comparative populations drawn from the existing literature
can be found in Supplemental Materials 1 (gross IMTP peak
force and net IMTP peak force) and 2 (CMJ peak power and
height).
Isometric Midthigh Pull and Countermovement Jump
Gross (including body weight) and net (above body
weight) IMTP peak forces of the WSM were 9,171 N and 7,480
N, respectively. The WSM’s gross IMTP peak force was 54%
greater than the highest comparable group mean we located
(subelite weightlifters: 5,942 ± 844 N (20); Fig. 2A). The
WSM’s net IMTP peak force was 100% greater than the high-
est comparable group mean value in the literature (collegiate
soccer athletes: 3,740 ± 692 N (26); Fig. 2B).
The WSM’s CMJ peak power and jump height were 9,866 W
and 53.3 cm, respectively. The peak CMJ power of the WSM
was>2.5-fold (164%) that of the mean of an untrained control
group previously measured in our laboratory (3,735 ± 760 W;
unpublished) and 51% greater than the highest comparable
group mean value we located in the literature (professional
basketball players: 6,518 ± 923 W (32); Fig. 2C). Not surpris-
ingly, given the WSM’sh i g hb o d ym a s s ,h i sj u m ph e i g h tw a s
less exceptional, while still being 20% greater than that of a
group of untrained control participants previously measured
in our laboratory (44.3 ± 9.2 cm; unpublished). However, his
jump height was 25% lower than the highest group mean CMJ
height we are aware of in the published literature (elite inter-
national gymnasts: 71.3 ± 4.5 cm (37); Fig. 2D).
Leg Muscle Volumes
The total unilateral muscle volume of the 22 measured
muscles/compartments of WSM (14,922 cm3) was nearly
twice that of a relatively modest (n ¼ 11) sample of untrained
controls (7,628 ± 1,548 cm3; þ 96%; Fig. 3), while being 63%
greater than subelite (9,164 ± 1,207 cm3) and þ 32% greater
than elite 100-m sprinters (11,323 ± 1,328 cm3; Table 2). The
muscle group differences were largest for the plantarﬂexors
( þ 120% vs. untrained;þ 100% vs. subelite sprinters;þ 70%
vs. elite sprinters) and smallest for the hipﬂexors (þ 65% vs.
untrained; þ 30% vs. subelite sprinters; þ 5% vs. elite
sprinters). The WSM had the highest values of any individ-
ual we have observed for four out ofﬁve muscle groups, but
not the hipﬂexors, which were inferior to three of the elite
100-m sprinters (n ¼ 5).
Compared with untrained control participants (n ¼ 11),
all 22 of the WSM ’s individual muscles/compartments
were larger than untrained controls (Table 2 and Fig. 3).
However, the differences in muscle volume were extremely
variable, with the biggest differences being for the“guy
ropes,” which were 2.5– 3.0 times that of untrained controls
( þ 140% gracilis; þ 157% ST; þ 202% sartorius), compared
with more modest differences such as 23% (BFsh) and 32%
(iliopsoas) greater.
Quadriceps Femoris and Hamstring Size
Overall quadriceps femoris volume of the WSM (4,386 cm3)
was 127% greater than a large, pooled population of untrained
controls (1,932 ± 336;n ¼ 102), 66% greater than subelite sprint-
ers (2,636 ± 401 cm3), 53% greater than long-term resistance-
trained individuals (2,876 ± 311 cm3), and 36% greater than elite
sprinters (3,218 ± 400 cm3; Fig. 4A). Moreover, the WSM’s
quadriceps femoris was 18% larger than the most muscular
individual we have previously assessed (elite sprinter: 3,716
cm3). The volumes of the individual vasti muscles of the WSM
(VL: 1,508 cm3;V I :1 , 3 3 6c m3;V M :1 , 0 8 8c m3)w e r e1 3 0–138%
larger than untrained controls (VL: 633 ± 117 cm3;V I :5 8 1 ± 1 2 0
cm3;V M :4 6 1 ± 8 9c m3) and also greater than any trained/ath-
letic individual we have previously assessed (Fig. 4, B– D).
However, the WSM’sR F( 4 5 3c m3)w a sn o tq u i t es ol a r g e ,b e i n g
76% greater than untrained controls (257 ± 57 cm3)b u ts m a l l e r
t h a nt h ea v e r a g ee l i t es p r i n t e r(/C0 5%; Fig. 4E), 13% greater than
subelite sprinters, and 21% greater than long-term resistance-
trained individuals.