Other/Mixed The ‘Chopping Board Workout’ // ‘Simple Isometric Strength’ // only isometrics

[onlyisometrics]

Hi,

For the last 8 or so months I’ve been exercising (training?) using only isometrics.

I call what I’ve been doing the ‘Simple Isometric Strength’ routine…

Or - you’ll see why - the ‘Chopping Board Workout’.

Here are the deets…

Equipment

For Part 1 - ‘BOD’

• Suspension trainer (WorldFit ISO Trainer)
• Chopping board (kind of optional)

For Part 2 - ‘HAL’

• Pull up bar (or something else to hang on)
• Ab wheel
• 2 x 25-litre jerry cans - ‘Loaded Jerry Cans’ (or something else to carrY)

Routine

Part 1 - ‘BOD’

• Bent over row, 3 x 20 seconds
• Overhead press, 3 x 20 seconds
• Deadlift, 3 x 20 seconds

Note: started with 3 x 10 seconds

Part 2 - ‘HAL’

• Hangs, 3 x 30 seconds (with some leg raises and scapular pulls)
• Ab wheel, 3 x 40 seconds
• Loaded carries , 3 x laps around my flat

Why isometrics?

• Great (the best??) way to develop pure strength
• Makes your joints feel good
• Very safe as you’re not moving
• Quick to recover from (not damaging muscles with eccentric part of lift), so you can work out more often or do other stuff
• Self-regulating / self-limiting - you can only exert as much force as your energy levels allow
• Great for developing ‘Iron Man’ (or person) posture

Note: See The Ultimate Isometric Manual by Paul Wade for an in-depth look at some of the research

Why not isometrics?

• Less good for developing muscle - at least with overcoming isometrics (no eccentric part of lift)
• Your form has to be spot on because you’re generating so much force
• Some people find it boring

Who else uses isometrics?

• A bunch of old-school strongmen
• Internet fitness peeps like Paul Wade, Red Delta Project and Ross Enamait
• Modern athletic coaches like Danny Lum and Alex Natera
• Old-school Russian athletic trainers / sports scientists
• A bunch of other people (I have a list somewhere!)

What kind of isometrics do you use?

• ‘BOD’ uses overcoming isometrics - I call them ‘Try To Move It’ isometrics because you’re trying to move an immovable thing
• ‘Hal’ - mostly - uses yielding isometrics - I call them ‘Try Not To Move’ isometrics because you’re trying to be the immovable thing

Why ‘Simple Isometric Strength’?

• Efficient / simple - 3 Bang for your buck whole-body exercises (mostly copies Dan John’s ‘Easy Strength’ exercise selection)
• Efficient / simple - 1 joint angle with the most carry over - the longest muscle length / the ‘Point Of Least Leverage’ (some research, plus people like Red Delta Project and Paul Wade, support this)
• Repeatable / low stress - same workout every time, so it doesn’t matter if you miss a day!

Why use a chopping board?

• More ‘immovable’ than your feet…
• …so you can create more force
• Cheaper than a Isochain or IsoMax

How do you measure progress?

• Trust subjective feeling
• Reprioritise your goals to be about feeling good
• Buy an Isochain or IsoMax
• Buy a crane scale and make your own DIY Isochain or IsoMax

Is isometrics alactic + aerobic (A+A) training?

I think it could be, based on this description from here…

"In practice—what you do in the gym or your garage—is choose a high-powered movement and execute it with a purpose for 6-12 seconds, depending upon your current fitness. You then rest and recover for as long as is required so that you can again work at a high output."

I’m interested in what others think!

Is isometrics ‘pure strength’?

When thinking about strength vs skill…

If generating force = strength…

Then, arguably, isometrics is the purest form of this as it requires less skill than…

Lifting a barbell…

Throwing around a sandbag…

Or swinging a kettlebell!

Again, I’m interested in what others think!

 

[North Coast Miller]

My 2¢, and I have plenty of speculation on this topic that is neither backed up or refuted by research or anecdotal evidence.

Overcoming isometrics primarily deplete CrP, as such they don’t do a lot to encourage an aerobic response. I say this based mostly by how quickly they reduce the amount of heavy load one can lift isotonically after several exertions. After one, they arguably increase a one rep max attempt. After more than one, the number of reps at a given load drop steeply, this being in the absence of any heavy lactate burden or reduced muscle glucose. My theory is the lack of glycolytic flux or increased blood throughput to slow twitch, due to the muscle not rhythmically lengthening/shortening, results in an increase in amount of inorganic phosphate building up in the muscle compared to isotonics.

For training expression of strength they are of immense value. They increase firing rate and neural activation of the max number of motor units. This means they activate high threshold motor units very effectively. They don’t train strength as part of a grooved movement pattern, so while traditional lifts with full ROM might feel a little awkward, untrained movement patterns feel about the same. This being in contrast to trained movement patterns being ingrained and untrained movement patterns feeling downright alien.

A board to stand on is mandatory!

 

[bluejeff]

@North Coast Miller i just had a thought about isos and wondered your opinion, since you’ve spent a lot of time researching and practicing them. This pertains also the OPs query about isometrics and A+A training, I think.

While short, intense holds (+- pulses) will surely deplete CrP and basically be “alactic,” what about training longer holds to induce a more lactic response, should one be desired? This might be more in the realm of yielding isos, and/or done with overcoming isos surely the contraction intensity would decrease…. But wouldn’t long holds be a route to maintaining/increasing work capacity? The blood occlusion effect would contribute to this, yes?

Im thinking about the “5minute extreme isometrics” that have been discussed here before.

 

[North Coast Miller]

@North Coast Miller i just had a thought about isos and wondered your opinion, since you’ve spent a lot of time researching and practicing them. This pertains also the OPs query about isometrics and A+A training, I think.

While short, intense holds (+- pulses) will surely deplete CrP and basically be “alactic,” what about training longer holds to induce a more lactic response, should one be desired? This might be more in the realm of yielding isos, and/or done with overcoming isos surely the contraction intensity would decrease…. But wouldn’t long holds be a route to maintaining/increasing work capacity? The blood occlusion effect would contribute to this, yes?

Im thinking about the “5minute extreme isometrics” that have been discussed here before.

I don’t know, but you’d have to do a 6-8 week segregated block and test before and after. I’d think you might improve holding capacity, but IDK about work capacity. I’d be very interested in any observations from such a run.

You’ll def be using more glucose as you go so long as the effort is high. How much lactate is another question.

 

[David Mary]

I remember reading stories online about kids reading a book claimed to have been written by Atlas a century ago (or thereabouts) which were purported to teach skinny kids that get sand kicked in their faces how to become big and muscular using "only isometrics" (Atlas developed his physique lifting weights). To me this sounds like the same kind of snake oil that convinces kids in a mcdojo that they can overcome a much larger assailant because they have a black belt in karate and win the gold medal in every points sparring tournament.

I fully acknowledge that I have zero formal education in any of this, except my own personal experiences and what I've read and seen online. So please consider everything I say below to be prefaced with "I believe that..."

strength vs skill

Strength is a skill.

Isometrics may have a place in a well rounded program, but as the sole means of training sounds like a recipe for leaving a lot on the table. Too much.

Why isometrics?

• Great (the best??) way to develop pure strength

Strength is a skill which cannot be fully expressed without developing proprioceptive response, stabilization against shifting loads, etc. Isometrics won't teach you that.

• Makes your joints feel good

So do concentrics.

• Very safe as you’re not moving

So are concentrics with submaximal loads.

• Quick to recover from (not damaging muscles with eccentric part of lift), so you can work out more often or do other stuff

So are concentrics with submaximal reps.

• Self-regulating / self-limiting - you can only exert as much force as your energy levels allow

Any number of modalities fit this description.

• Great for developing ‘Iron Man’ (or person) posture

Idem.

Who else uses isometrics?

• A bunch of old-school strongmen
• Internet fitness peeps like Paul Wade, Red Delta Project and Ross Enamait
• Modern athletic coaches like Danny Lum and Alex Natera
• Old-school Russian athletic trainers / sports scientists
• A bunch of other people (I have a list somewhere!)

Of course they do, because isometrics are a valid and useful training tool. But none of them train using only isometrics. I think you need actual movement through full ranges of motion, both loaded, and unloaded in your training program.

A deadlift is an isometric movement if you can't get the bar to break the floor, right? A decade ago I once pulled my back and was out of commission as far as training for several weeks upon a failed deadlift attempt where the bar didn't break the floor. So you could say I got injured during an isometric exercise.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I remember reading stories online about kids reading a book claimed to have been written by Atlas a century ago (or thereabouts) which were purported to teach skinny kids that get sand kicked in their faces how to become big and muscular using "only isometrics" (Atlas developed his physique lifting weights). To me this sounds like the same kind of snake oil that convinces kids in a mcdojo that they can overcome a much larger assailant because they have a black belt in karate and win the gold medal in every points sparring tournament.

Charles Atlas used “dynamic tension” mostly, a method of training with movement using self-generated tension. By itself I have my doubts about how effective it might be beyond a fairly remedial level. As part of a larger program using overcoming isometrics, it does seem to “work”.

The use of overcoming isometrics as a sole form of resistance work can be made to work quite well and for longer periods of time, possibly indefinitely if one is not overly concerned about hypertrophy. Even in that regard it is possible to gain muscle dep what one’s lean BMI. It might be analogous to bodybuilding as a vegan - it can work but requires more knowledge to pull it off.

The obsevation re use of strength in motion is a valid point. The counterpoint is that isometric strength training creates more applicable strength in typically untrained movement patterns for precisely this reason. Another factor in day-to-day strength application (depending on circumstances) is that the lion’s share will be mostly isometric, and seldom full Range of Motion. Examples would be loosening a large rusted bolt, turning a valve, running a chainsaw.

Injuring yourself doing an isometric deadlift might be a good clue your form at the bottom needed some cleaning up, another thing isometrics are pretty good at reinforcing.

 

[Ricky01]

@North Coast Miller i just had a thought about isos and wondered your opinion, since you’ve spent a lot of time researching and practicing them. This pertains also the OPs query about isometrics and A+A training, I think.

While short, intense holds (+- pulses) will surely deplete CrP and basically be “alactic,” what about training longer holds to induce a more lactic response, should one be desired? This might be more in the realm of yielding isos, and/or done with overcoming isos surely the contraction intensity would decrease…. But wouldn’t long holds be a route to maintaining/increasing work capacity? The blood occlusion effect would contribute to this, yes?

Im thinking about the “5minute extreme isometrics” that have been discussed here before.

I think the use of ISO's for max effort against an immovable object are awesome. I have tried up to 20 seconds, but think as little as 10 seconds is great (I haven't used less time that that).

I am curious about max effort long holds....what I mean is trying to ramp up to generate max force (might take a few seconds although you are trying to do this as quickly as possible)....then giving your all to maintain this for as long as possible.
So....instead of max effort for say 20 seconds, you endevour to use max effort for maybe a such as 40-60 seconds.

Now we know that this is impossible. Your power output will decline as time goes on....but that's fine.

So as an example - I have used a Timed Static Contraction of a pushup with a band around shoulders that I couldn't complete a rep with. So instead of driving into this band (chest about 3 inches off the floor) and exerting max force for 10-20 seconds. I would just do this until I failed and hit the deck.

Max effort (as max as I can) until failure.

Thoughts?

Richard

 

[North Coast Miller]

I think the use of ISO's for max effort against an immovable object are awesome. I have tried up to 20 seconds, but think as little as 10 seconds is great (I haven't used less time that that).

I am curious about max effort long holds....what I mean is trying to ramp up to generate max force (might take a few seconds although you are trying to do this as quickly as possible)....then giving your all to maintain this for as long as possible.
So....instead of max effort for say 20 seconds, you endevour to use max effort for maybe a such as 40-60 seconds.

Now we know that this is impossible. Your power output will decline as time goes on....but that's fine.

So as an example - I have used a Timed Static Contraction of a pushup with a band around shoulders that I couldn't complete a rep with. So instead of driving into this band (chest about 3 inches off the floor) and exerting max force for 10-20 seconds. I would just do this until I failed and hit the deck.

Max effort (as max as I can) until failure.

Thoughts?

Richard

Give it a go and report back!

My intuition is that your force levels will positively plummet after about 30 seconds and tank rapidly after. At some point it is more about training your mind/willpower and maybe firing rate, since the level of force will be quite low the deeper you get.

I’d love to see some better research on longer hold isometrics, you’d think them perfect for training slow twitch. But, I suspect without the muscle lengthening/shortening, tensing/relaxing, you’d be starved of transport for fuel. Honestly I have no idea though - you’d have to come up with before and after metrics and test it.

I can share this, and the literature supports it - exerting using a traditional breath pattern helps greatly in keeping force levels comparatively high no matter the level of fatigue. You could extend the time further by actually relaxing somewhat on the inhale and exerting MVC on the exhale.

There’s a lot to play around with, is a good idea to get some metrics to test or just subjectively see how it feels after a few weeks.

 

[Training for Life]

I can share this, and the literature supports it - exerting using a traditional breath pattern helps greatly in keeping force levels comparatively high no matter the level of fatigue. You could extend the time further by actually relaxing somewhat on the inhale and exerting MVC on the exhale.

By traditional pattern do you mean regular nasal breathing as in compared to power breathing?

 

[North Coast Miller]

By traditional pattern do you mean regular nasal breathing as in compared to power breathing?

Just a regular lifting breath, exhale hard with slight Valsalva esque restriction on exertion, quick inhale.

 

[Ricky01]

Give it a go and report back!

I thought you might say that. I feel better suited to proposing an idea and allowing others to be the guinea pigs haha.

 

[bluejeff]

I think the use of ISO's for max effort against an immovable object are awesome. I have tried up to 20 seconds, but think as little as 10 seconds is great (I haven't used less time that that).

I am curious about max effort long holds....what I mean is trying to ramp up to generate max force (might take a few seconds although you are trying to do this as quickly as possible)....then giving your all to maintain this for as long as possible.
So....instead of max effort for say 20 seconds, you endevour to use max effort for maybe a such as 40-60 seconds.

Now we know that this is impossible. Your power output will decline as time goes on....but that's fine.

Why not use yielding isometrics then? You are literally using everything you've got to not move. They are used extensively in the calisthenics world. I have yet to see or hear of someone training for a planche or lever using overcoming isos. I think the answer would be something like "muscle damage due to it being a 'slow eccentric'" but we have seen people adjust to a fairly high frequency of extreme isometrics. Most folks who intelligently train yielding isos do them like 2-3 times a week. So I wonder what the difference would be, if any. Is there data on muscle contraction in overcoming isos vs yielding?

The more I think about this, and this is purely conjecture at this point, I think overcoming isos are probably better suited to "maximal strength" and force production, whereas yeilding isos are probably better suited to more endurance-focused training and/or hypertrophy. I know that @North Coast Miller 's training is all overcoming isos, and he saw hypertrophy too. I think we'd have to see some trustworthy comparison's for which version of isometrics is "better" for hypertrophy, if one even is.

The last thing that pops into my head is this. In the old Gymnastic Bodies approach to training static holds, they had you work up to volumes like 5 sets of 30-60 second holds (depending on the skill and what level it is being trained at). I think the hold time shortened as the skills got harder. Given Coach Sommer's focus on resiliency and injury prevention, I think this had a lot to do with "owning the position." For example, if one could "comfortably" hold a 30 second tuck planche, holding an advanced tuck for 10 seconds is a lot more feasible.

The other aspect that yeilding isos have over overcoming isos is measurability. In overcoming, your intensity is always "maximum" whereas in yeilding, it is dictated by the hold/position you are performing. So my thinking is that yielding isos are more "trackable" for measuring gains.

I am unsure what adaptation differences exist between training shorter, more intense holds in a cluster fashion and training moderately intense, longer holds. Does the former give the same "resiliency" effect of the latter?

TLDR: I wonder if training BOTH yielding and overcoming isos would get you the best training effect, if training isos was your focus.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Why not use yielding isometrics then? You are literally using everything you've got to not move. They are used extensively in the calisthenics world. I have yet to see or hear of someone training for a planche or lever using overcoming isos. I think the answer would be something like "muscle damage due to it being a 'slow eccentric'" but we have seen people adjust to a fairly high frequency of extreme isometrics. Most folks who intelligently train yielding isos do them like 2-3 times a week. So I wonder what the difference would be, if any. Is there data on muscle contraction in overcoming isos vs yielding?

The more I think about this, and this is purely conjecture at this point, I think overcoming isos are probably better suited to "maximal strength" and force production, whereas yeilding isos are probably better suited to more endurance-focused training and/or hypertrophy. I know that @North Coast Miller 's training is all overcoming isos, and he saw hypertrophy too. I think we'd have to see some trustworthy comparison's for which version of isometrics is "better" for hypertrophy, if one even is.

The last thing that pops into my head is this. In the old Gymnastic Bodies approach to training static holds, they had you work up to volumes like 5 sets of 30-60 second holds (depending on the skill and what level it is being trained at). I think the hold time shortened as the skills got harder. Given Coach Sommer's focus on resiliency and injury prevention, I think this had a lot to do with "owning the position." For example, if one could "comfortably" hold a 30 second tuck planche, holding an advanced tuck for 10 seconds is a lot more feasible.

The other aspect that yeilding isos have over overcoming isos is measurability. In overcoming, your intensity is always "maximum" whereas in yeilding, it is dictated by the hold/position you are performing. So my thinking is that yielding isos are more "trackable" for measuring gains.

I am unsure what adaptation differences exist between training shorter, more intense holds in a cluster fashion and training moderately intense, longer holds. Does the former give the same "resiliency" effect of the latter?

TLDR: I wonder if training BOTH yielding and overcoming isos would get you the best training effect, if training isos was your focus.

To me, the issue with yielding isos is you need more equipment to make it work. Is one thing if you have gymnastic or street gymnastic goals, but you could just as easily use...weights. At that point you might as well just use the weights, suspension trainer etc for isotonic exercise and use the overcoming isos to provide the high tension/high load component.

 

[watchnerd]

Assuming the Jerry cans are loaded with water?

So 25 kg each?

I'm curious how you're going to scale that up, as I suspect you'll find you progress quite quickly given the modest weight of the loaded carry and the ergonomic convenience of Jerry cans.

 

[Ricky01]

Why not use yielding isometrics then? You are literally using everything you've got to not move. They are used extensively in the calisthenics world. I have yet to see or hear of someone training for a planche or lever using overcoming isos. I think the answer would be something like "muscle damage due to it being a 'slow eccentric'" but we have seen people adjust to a fairly high frequency of extreme isometrics. Most folks who intelligently train yielding isos do them like 2-3 times a week. So I wonder what the difference would be, if any. Is there data on muscle contraction in overcoming isos vs yielding?

The more I think about this, and this is purely conjecture at this point, I think overcoming isos are probably better suited to "maximal strength" and force production, whereas yeilding isos are probably better suited to more endurance-focused training and/or hypertrophy. I know that @North Coast Miller 's training is all overcoming isos, and he saw hypertrophy too. I think we'd have to see some trustworthy comparison's for which version of isometrics is "better" for hypertrophy, if one even is.

The last thing that pops into my head is this. In the old Gymnastic Bodies approach to training static holds, they had you work up to volumes like 5 sets of 30-60 second holds (depending on the skill and what level it is being trained at). I think the hold time shortened as the skills got harder. Given Coach Sommer's focus on resiliency and injury prevention, I think this had a lot to do with "owning the position." For example, if one could "comfortably" hold a 30 second tuck planche, holding an advanced tuck for 10 seconds is a lot more feasible.

The other aspect that yeilding isos have over overcoming isos is measurability. In overcoming, your intensity is always "maximum" whereas in yeilding, it is dictated by the hold/position you are performing. So my thinking is that yielding isos are more "trackable" for measuring gains.

I am unsure what adaptation differences exist between training shorter, more intense holds in a cluster fashion and training moderately intense, longer holds. Does the former give the same "resiliency" effect of the latter?

TLDR: I wonder if training BOTH yielding and overcoming isos would get you the best training effect, if training isos was your focus.

Yielding might still be the best way to train a degree of fatigue resistance into a person.

As mentioned extremes can be built up to training more often, though I found this hard wearing.

Maybe submaximal yielding (targeting a muscle at length) would be less wearing but almost as efficient eg my bottom of pushup max is 2.42, so maybe 2-3 sets of 60 seconds but trying to 'pull into position' - squeezing shoulder blades together, biceps etc.

Utilising 5-6 movements. Possibly:

Pushups
Hang
Long glute bridge
Y raise holds (this isn't at length but muscle is weakened here due to angle of shoulder and how we use it daily).
Bottom of calf (right)
Bottom of calf (left)

Richard

 

[bluejeff]

To me, the issue with yielding isos is you need more equipment to make it work. Is one thing if you have gymnastic or street gymnastic goals, but you could just as easily use...weights.

With yielding isos, for the upper body, all you need for a pull is something the hang on, and for pushing all you need is a floor. I guess you could argue that if you wanted to use isos for the whole body you might have to contrive something to make it work for the lower body. Even then, why not just do the extreme iso long lunge? Or wall sits? Upper body and core though, all you need is something to hang from. The appeal of this kind of training to some people is usually that it provides them a way to train without weights. That is, it’s good for people who can’t afford weights, or don’t want to pay for a gym membership etc.
Once again, not arguing against overcoming isos, just for the value of yielding isos.

 

[North Coast Miller]

With yielding isos, for the upper body, all you need for a pull is something the hang on, and for pushing all you need is a floor. I guess you could argue that if you wanted to use isos for the whole body you might have to contrive something to make it work for the lower body. Even then, why not just do the extreme iso long lunge? Or wall sits? Upper body and core though, all you need is something to hang from. The appeal of this kind of training to some people is usually that it provides them a way to train without weights. That is, it’s good for people who can’t afford weights, or don’t want to pay for a gym membership etc.
Once again, not arguing against overcoming isos, just for the value of yielding isos.

In this case you are not manipulating load, so your measure of progression is hold time?

I guess at some point I’d have to simply try a block and see what happens. I can speak to a variety of overcoming iso approaches and give an idea what one can expect. In use, what are the more obvious adaptive responses to a battery of extreme long hold isos?

 

[bluejeff]

In this case you are not manipulating load, so your measure of progression is hold time?

I should have been more clear. For the upper body, instead of just increasing hold time, you would change the leverage to make the exercise harder. For pushups that means moving the hands closer to the waist to put more tension in the shoulders. Or doing wider holds "for more chest." For pulling I would do lever work, or 90-degree bent arm holds (elbows at 90, then elbows and hips with bent legs, then elbows and hips with straight legs). Could even do bent arm hangs just below 90 to get more stretch on the biceps and lats. Planche leans or appropriately-assisted back lever work would get the delts more. Lunging could be progressed by slowly elevating the back leg....

In short, I would change position, to make the hold harder, rather than just increase hold time. Depending on what that looks like for a particular hold, a tape measure and reference point can be used to be sure you're always in the same position.

Using the hands-at-waist pushup for example: to make sure the hands are the same distance away from the waist every time, put the feet at the wall and measure out to where you can hold. When you can hold for your "prescribed volume," change the distance by a couple inches. FWIW moving the hands even an inch or two closer to the waist makes a pushup shockingly more difficult.

I should be clear and add that the more beat up one is (injuries, arthritis, etc) the more I would actually lean towards overcoming isos, as you have used. With leverage-based yielding isos, it is quite easy to get into positions that are unexpectedly heavy, thus increasing the potential for injury. I think if one is intelligent and careful, they could use yielding as I outlined above. Just with more caution. That, I believe, is also why the GB method had such high volumes: to be sure you were ready for something more intense.

 

[bluejeff]

Also, apologies to the OP for somewhat hijacking the thread. I'd be happy to move my discussion to the other isometric thread.

 

[onlyisometrics]

My 2¢, and I have plenty of speculation on this topic that is neither backed up or refuted by research or anecdotal evidence.

Overcoming isometrics primarily deplete CrP, as such they don’t do a lot to encourage an aerobic response. I say this based mostly by how quickly they reduce the amount of heavy load one can lift isotonically after several exertions. After one, they arguably increase a one rep max attempt. After more than one, the number of reps at a given load drop steeply, this being in the absence of any heavy lactate burden or reduced muscle glucose. My theory is the lack of glycolytic flux or increased blood throughput to slow twitch, due to the muscle not rhythmically lengthening/shortening, results in an increase in amount of inorganic phosphate building up in the muscle compared to isotonics.

For training expression of strength they are of immense value. They increase firing rate and neural activation of the max number of motor units. This means they activate high threshold motor units very effectively. They don’t train strength as part of a grooved movement pattern, so while traditional lifts with full ROM might feel a little awkward, untrained movement patterns feel about the same. This being in contrast to trained movement patterns being ingrained and untrained movement patterns feeling downright alien.

A board to stand on is mandatory!

Nice explanation of untrained vs trained strength / grooved patterns - that was what I was trying to get at with strength / force vs skill, but maybe didn't convey it very well!