Other/Mixed Types of Strength

[Philippe Geoffrion]

Maybe I phrased my question wrong, so how about this: are there goals for strength besides weight (2x bodyweight bench press) and difficulty (planche pushup)?

If I don't compete in a sport with specific strength standards (power lifting, Olympic lifting, gymnastics), it seems like 'strength' becomes a wee bit nebulous. So do we (meaning athletics, StrongFirst, whoever) have a definition of strength in these cases? Or do we just substitute one of the above sports' standards as a general default?

One of Pavel’s quotes… [Editor - this is attributed to Master SFCI Mark Reifkind in S&S]

“If you measure strength by a number (as in a weight you can lift), you’re going to feel weak most of the time. Strength is an attitude.”

Lets re-look at strength…one of the most memorable definitions I’ve found is….

Strength:the ability to overcome strain.

You choose the obstacle or it chooses you. Overcome it. That is strength.

Is a person who can overcome cancer not strong because they can’t deadlift 2x bodyweight? Or a single parent grinding out two jobs around the clock to support themselves or their child? Resistance comes in more than just numbers…

We’re lucky to be able to train with weights and measure our progress with something peripheral to the vissitudes of everyday life. For myself, any challenge I overcome in the weight room is merely a metaphor for the goals/obstacles I wish to reach in the outside world.

For some people, just surviving another day is requires great strength.

We admire strength the same way we admire an awe inspiring cathedral or impressionist painting. Because of the daringness, vision and will that went into creating it. By going beyond what was once seen as a limitation.

How do you get strong? Find something that makes you feel weak. Then master it.

It can be as simple as fighting the urge to succumb to a habit that’s killing you or ruining your life, or for a person with an injury, learning to walk again or touch their toes for the first time in years.

Find what you need to do despite how hard it is. Have patience, focus, commitment and discipline. Do it for years. Anything meaningful takes time to build. Do it until that thing that seemed impossible becomes reality. Then life will throw you a new challenge. Repeat.

John Grimek once remarked about the sad state of a person whose strength was only purposeful in the gym. He stated that someone strong at the gym but weak outside of it (in personal relationships, character, morals, spirituality) was weak overall.


Strength is not a number on a gym wall. It’s a lifestyle choice. It’s a personal growth journey that transcends the boundaries of opaque standards.

 

[william bad butt]

See, that's interesting to me @william bad butt
I've always approached programs with an end-point in mind. You do S&S to get to Sinister; you do NW to get to the OAOLPU and the Pistol. Doing the program to...do the program almost hurts, it seems so alien to me.
I wonder if this suggests a component to, or paradigm of, strength that I'm not seeing.

This reminds me of a quote (Dan John maybe?)... "The goal is to keep the goal the goal. The mission is to keep the mission the mission".

Or Emerson, "Life is a journey, not a destination".

Or Indiana Jones, "It's not the years, it's the mileage".

What happens if years go by and you still haven't become Sinister or got that 1 arm pushup? Never got that 6 pack abs, never lost X lbs, and are not deadlifting 2.5 times bodyweight? Most people fail at goals. I've achieved some wonderful fitness related personal goals, but I've also failed at a lot more.

Or worse yet, what if you succeed? You achieve that 300 lb bench press! Now you are done and can quit! ?. You achieve that one arm pushup and now you can move on to something else and can brag about it to.... Who? Oh, nobody cares, lol.

Don't get me wrong. I still set goals. You don't want to fall into the trap of never pushing yourself. Or stagnating and realizing year(s) have gone by and I'm still using the same weight. Evaluating progress vs original goals is part of "the process". That is why I also like this quote: "Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll land among the stars." For example, I may want to increase my deadlift 25 lb in 1 year. But at the end, I only increased 10 lb. Did I fail? Yes. Am I disappointed? Maybe in the past I would be. Not now. I'm "still among the stars".

In the past, when I was weaker, and goals were easier to achieve, I found the reward of accomplishment a motivating driver. But now that I am stronger (relative to my weaker self) and progress comes a lot slower, it is difficult to experience that intoxicating instant gratification of daily, weekly, or even monthly PR's (or whatever goal I am chasing). The driver, now, is more internal. "Keep the mission the mission" and keep nudging the weight higher and higher. And not because it is my goal, but because it is a side effect of the actual process. Almost as if I'm getting stronger (or more muscular or faster or more conditioned, or whatever) ... Getting stronger by accident.

Regards,

Eric

 

[North Coast Miller]

If my goal is to be ready for Bruce Wayne to pull up, throw me the keys to the Batmobile, and say 'you're up', what should I...

What kind of hero template are you planning on using? Crossing DC and Marvel, are you going for the Thing or DareDevil? You can't be both.

Some isometrics, some power, some grind, some endurance, some agility. Tweak the ratios to create your hero.

 

[GeoffreyLevens]

oops

 

[bluejeff]

...going beyond what was once seen as a limitation.

How do you get strong? Find something that makes you feel weak. Then master it.

This is great. Philosophically speaking, I have always thought of strength as the ability to "master" circumstances. Being strong in that context means that you don't feel pushed around by external circumstances; you have the ability to choose your own outcomes, and aren't bothered by things that otherwise might make you feel weak.

Purely physically speaking, you could accomplish a fair amount of variety using a strength/power/hypertrophy split with your training. "Conjugate" training has been shown to give the best of both muscle and strength, if I'm not mistaken.

Straight arm vs. bent arm? How bad do you want a front lever and/or planche....? Straight arm strength can teach you a lot about "proximal strength," as it requires the core and shoulder girdle to sync up very tightly.

 

[Anna C]

As long as we're getting philosophical, here is one of my favorite descriptions of strength:

"Strength is the ability to maintain integrity under load. In lifting, this means maintaining the integrity of your movement under heavy weight. In life, this means maintaining integrity ⁣in who you are⁣ and what you believe⁣ under the load of life's heavy things." -- Holly Myers

 

[marvinthemartian]

Straight-arm strength vs bent-arm strength.
Vertical pulling vs horizontal pulling.
Rotational strength vs explosive strength.
One-arm vs bilateral.

How did you come up with those categories? Why are there no lower body exercises like squats or whole body pulls like deadlifts? Are you looking for the one exercise or more than one? Are you looking for something that gives you the biggest bang for your buck or something that scales well as you grow stronger?

 

[rvaldrich]

How did you come up with those categories? Why are there no lower body exercises like squats or whole body pulls like deadlifts? Are you looking for the one exercise or more than one? Are you looking for something that gives you the biggest bang for your buck or something that scales well as you grow stronger?

These were chosen randomly, and a bit facetiously. While the thread has deviated (but delightfully and enlighteningly so), the question was meant to identify a paradigm of strength that imparted universal performance improvement with as few moving parts as possible.

StrongFirst seems focused on a two-movement modality (and maybe that's enough) but there always seems to be a caveat or an asterisk. I'm just trying to get a complete view.

 

[marvinthemartian]

These were chosen randomly, and a bit facetiously. While the thread has deviated (but delightfully and enlighteningly so), the question was meant to identify a paradigm of strength that imparted universal performance improvement with as few moving parts as possible.

StrongFirst seems focused on a two-movement modality (and maybe that's enough) but there always seems to be a caveat or an asterisk. I'm just trying to get a complete view.

I think you are mistaken about the two-movement modality being the SF recommended way of training. Pavel is known for his ultra minimalist programs but even he has plenty of more varied programs.

 

[Facher]

Doing the program to...do the program almost hurts, it seems so alien to me.
I wonder if this suggests a component to, or paradigm of, strength that I'm not seeing.

Do the program to reap the benefits of it! If those benefits are in line with your goals, that’s the program for you. An added benefit to completing a program is the augmenting of your character - setting your hand to a challenging task and seeing it through to completion will benefit you more than any physical accomplishment.

 

[silveraw]

I think you are mistaken about the two-movement modality being the SF recommended way of training. Pavel is known for his ultra minimalist programs but even he has plenty of more varied programs.

to add to that, even in his S&S program there are three main movements you progress along with four additional movements on top of that. The squat is in the warmup, but is pretty important to the program.

 

[Eyetic]

These were chosen randomly, and a bit facetiously. While the thread has deviated (but delightfully and enlighteningly so), the question was meant to identify a paradigm of strength that imparted universal performance improvement with as few moving parts as possible.

StrongFirst seems focused on a two-movement modality (and maybe that's enough) but there always seems to be a caveat or an asterisk. I'm just trying to get a complete view.

Strongfirst ir more than two-movement as Strongfirst ain't just about S&S.
As I see it Strongfirst is a community of very wise and strong people in different aspects with solid foundations, you can cherry pick whatever suits you better for your goals, and this lead to, what is my goal?

My goal as many is GPP or general physical preparedness, some of us ain't athletes or ultra amateur performers, we are just parents, couples, sons or daughters who just want to be prepare for anything life will throw to your road, and this is difficult as you will never know what is coming.

How can we accomplish that?

Even the heaviest guy/girl in this forum which focused on pure strenght can outrun a normal guy out there, he will not be a marathoner but I am sure that his overall condition is better than the average person.
Even the most flexible and strong guy which can execute extreme bodyweight positions can help his grandpa moving his forniture from 2nd floor to the 1st one or could lift a decent deadlift.
Even the normal guy which only does S&S to stay fit and healthy is ready to perform a CPR maneuver to some random person on the street till the ambulance arrives (I don't remember the exact time but I read that in this forum).

Choose a program you can stick to, cherry pick the wise pearls these people throw in this forum and suit you better, stick to them, you will never be prepared for everything but you will surely do much better than the average.

 

[Steve Freides]

StrongFirst seems focused on a two-movement modality (and maybe that's enough) but there always seems to be a caveat or an asterisk. I'm just trying to get a complete view.

The asterisk doesn't come from StrongFirst, it comes from some people thinking that more is better, which it sometimes is and sometimes is not.

-S-