Eleiko Powerlifting Plates, Bars and Collars - Official USA Distributor

Raw Lifting – Economic and Social issues from the perspective of poor countries

Submitted by Marilia Coutinho on November 12, 2007 - 8:04am.

November 2007
Fernando Canteli & Marilia Coutinho (canteli@uol.com.br; marilia-coutinho@uol.com.br)

Introduction
Raw versus equipped lifting is one hot debate among powerlifters. Hot to a point where the defense of one or the other becomes sectarian, irrational and poisoned by accusations and scorn. Sober voices from lifters who manage to appreciate (and frequently compete in) both modalities, or who chose one over the other for subjective reasons with no claim for its superiority, are not as loud as the emotional advocates.
We wish to present one alternative view of raw lifting to the sports community. This view is founded on political and social arguments concerning the development of powerlifting in poor countries and also on our first experience according to this line of reasoning. Support equipment provides not only protection against injury, but also frequently a considerable carry-over. Such carry-over, or additional weight lifted with the aid of the equipment, may represent from 20% up to 50% or more of an advantage to the equipped lifter. Based on an analysis of the relative cost of different support equipments as compared to the expected income of the average Brazilian powerlifter, we concluded that an unequipped lifting concept that excludes only support clothes is more socially inclusive.

Equipment in Powerlifting – a brief view of its history and development
The development of supportive equipment in powerlifting is frequently taken as part of its historical relationship with Olympic lifting. In 1973, the AAU National Weighlifting Committee, that still ruled over powerlifting, banned what was seen as an abuse of supportive material, then basically supportive trunks and wraps. The next year, the IPF came into existence as the first federation and powerlifting took a course all by itself, which involved great development of supportive equipment (“Powerlifting”, VLS).
However, it took some time for a recognizable support equipment market to take form. The first patented equipments for powerlifting appeared early in the 1990’s. Athough wristwraps, for example, were patented industrial gear since the early 1900, their patenting for weightlifting dates from 1990 (Walunga 1990); the first benchpress shirt patent was filed in 1993 (Peters 1995); the first weightlifting suit patent was filed in 1991 (Alaniz et al 1991, owners of Titan Support Systems).
Inzer Advance Designs, Inc was founded in 1989. Inzer’s first patents date from 1996 and 1998. Titan Support Systems, Inc, was founded in 1981. It took about a decade from the founding of these companies to a full shaping of the market as indicated by the intellectual property control of their products.
Support clothes and special wraps actually became widespread in powerlifting only in the nineties. Since then, as in any other specialized niche where technical innovation becomes an engine to sales and to the development of the market itself, powerlifting gear became more and more sophisticated in design and technology.

Equipment Cost
Bellow is a chart with prices for the most common support equipments in powerlifting, from the most popular and recognized manufacturers, according to what was listed at their websites on November 10, 2007.

Prices in American Dollars
Company / Bench Shirt / Squat Suit / Wrist Wrap / Knee Wrap / Belt
Inzer Advanced Designs / From $38.00 to $225.00 / From $42.00 to $325.00 / From $12.50 to $17.00 / From $16.50 to $22.00 / From $39,95 to $140,00
Titan Support Systems / From $99,00 to $150,00 $150.00 From $12.95 to $17.00 / $22.00 / From $89,95 to $119,95
APT ProWristStraps / / / From $13,95 to $24.95 / From $15.95 to $32.95 / $37.95
Metal Sport and Wear / From $182,82 to $318,54 / From $195 to $418 E / From $35 to $52.8 E / From $57 to $80.7 / $201

Support clothes (shirts and suits) are on average one order of magnitude more expensive than wrist or knee wraps. Belts are slightly more costly than wraps. Of the five types of equipment, the one considered to deliver the highest carry-over is the knee-wrap (bench shirts vary too much according to model, cut and the technique developed by the lifter, taking from a few months to many years to develop full carry-over on the same shirt). Among athletes and a few certified physiotherapists familiar with powerlifting, the knee wrap is also considered the most relevant in terms of injury prevention. The injury prevention roles of both knee wrap and wrist wrap have been reviewed elsewhere (Coutinho 2007 a and b).
The role of the belt in injury prevention is still a matter of controversy among the scientific community. One of the reasons for this disagreement is possibly the lack of comparability between results, due to variations in methodology and subject population (Renfro & Ebben 2006). It is, however, a consensus among athletes that belts have a powerful protective effect.
Although there has never been a survey on the subject, we estimate that the average Brazilian powerlifter monthly income is between US$250.00 to US$600.00 (US$3000.00 to US$7200.00 annual income). The average price of a support clothes item can be about half this lifter’s monthly wage, whereas a wrap will not exceed 10% of that amount. A simple cost-benefit reflection indicates that allowing the use of wraps and belts in a raw competition will hardly prevent wide participation and fair play among participants. Allowing support clothes, however, automatically generates an elite of equipped lifters, with considerable advantage over the rest.

Raw Lifting in Brazil – a Pilot experience in Bench Press
The question here becomes, then, the aims and strategies involved in the organization of a certain event. Considering that decision-makers in the sport must address both high performance needs and the growth of the sport itself, approaches must be flexible and according to the objective at stake. In a country such as Brazil, where powerlifting is not traditional, receives insignificant support from government or business, and is practiced chiefly by persons from underprivileged segments of society, we believe unequipped (no support clothes version) lifting has a special place. It is the place reserved for democratization, attraction of new athletes, screening of talents, that is, the general strategies involved in the growth of the sport.
We designed one small scale pilot initiative that took place in Santo Andre, an industrial district of larger São Paulo city. The meet was held on the sports court of a public school and participants were chiefly working class residents of the area. We had 23 participants (22 men and one woman), divided into six weight classes for women and seven weight classes for men.
We created a very simplified rule sheet and safety disclaimer that was read by all participants before signing an agreement form and registering. Weigh in was held three hours before the beginning of the meet. In spite of the rule sheet, we gathered all participants before starting the works and revised the rules. We also demonstrated items (lift execution) we thought could be dubious because we know many of these individuals were too shy to actually admit they had doubts or had not understood the terms in the text. That took no longer than ten minutes.
Most participants had never taken part in a Bench Press competition before, nor had watched one personally or on the internet. We considered that the event was mostly a learning experience (regardless of the idea that all competition is learning).
Best results were : up to 80kg female, P. Candido, 70kg; up to 60kg male, R. Prata, 70kg; up to 70kg male, D. Avila, 110kg; up to 80kg male, D. Neves, 145kg; up to 90kg male, A. Borges, 150kg; up to 100kg male, M. Silva Fo., 160kg; beyond 100kg male, A. Correia, 155kg.
We made a point of collecting impressions from all participants and all were satisfied with the way the event was organized and run. We specifically asked whether they felt they understood more about the sport than before participating and the answer was generally positive. They were very conscious of mistakes that we pointed out during the event, they realized the strategic nature of deciding attempt weights and other issues involved in powerlifting competition. They also asked when the next raw meet was going to take place, since all had the intention of participating again.
As organizers, we felt that at this point, the event requires more organizing hands than we were prepared for. Being both organizers and educators imposes a small but relevant extra work on coordinators. We believe that with time and popularization of this type of event, this reality may change.

Impact and Demand
As soon as the event was over we were contacted by two interested parties to organize similar events in other industrial districts and cities at the State of São Paulo. There was hardly any advertising before the meet and this is the first public discussion of the experience (a copy of this article is being published in Portuguese as well: www.bodystuff.org/raweconomic.html). We predict the demand may grow fast on the next few months and we are making arrangements to meet it. Our decision is to keep this line of event federation-independent for the time being. We believe powerlifting political infighting will only hold back the development of these initiatives.

Concluding Remarks
If powerlifting is to grow at all in poor countries, adjustments must be made to the economic reality of potential athletes. We firmly believe that this involves expanding the organization of raw events according to the concept we presented here, where only costly support equipment clothes are excluded from use.
As a disclaimer, we would like to point out that the two authors (and pilot initiative organizers) are equipped lifters. The choice, therefore, is a political one, both to address the needs of powerlifting growth in Brazil, and to offer those lifters who dislike support clothes an alternative to compete evenhanded with other athletes.

Alaniz, I.P. & Alaniz P. M. February 19, 1991. Suit for Weight Lifters. United States Patent 5,046,194.
Coutinho, M. 2007 (a). Knee-wrap carry-over. APT ProWristStraps Lifting Articles. http://www.prowriststraps.com/knee_wrap_carry_over_powerlifting_squat
Coutinho, M. 2007 (b). The Wrist wrap as a protective and performance-enhancing device in powerlifting. APT ProWristStraps Lifting Articles. http://i.b5z.net/i/u/230085/i/wwcoutinho.pdf
Peters; Richard E. January 24, 1995 Benchpress shirt . United States Patent 5,383,235.
Powerlifting, in “The Virtual Library of Sport” - http://sportsvl.com/rest/powerlifting.htm
Renfro, G.J. & Ebben, W.P. 2006. Review of the Use of Lifting Belts. Strength and Conditioning Journal Volume 28, Number 1, pages 68–74.
Walunga, A.R. 1990. Patent: Combined workout glove and wrist wrap. Patent number: 4905321. Filing date: Apr 7, 1988. Issue date: Mar 6, 1990. Inventor: Allen R. Walunga. Assignee: Allen R. Walunga. Primary Examiner: Jeanette E. Chapman.

» quote

Comment viewing options

Submitted by Little John (not verified) on November 12, 2007 - 1:15pm. » quote

The history part was interesting. But the infamous Marathon Supersuit squat suit was left out. Those where the good days. The supersuits gave maybe 20 pounds, 50 if lucky, constantly blew out, and lasted only a few lifts, the top lifters had a new suit for every attempt.

I started powerlifting in 1985, The supersuits were available. When did they come out and what happened to them? Also I believe bench shirts were available in the late 1980's.

Submitted by jason2459 on November 12, 2007 - 1:41pm. » quote

I hope this doesn't spark a debate on raw vs. equipped which seems to happen all to easily. That's not what this was about at all. Congratulations on getting a movement started and good luck in keeping it going forward.

Submitted by mastermonster on November 12, 2007 - 1:43pm. » quote

No excuses! Just lift it!

I got my 1st bench shirt in 86. I'm not sure if they were available before that.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 12, 2007 - 1:52pm. » quote

Well written article but is clearly biased, which most authors do intentional or not.

Several points which are not mentioned. If one does not have discretionary income one also does not have discretionary time. Most will work to better there situation for their family vs. enjoying their limited leisure time by training. Without money the sport will not grow there regardless if you can afford a suit or not. You have travel expenses, meet applications, singet, nutritional costs, medical expenses if injured and the list goes on. Companies and federations will not hold meets because they will not make any money. It would be nice to see some altruism once in awhile but unlikely. Raw meets or not the situation is the same.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 12, 2007 - 2:37pm. » quote

Anonymous wrote:

Well written article but is clearly biased, which most authors do intentional or not.

Maybe some lifters do have the discretionary income for less expensive/extensive/new equipment though.

This will expand the reach of powerlifting to those who might never leave the gym. Some of them will then move into more equipment as they become better and want to compete on a national or international stage. I'd say a win for powerlifting, a win for equipment makers and a win for lifters.

Submitted by Paul Kelso (not verified) on November 12, 2007 - 6:31pm. » quote

Inzer first began marketing the sleeves-forward shirt in 1983. Acquired the Knecht patent in 1984.

There is much truth in this article regarding the economics of suit/shirt lifting in poorer countries.

Often only the middle and upper classes have access to weight training facilities. Were it not for sponsors and a few benefactors, and minor help from government sports ministries, many could not obtain supportive equipment and compete. I know some fine Asian lifters with monthly incomes of only $200-$300 USD.

Submitted by Ed Kutin on November 12, 2007 - 8:45pm. » quote

It is certainly true that lifting equipped is expensive, and that could be a significant factor for many potential lifters. Obviously the cost of equipment is much less of a factor in raw lifting. It was also an interesting description of an experiment of sorts, in which a group of people gathered for a pretty informal raw competition, and sounded like they really enjoyed it and wanted more. So this article could have easily said that there is a very good place for raw lifting based on the much lower cost of entry and proceeding to the lifters, and that lifters could then purseu raw, decide to try equipped when circumstances allow, or some combination of both.

It could have said that, but it didn't say that at all. In fact, paradoxically, this article was really a strong plug for equipped lifting, basically saying that lifters can and should lift as equipped as possible, but that many in some countries just don't have the means. I found one paragraph to be particularly offensive:

"Support clothes (shirts and suits) are on average one order of magnitude more expensive than wrist or knee wraps. Belts are slightly more costly than wraps. Of the five types of equipment, the one considered to deliver the highest carry-over is the knee-wrap (bench shirts vary too much according to model, cut and the technique developed by the lifter, taking from a few months to many years to develop full carry-over on the same shirt). Among athletes and a few certified physiotherapists familiar with powerlifting, the knee wrap is also considered the most relevant in terms of injury prevention. The injury prevention roles of both knee wrap and wrist wrap have been reviewed elsewhere (Coutinho 2007 a and b).
The role of the belt in injury prevention is still a matter of controversy among the scientific community. One of the reasons for this disagreement is possibly the lack of comparability between results, due to variations in methodology and subject population (Renfro & Ebben 2006). It is, however, a consensus among athletes that belts have a powerful protective effect."

First of all, the knee wrap "is considered" to give the highest carryover of all equipment? Considered by whom? The authors parenthetical dismissal of bench shirts from the running made no sense, and he conveniently forgot about squat suits, which I believe give far more assistance to the squat than do knee wraps, although the assistance of knee wraps is clearly significant. Despite his assertion in the paragraph, his source gives no evidence whatsoever of the protective qualities of knee wraps. In fact, to quote from his source (by APT Pro Gear, no less!): "Although there is no controlled experimentation performed on knee wrap carry-over and protective effect on the knee joint, lifters' experience shows that this is one of the highest performance-supportive and protective lifting devices. Indirect biomechanical information about the squat may indicate why this is so." So, basically it says that it is protective because lifters say so, and by the way, please buy from us.

And, lets not gloss over the assertion of fact that knee wraps are "the most relevant in terms of injury prevention", and that the "role of the belt in injury prevention is still a matter of controversy". Controversy to who? This was a very transparent and ill-supported attempt to push the debate about raw back to the notion that if belts are allowed then wraps should certainly be allowed. And I might say, not a terribly convincing argument, either.

Sadly, this writeup would have stood very well, far better really, without the inclusion of the above paragraph at all. Which only added to its offensiveness.

Truthfully, I'm not looking to turn this into a raw vs. equipped debate either. I think that the gratuitous slaps at raw, even while he was pointing out its benefits were puzzling at best. I think that those who want to further the sport of powerlifting need to look at raw lifting for some of the pluses that it offers, and view it as an alternative to equipped lifting, not the junior or entry-level form of it. In other words, don't push raw lifting apologetically, just push raw lifting if you think there is demand for it.