artists, olympic weightlifters, couriers, builders, warehouse workers, emergency medical technicians, lumberjacks, regular people picking up stuff off the ground all the time: “are we a joke to you?”
No, you can’t avoid lifting with your back, and you shouldn’t. By avoiding that you’re setting yourself up for a very bad time when you do eventually need to bend.
It's amazing that people actually believe that one of the biggest muscle groups in your body shouldn't be used to lift heavy things. No wonder people are so out of shape -- I'd be sedentary too if I was terrified I would become paralyzed by leaning over to tie my shoes.
100% on point. This myth has gone so far that I see veteran gymgoers with massive lat wings, traps, but where erector spinae muscles should pop there’s but a crater.
You should only be slightly bending your back, you shouldn't be using your back to lift, as I stated. Years of Health & Safety and manual handling training could be wrong but I don't know...
Again, false. In some instances like the deadlift you only need to bend your back slightly so you‘re mechanically in the strongest position. But for wrestling or say lifting atlas stones, or any non-standard object you do lift with your back.
And those manuals are from like the 80s. There’s been plenty more studies done that prove them wrong or incomplete.
Yep, get those bags resting against your pelvis and your legs will take a LOT of the weight. You'll have to shuffle to walk but it's much easier than trying to lift against your thighs or going pure arm strength.
the bodybuilders had arched backs and were trying to use their torsos
At least the second guy, was trying to lift the backs as if they were atlas stones. And then with the arm raised, was unable to find the center of balance on the bag.
It's like, definitely 90% a technique thing. And 10% mechanics/geometry.
Worker: kept the weight balanced over his center of gravity the whole time and kept his joints locked out.
Bodybuilder: had a hard time finding a balance point for the weight and his elbow remained bent for most of the overhead press.
100% technique.
I mean, saying one is for "actual strength" and the other is for looks *is* most definitely shitting on people better than them.
"Body builders" are generally extremely strong. Schwarzenegger could bench 500lbs+ and could deadlift over 700lbs. That is, by every definitely, *actual* strength. Incredible strength. I mean, the whole regiment of becoming a body builder is moving enormous amounts of weight.
And if these lifters spent a week lifting cement bags, they'd be far more competent at it. Every lift requires a form and the appropriately conditioned stabilizer muscles to know basically what to do, and the guy doing it every day has those, and much stronger people who don't, don't.
There is no such thing as aesthetic muscles; all muscle is built on resistance training, which utilizes repeated usage of compounded or isolated muscle groups, typically through the lifting of weights or calisthetics. You cannot build "aesthetic" muscles where you look big, but you cannot actually lift anything. This is disinformation and an attempt at demiriting those who are willing to put effort in.
Most of these construction worker vs bodybuilder videos are either staged for views or the technique used by the bodybuilders is inefficent. Most strongmen you see that set insane weight records are not small and utilize """strength""" and """powerlifting""" muscles; they are gargantuan and sport huge muscles typical of a bodybuilder.
every fucking time a bodybuilder appears on reddit some muscleless monkey appears and repeats the same bullshit.
Fucking bodybuilders are fucking strong. Theres no shit like "functional muscles vs bodybuilders hurr durr"
Either inform yourself or stop spreading bullshit like this.
yes the bodybuilders focus on aesthetics. But this doesnt mean they arent actually strong.
Have you seen someone like them lifting? i work out with a bodybuilder who competes on stage sometimes. Its mindbaffling how fucking strong those people are.
You don't get the physiques of either of these two without being strong.
I'd imagine the bodybuilders would perform better after a week on the job.
Also it's highly task specific .
But you don't get physiques like the body builders without doing a lot of isolated exercises which don't have a huge impact on functional strength. Like the 2nd guy's lats and biceps are huge which you don't get doing functional exercises.
Like if I was in the 80th percentile for arm wrestling globally I'd still think twice putting money on me beating a medieval blacksmith at arm wrestling.
False. An average top one-percenter in any modern strength sport or discipline will be stronger than 99% of any laborer in history. They have better heath care, better drugs, better training modalities, better equipment, and better genetics.
It’s like powerlifting vs bodybuilding. That guy that does the videos where he pretends to be the janitor is a good example. He moves weight with ease and doesn’t look like a gorilla.
He's not actually that strong tho. He's only strong for his weight. Look up his lifts in powerlifting, his max bench is like 300 something. Plenty of body builders are actually way stronger than him despite not training for strength.
Sure, but it’s nowhere near the top 1% for the kind of lifters he pays to costar in his youtube skits. Maybe top 50%.
I’ve got nothing against the guy, but he makes staged videos with fake weights. Entertaining, but definitely not something people should be pointing to as an argument for “functional strength”.
Yea a 315 bench isn't that big a deal for a body builder, which is what anatoly is being compared to. Most body builders can rep his one rep max. And yea obviously it's top 1% for humans. How many humans even train? Not many. How many of them are being compared to huge bodybuilders? Even less. So no he's not really all that strong.
no such thing, how does this shit get upvoted. literal brainrot. Muscle corellates 80% with strength, the other factor being CNS adaption.
All that is demonstrated by the pic is the worker has better technique, and only the muscles required for moving 4 bags of cement are developed (back and forearms).
Muscles are strength though... Do you have any idea how much weight you need to lift to achieve the muscle mass these body builders have? even on intense performance enhancing drugs they still need to lift a lot of weight. hint the weight is heavy as shit
I see a lot of ignorance or projection on this thread. "Yeah! But-but the body builder is...XYZ." Just seems like hurt egos.
Two completely different training styles. Its not just technique. One trains for strength and one for aesthetics. They even lift completely different, it's not that hard or complicated. (Body building=low to moderate weight and high volume of reps vs strength heavier weights and fewer reps.) The muscles are the same but neural adaption for each style is also different.
I know it defies logic, but bigger doesn't always means stronger. That's just a fact. How many examples do you need?
i wouldnt say he has any more "actual strength" than the other guys; the laborer would most likely fail climbing 50 stories with fire equipment or a 315 squat. he just has the strength necessary for his job.
Not everyone who works out in a gym is a bodybuilder. Not everyone who is big and muscular is a bodybuilder.. body-building is a sport/competition that is based on aesthetics.. it can be done competitively or for fun but I'd say by definition anyone doing "body building" prioritises their aesthetics over strength
178
u/Maxi474 Feb 25 '25
Ah the end of the day it’s two different forms of sport/exercise. One is for actual strength and the other is for aesthetics