I think the list as a whole is pretty good, but there are some numbers that seem a bit off to me. For instance, the bulgarian squats, lunges, splits squats seem insanely light, as I can do them with roughly 60%+ of my back squat rather than 3X%. Also, the ratio of DB overhead press to DB hammer curl seems off. One should always be able to overhead press way more then they can curl.
I very well could be off on the various split movements, but I would wager good money that the hammer curl to overhead press numbers were way off.
What you’re basically saying in the article is that the strength of the biceps alone should be equal to that of the delts and triceps combined. That’s just crazy talk.
Now, if some body-english were allowed on those curls, then that would make more sense, but it would have to be quite a bit.
They are different movements at different angles, using the same weight doesn’t really mean the biceps are as strong as triceps+delts, or vise-versa. I don’t think the difference is much though, my dumbbell shoulder press done in full range may be 5-10% higher in weight. It says in the article that shoulder press should be about 3% higher anyways. Most people use a pretty limited ROM for shoulder press, or arch their back pretty good and recruit some upper chest.
I’ve seen articles like this before, fun to compare, don’t think it should be taken too seriously if you not right on. But I think it will help those guys out there with huge imbalances, or guys just hitting there upper bodies realize just how weak they are in some areas. That’s what I beleive the article was intended for anyways.