Level 6 Valued Member
This got me thinking about an article of Dan Johns about Strength StandardsI'm always curious why people think they're particularly meaningful, or chose those particular metrics as targets.
There are many ways to measure fitness, or, for that matter, strength.
Who is fitter and stronger, the guy who can deadlift 2x bodyweight, or the guy who can do 10 pullups?
What are other areas and levels of those areas that depict fitness more holistically? I think CrossFit did a decent job when they first defined the attributes of fitness.
However, I don't know if levels of achievement were ever defined along with it. For example, FMS has three levels and I may not want a level 3 on a FMS if it meant I was not able to deadlift 2x bodyweight for example. Also, health measures weren't included in those attributes like bodyfat percentage, etc.
If approached from a radar chart perspective, one would would see imbalances based on their levels of different things.
Obviously, some sports or goals would desire imbalances but for many, holistic and balanced progress is the goal. I think StrongFirst has a decent start with the TSC and could make a lot of progress on a holistic definition and the levels of achievement.
What attributes would you include and what levels of those attributes would you set?