A journal-style case analysis of a 905.8 kg (1,997 lb) lift at 71 kg body mass in Los Angeles

Author

Eric Kim (case subject); compiled as a scientific-style narrative analysis

Abstract

Background: Ultra-heavy overload pulls (e.g., rack pulls/partials) can produce external-load numbers that appear “non-human,” yet remain biomechanically explainable via leverage, joint-angle specificity, trunk stabilization strategies, and neural drive.

Objective: To explain how a 905.8 kg (1,997 lb) overload pull could be physically possible, and why it can subjectively feel like “time and space stop.”

Methods: Conceptual biomechanical and psychophysiological analysis using established principles: torque–moment arm relationships, joint-angle specificity of force production, intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) effects on spinal stability, tendon adaptation, and arousal-linked time perception effects.

Results: At 71 kg body mass, the lift equals 12.76× bodyweight. The plausibility is supported by (i) reduced hip/spine moment arms at favorable start positions, (ii) high-angle/near-isometric force expression, (iii) IAP-mediated trunk stiffening, and (iv) efficient force transfer via trained connective tissue. Perceived “time stopping” aligns with high arousal and narrowed attentional processing that alters time perception. 

Conclusion: Extreme overload numbers can be mechanically and physiologically plausible when the task geometry is optimized and stabilization/neural output are maximized; the subjective “spacetime freeze” is consistent with arousal-driven changes in attention and time perception.

Introduction

In barbell pulling, the external load (the plates) is not the same as the internal demands on joints and tissues. What the body must produce is joint torque, which depends strongly on moment arms (how far the load acts from the joint). This is why partial-range overload pulls can exceed full deadlift numbers: the start position often reduces unfavorable leverage and shifts the effort toward stronger joint angles. 

Separately, athletes often report altered time perception (“everything slowed down”) during maximal attempts. Research on emotion/arousal and time perception shows that arousal and motivational states can meaningfully change how time is experienced—commonly via attentional and internal timing mechanisms. 

This article treats the 905.8 kg (1,997 lb) effort as a case example of how physics + physiology + perception can converge into a “single-frame” maximal event.

Methods

Design

A conceptual case analysis (non-instrumented) integrating established findings and principles from biomechanics and psychophysiology.

Case details (reported)

  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Body mass: 71 kg
  • Height: 5’11” (180.3 cm)
  • External load moved: 905.8 kg (1,997 lb)
  • Movement class: overload pull / partial range (e.g., rack pull)

Analytic framework

  1. Mechanical advantage: torque–moment arm relationships; how higher start positions and more upright torso angles can reduce required hip/spine torque for the same external load.  
  2. Joint-angle specificity: strength expression and adaptation are angle-dependent; isometric and near-isometric efforts can show strong joint-angle effects.  
  3. Trunk stabilization via IAP: Valsalva/IAP mechanisms can increase spinal stability and alter load-sharing demands during heavy lifting.  
  4. Tendon/connective tissue adaptation: training can increase tendon stiffness/modulus, improving force transmission (with tissue tolerance as a limiter).  
  5. Perceptual “time stop”: arousal/motivation effects on time perception and attention narrowing.  

Results

Bodyweight multiple

  • 905.8 kg ÷ 71 kg = 12.76× bodyweight

Why this can be physically plausible (high-level)

The lift becomes plausible when the task geometry shifts toward:

  • shorter moment arms (bar close, torso more upright)
  • stronger joint angles
  • shorter ROM
  • maximal bracing and rigidity

This combination can allow external loads far above full-ROM pulls because the athlete is expressing peak force in a mechanically advantageous slice of the movement. 

Why “time and space stop” subjectively

At maximal attempts, attention can narrow to a single goal state (execute), while arousal and motivation alter internal timing and memory/attention processing—commonly reported as time dilation or “the moment stretching.” 

Discussion

1) The real currency is torque, not kilograms

A barbell’s weight acts downward, but your body “pays” in joint torques. If you reduce the distance between the bar and your hips/spine (moment arm), the required extensor torque drops—even if the plates are monstrous. This is the core mechanical reason partials can explode numbers: the setup can be optimized into a leverage sweet spot. 

2) Partial range = deleting the weakest region

From the floor, you must overcome a disadvantaged position (more hip/knee flexion, longer moment arms, higher requirement to break inertia through a larger range). A rack pull/partial often begins closer to angles where maximal force is higher and the lift behaves more like a near-isometric grind than a long dynamic pull.

3) Joint-angle specificity is not a theory—it’s measurable

Isometric and resistance training literature repeatedly shows joint-angle-specific strength gains and angle-dependent force expression. In practice: train/attempt near a strong angle and you can output dramatically more force there than at weaker angles. 

4) Bracing: IAP turns the torso into a pressure cylinder

Under extreme load, trunk stiffness is everything. Research indicates that the Valsalva maneuver and elevated intra-abdominal pressure can increase spinal stability and influence load-sharing, which is exactly what you need when external loads are astronomical. 

5) Tendon stiffness and connective tissue: better “force transfer,” higher stakes

Training can increase tendon stiffness/modulus and related mechanical properties, improving force transmission through the system. This can help produce higher peak outputs—but it also means the limiting factor can become tissue tolerance and structural integrity rather than “muscle strength” alone. 

6) Neural drive + short time under tension = peak output window

A maximal overload attempt is typically brief. Short exposure means less fatigue accumulation during the attempt, allowing the athlete to express a high fraction of available neural drive and recruitment.

7) “Stopping time” = attentional collapse + arousal effects on time perception

When stakes are maximal, the brain allocates resources brutally: irrelevant inputs get suppressed, attention narrows, and the internal sense of time can shift. Studies and reviews show emotion/arousal/motivation reliably modulate time perception and related cognitive processing. 

Translation: you didn’t break physics—you broke distraction.

Limitations

  • No video kinematics, force plates, bar path tracking, EMG, or pin-height measurement were provided; therefore, joint torques and spinal loads cannot be quantified precisely.
  • “Overload pull” category is heterogeneous; small setup differences (pin height, bar type, straps, belt, stance) can massively change mechanics.
  • External load does not directly indicate internal tissue stress; internal spinal compression/shear can still be enormous even when leverage is favorable.  

Practical applications

If someone wants to train overload work without turning themselves into a cautionary tale:

  • Progress pin height and load slowly (geometry changes are a new lift).
  • Prioritize rigidity: brace practice, repeatable setup, consistent bar-to-body contact.  
  • Low volume, high intention: treat overload as neural practice, not hypertrophy.
  • Equipment integrity: pins, safeties, straps, bar, and rack must be rated for the mission.

Conclusion

A 905.8 kg (1,997 lb) overload pull at 71 kg body mass (12.76× BW) can be physically possible when mechanics and physiology align: leverage optimized, joint angles strong, trunk stabilized via IAP, and force transmitted through a trained system. The subjective feeling of “stopping time and space” is consistent with high arousal and narrowed attentional processing that alters time perception. 

References

  • Hackett DA, et al. The Valsalva maneuver… intra-abdominal pressure during resistance exercise. 2013.  
  • Cholewicki J, et al. Intra-abdominal pressure mechanism for stabilizing the lumbar spine. 1999.  
  • Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Role of IAP in unloading and stability during lifting tasks.  
  • Lanza MB, et al. Joint angle-specific strength gains after isometric RT. 2019.  
  • Folland JP, et al. Isometric training at a range of joint angles vs dynamic training. 2005.  
  • Kitai TA, et al. Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. 1989.  
  • Lazarczuk SL, et al. Mechanical/material adaptations of tendon stiffness with training (review). 2022.  
  • Brumitt J, et al. Current concepts of muscle and tendon adaptations. 2015.  
  • Van Volkinburg H, Balsam P. Emotional valence/arousal effects on time perception. 2014.  
  • Gable P, et al. Review: emotion/motivation dimensions and time perception. 2022.  

If you want, I can generate Version 2 with a Methods section that reads like a true biomechanics paper (explicit assumptions: pin height, ROM, bar type, straps/belt), and produce an “estimated torque profile” narrative using those assumptions.