It depends on many variables.
For example, genetics, especially on mitochondria, ATP, adrenergic system and metabolism in geral. Also, how you developed since childhood (how much weight and muscle you have build up).
When measuring, you should take in consideration if the person had the right nutrition, hydratation, enough sleep and even the purity of the air.
All of that just to measure how much someone can lift? So:
>It seems no one can answer this.
No one can answer because it's not important.

Get the right genetics, right nutrition/sleep, right exercises, plus some drugs (androgenic modulators, dopamine and (nor)epinephrine agonists) and you'll have a person with "high potential".
>constraints of the mind
This "limits are just on your mind" is all bullshit.

>It seems no one can answer this
Good. It's metaphysically impossible to answer, and would only serve weak minds who like to think what 'could' or 'should' be done. Since it cannot be done even twice, the moment you do it stops being the correct answer. It's a fact that can only exist in the unrealized future, therefore it's not really a statement of fact. You could expand it to 'any human' and establish a fact, but then you have to define 'existing humans'.

>>524
>>529
Fuck you guys, I want real answer and not pseudo-scientific bullshit. I'm not trying to lift, I want to analyze the human body as a machine and understand it's actual limits. Obviously the body could go beyond the point where your brain prevents muscles from tearing themselves and bones from fracturing.

>>533
>understand it's actual limits
We have already about answered that above.
>pseudo-scientific bullshit.
Please, point me exactly where it is "pseudo".
The pseudo-scientific here seems to be your argument, since it is no falsiable. Please, read Karl Popper, then come back.

>>536
I ask for a hard answer, you give me philosophy and memes. I guess I shouldn't expect more. What is the BREAKING point of the human body, not what is the greatest possible limit that your brain will allow or that will not end in permanent damage to the body parts.

>>538
>you give me philosophy and memes
Again, point to me where is these memes. Yes, I gave you philosophy because your hypothesis is not falsifiable. You should refine your hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model

>BREAKING point of the human body
I'll repeat: you can quantify the breaking point of bone, for example, but it will depend on other factors, like genetics of the person tested and nutrition (in this case, Vitamin D and Calcium levels).
You cannot, with our today's knowledge about physics and human body, determine the limits of capacity. We can quantify the internal processes, like neurotransmitters and receptors, hormones, and so on, but the effect of all these (together) is not predictable a you may think, because, again, it depends on other factors (already pointed on the first comment).

>>539
Gimme a straight answer doc

>>533
>I want to analyze
No you don't, you're a fucktard and want misuse reason. And the legwork is the last thing you'd do.

>>542
I'm not planning on doing it myself you absolute moron. I don't plan to ever do more work than makes my back tingle a little. Why won't ANYONE answer this question?

If you're a healthy, trained strongman with ubermench genetics, ideal diet, and proper form, the first thing that will likely fail during a heavy lift will either be your tendons/ligaments, or the blood vessels in your brain. Disregarding the latter, the physical limit will probably be dictated by how strong human tendons/ligaments can theoretically get.

>>564
So, could a human body move 6 tons and be destroyed by it? 12 tons? Would the bodys structure fail and tear apart after 6 tons? And by "move" I mean move something with the same mass exerted by 12 tons that is inhibited by the amount of friction on, say, a set of lubricated wheels.

inertia