This topic contains 31 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Alright class, let’s have a quick chat about strength. In its most basic form, strength is the ability to exert force onto an external object. Strength on physical display is seen as concentric, eccentric, and isometric. When we dive deeper into strength during physical application, we see that there are even more subcategories to strength:
-
Strength endurance- Ability to maintain continued maximum muscle contraction over an extended period of time (Ex. American Football). Muscle endurance differs because the contractile force is repeated at submaximal levels over an extended period of time (Ex. Bodybuilder).
-
Explosive strength- Ability to recruit and fire maximum number of muscle fibers in short bursts (Ex. Olympic weightlifter).
-
Absolute strength- One’s ability to exert maximum force to an external object for one repetition (Ex. Powerlifter).
One topic covered in all three books, which I thought could be its own category of strength, was neuromuscular development. This topic dealt with motor learning and muscle fiber recruitment. I would suggest there is strength involved with neuromuscular development. Power Athlete concepts attack the weakness of motor learning during the warmup and skill work. Everyone I have been around finds a weakness they never knew about until they did a Deadbug, Seasaw Walk, Walking Lunge, Ect. With that thought in mind, does that mean someone who improves their ability to execute a walking lunge with proper technique and balance get stronger? I would argue yes, since the individual who was weak with motor control and muscle recruitment has strengthened their neuromuscular abilities.
The importance of knowing that strength is not “one size fits all”, is to be able to train your athletes in the most optimal manner (WAYTF?). If we, as coaches, neglect learning this information we’re just some schmuck getting someone hot and sweaty.
-
-
What is Strength?
Well, who is asking this question? What background do they come from and what types of strength gains are they looking for and why? As far as a “book” definition of strength as if we are taking a vocabulary test goes, I like how Zatsiorsky defines it as “the ability to overcome or counteract external resistance by muscular effort; also, the ability to generate maximum maximorum external force Fmm.” However, a glossary definition to this question will simply not do. We know from Hatfield there are multiple factors that affect strength when talking about this phenomenon from a holistic approach. Meaning when you understand that strength needs to be broken down to multiple different levels you can begin to define who displays strength and how to accommodate top end levels.
Again there is no simple definition of strength, but by diving into Hatfield’s “Factors Affecting Strength” we can begin to construct a definitive term knowing that it needs to lead to further discussion. His “Anatomical Physiological Factors” I would assume are what most people, in our world, would consider when looking at strength. Through training consistently the majority of these factors can be enhanced on some level even with the most basic of programs.
I would like people to focus on the “Phychoneural/Learned Response Factors. To me this is where it all comes from, if you are weak mentally you will never be holistically strong. Why do I say holistically strong? How many people have seen that big kid in the weightroom able to do some pretty impressive numbers, but he gets on the field and is thrown around? Think look like Tarzan play like Jane. So holistically strong would mean you are taking in ALL factors affecting “strength” and not just equating it to picking up weights. The 5 factors Hatfield lays out in this category: Psych, Pain Tolerance, Focus, Social Learning, and Skill Coordination make up the foundation that the house of strength needs to be built on.
I do not think much attention needs to be paid to the External/Environmental Factors since many of them are largely out of ones control. However, it is our job to provide the equipment necessary to our trainees to get them stronger and if that is an issue creativity can go a long way. The others can be addressed through preparation, your skills on the field aren’t going to be as tight in bad weather so make sure you practice in such conditions. Know your opponent, if you know the tendencies of your opponents coming up with a game plan to take away their “strengths” will go a long way.
When taking all of this into consideration my definition of strength is as follows: “One’s ability to establish dominance over their specific arena of sport”.
-
I liked that you took a decent amount of focus off of the physical strength and into mental strength. We have all seen an athlete come back from injury and never be themselves again because of some mental block. For that reason, I would say mental strength is without question a major factor in performance.
A point you drove home was a holistic approach to strength. I understood the concept right away and started asking myself questions… “Is he talking about a GPP approach to strength?” “How much focus on mental training are we talking about?” “Are we saying the mentally stronger person is going to have the advantage over the physically stronger?”
Your very first line, you asked the most important question,” Who is asking the question?” If an Olympic Weightlifter asks the question the answer will be drastically different from a marathoner, in a physical manner. What about the mental aspects though? Both can experience pain, fear, lack of focus, etc. would we train them the same mentally?
Your definition is easy to comprehend but leaves me with a lot of questions. I certainly would agree the most physically gifted person does not always win because they may lack mental fortitude.
-
-
@benkuch awesome assessment and fair criticisms. Here are a few answers to your questions:
When talking about strength from a holistic approach I think Hatfield definitely nails it with his “Factors Affecting Strength” so for clarification I am mainly referring to encompassing everyone of those factors to create the “strongest athlete”. So to dive deeper down that rode I would consider the strongest athlete as the ones that are consistently the best at their respective sports. If we are talking about strength in superficial terms or having a conversation with a lay person you need to speak in language they understand as well. In this case if I am watching a basketball game with a buddy and a guy is having no problems backing his man down to score we are going to say he is so much stronger than the other guy. Make sense?
However, this is why I think simply asking what is strength leaves is so open to interpretation. There are many different forms of “strength” and many definitions that go along with these forms and terms. When someone asks me what is strength, I feel the need to “peel the onion” so to speak, and figure out what they are really getting at. This process will elicit different results depending on who is asking. You ask do we train the Oly lifter and the marathoner differently as far as the mental aspect. In some forms absolutely, different levels of arousal and focus do to the time domains it takes to execute their tasks are needed. However, they still need these two components just with two different approaches.
To kill two birds with one stone I will now break down some of your stuff because right now you are the only other one up haha. @mcquilkin I hope this is ok to combine my defensive to Ben’s and a critique of his?
This is pretty short and sweet. I 100% agree with everything you said in your write up. What I would like to see is for you to bring all of what you laid out full circle and create of definition as to how you perceive the question “What is Strength”. Again I can’t disagree with anything you addressed, I want to know from your perspective what all of that means to you.
-
Side note: I tend to keep my writing with the Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) and at around an eight grade reading level. It is not to insult anyone’s intelligence. It’s the way I’ve been taught over the past five years. The average reading level in the Army is an eighth grade level. Crazy right? That’s the level I use on a daily basis to ensure there is little confusion in orders or policy I create. In our setting a little dressed up verbiage couldn’t hurt but I will aim to keep it simple, I’m a simple dude. I digress…
I put a short and sweet definition in the second sentence of my original post. The simple definition I put was “strength is the ability to exert force onto an external object.” We know it is so much more than that. This definition doesn’t even take into account the mental aspect we talked about in our other posts. At it’s most basic level that is how I would define it.
If I am to advance the definition, it would sound something like this… Strength is the ability to fuse optimal levels of mental fortitude and manifest optimal levels of force, in a given sport, competition, or daily task, to emerge victorious.
I battled with adding “to emerge victorious” to the end of that definition. You can still display strength without winning, but then who the fuck cares how strong you are, the other guy won and you lost. So I’m keeping it!
Kuch
-
Strength is : the Ability to use all resources to overcome obstacles, known and unknown, attempting to accomplish or surpass the task at hand within a set time. One could apply this to physical, emotional, situational, relational, sensual, psychosocial and quantifiable uses.
-
What is Strength, it is the ability to exert force…and more specifically against an external object…but it is so much more too.
I appreciate the breakdown in Hatfields Power of Absolute/Limit/Speed. “each category of strength is not mutually exclusive of others, since improving one will undoubtedly improve the others to some degree.”
How to apply the stimulus to achieve the necessary or correct adaptation is where we come in… How do you program for a hockey player vs a cross country skier? active duty military vs Football player. What is the right balance of absolute strength training vs anaerobic training? I like the idea of mental strength being an integral part of physical strength as well as its own important piece to the puzzle of the total athlete. When it comes to the nuances of mental strength (AND physical) I think the the question of the hour is WAYTF? That will determine to what degree mental toughness is a factor, and what direction physical strength (training) should take.
One of the things I struggle with coming from a place where people are really fucking strong, is they can squat 500-700lbs, bench 400+, deadlift damn near 800 but ask them to apply their strength to something other than a barbell and they cannot do it. They cannot jump, they cannot do a pull up, they can not push a sled without their legs cramping, and a lot of times they can not perform dynamic movements at a level you might expect from someone displaying such great “strength”. So are they really “strong”? Sure, but again, it comes back to WAYTF and what type of strength matters. They have strength but… If I can Sprint faster, Jump higher, and clean more weight, and they can bench squat and deadlift more, what does that say about our ideas and theirs of what strength. I often think of the story Jon tells about being in the NFL lined up across from the guy who bailed hay all summer. WHen it comes to on field performance does the idea of what it means to have strength shift?
-
Let’s swing the pendulum the other way now @chobbs and @benkuch…
Does strength have to be just “one’s ability to establish dominance over their specific arena of sport,” or “the ability to fuse optimal levels of mental fortitude and manifest optimal levels of force, in a given sport, competition, or daily task, to emerge victorious?” What if the opponent is clearly stronger? Can strength be the resistance of being dominated, or holding one’s own? I am in no way a proponent of the “everyone gets a trophy” mindset, fuck that, but can you not having your ass handed to you be a value of strength? Think me lining up against JW. I am nowhere near the overall, or all encompassing strength of my opponent. I’m lined up against him and he has to work for his dominance, there is strength there. Think about isometric strength and the diagram of pushing against the wall. The wall will never move, but there is strength there.
So far I am loving the enthusiasm from you two! This is a rabbit hole question and you guys dove right in! I do find it hard to read others replies first then apply my own answer. Hobbs, the holistic approach was awesome, but then I couldn’t get the word holistic out of my brain while reading. I had to step away, formulate and deliver my answer and then come back to discuss.
-
@menacedolan Interesting approach to strength. All of the definitions from the text kept their definition in a scientific setting which is able to produce valid scientific data. I would argue that it is impossible to have a scientific study to measure emotional strength. What’s my point? We are not the scientists trying to prove a theory. But shouldn’t the definition be measurable? You could argue my definition may not be measurable. I say it is, but there are only two outcomes, pass or fail/win or lose. In the world of performance that is all we care about. If your sport is Powerlifting then progression is easy to see but in a field sport it is much more opaque.
You touched on the attempt to complete a task as possessing strength.If I think about this in a real world example I think about the Cleveland Browns. Each individual may be strong but as a team they may have weak chemistry. They may be an emotionally strong team because they continually show up on Sunday to get embarrassed (Sorry not sorry, Browns fans). Are we saying they are a strong team for attempting to win even though they are weak as on overall team?
-
-
@benkuch “If I am to advance the definition, it would sound something like this… Strength is the ability to fuse optimal levels of mental fortitude and manifest optimal levels of force, in a given sport, competition, or daily task, to emerge victorious.”
That’s what I was looking for (and I am not the teacher so what I am looking for isn’t required at all ha). But now I understand YOUR mindset when thinking about strength. I think it’s a stellar definition and I agree putting “to emerge victorious” can be a little dicey. In a team sport you could be the “strongest” (by what we seem to agree in terms of holistically strong) athlete out there and still lose. But take an individual sport like wrestling and you win you were undoubtedly stronger than your opponent that day. You utilized leverage, mindset, technique, etc…better than your opponent.
@menacedolan Strength is : the Ability to use all resources to overcome obstacles, known and unknown, attempting to accomplish or surpass the task at hand within a set time.
Pretty strong and straight to the point definition. However, it seems very broad and I don’t know how you came to this conclusion. What are some of the resources that can be used, also why does it need to be within a set time domain? Does baseball (or organized grab-ass as John would like to put it) have a set time, or tennis (I don’t know on this one, but it doesn’t seem like it does)? -
@chobbs. Everything has a set time, when it begins and when it is over. Each point, play, pitch, kick, contest, event, moment, lift, etc. has a specific unit of time.
Look at the multiple ways that the authors have set forth to describe what goes into strength. Zatsiorsky was basic with ““the ability to overcome or counteract external resistance by muscular effort” and “the ability to generate maximum external force”. Knuttgen and Kraemer in the supplemental text added another element of speed with; “the maximal force that a muscle or muscle group can generate at a specified velocity”. Hatfield went all in with his multiple factors that affect strength. Bringing them all together and looking at all the ways the word strength is used,both within our realm and out,led me to my statement. How you look at the specific use of strength will define how it is applicable to the situation.The resources that can be used depends on the instance of strength we are discussing. Can one recruit the needed motor neurons to fire? Can one take past experience and preparation to be strong of mind? Can one look past pain to continue to participate in said task? Can one hook themselves up to an ARP Wave to assist in full hamstring contraction? Can one manipulate hormonal balances to improve myocyte growth?
My answer was broad for a reason, the subject is vast. Try to plug your questions into it to see if it rings true.
-
I just realized we can reply to specific posts haha. Good stuff that clarifies for me!
-
-
@menacedolan that is a fantastic point in the rebut to mine and @benkuch‘s statements. And I think what you said actually lines up to what I am saying. You lining up against J Welly is definitely a display of your strength compared to his at that task, which is his wheelhouse, so he will undoubtedly be the stronger person. But let’s say your wheelhouse is badminton and you line up across from him. You are lacin the shuttlecock (I have always wanted to work “shuttlecock” into a debate) at him and covering the court where he doesn’t score at all and you do at will. Are you not stronger than him in this arena?
So if I were to clarify more let’s say strength is an overall rating system for whatever arena you are currently in. We have all built our own player on Madden. You have an allotted amount of attribute points you can assign to specific things (speed, hands, blocking, acceleration, etc…) this in turn gives you your Overall Rating. This is how I think about strength, if you are competing in crossfit you try to raise those “attribute points” in all realms of fitness. If you are competing in powerlifting you do everything you can to be the strongest in the big 3. Both of these domains go further than just the movements, in order to bring all of your numbers up you must have the mental side down, the consistency, discipline to recover, etc… But again if we are thinking more along the lines of just muscular strength we are going to go with the guy who lifts more in the powerlifting realm, but what if that guy is 300lbs and only totaled 10lbs more than the guy who is 225? The guy who is 225 in terms of relative strength is stronger but the other guy is in terms of absolute. So this is where that holistic approach comes from for me.-
I love the holistic approach, I just tried to widen the frame further. Trying to encompass all realms, sports, activities and attributes with out asking any questions.
Madden didn’t come on Atari, Colecovision, or Nintendo…fucking NY Giants on Techmo Bowl though. The stopwatch has started on the “Bo Jackson was unstoppable” argument. Go! Oh wait!! Two letters, LT.
-
-
@train608,”When it comes to on field performance does the idea of what it means to have strength shift?” This is the question of the hour, nice work. It is all in the application or ability of that strength. You nailed it with the JW story of being Field Strong.
-
@menacedolan @train608 What about the idea that strength cannot exist without circumstance? If strength is force applied, then all strength is relative to the task at hand and there aren’t different types of strength–simply different ways to express it, measure it or influence how it is produced.
-
that is the task at hand that I stated.
-
-
-
To answer a very broad question I like (agree with) Siff’s version: “as the ability of a given muscle or group of muscles to generate muscular force under specific conditions.” We also know that’s not what is being asked here so let’s go a little deeper. As PA followers we’re all familiar with WRYTF, as it has shown up in our answers already, so it’s safe to say it’s different depending on your goals. So as a power lifter absolute strength “roughly equivalent to maximal eccentric strength” is of priority so training, beliefs, understanding, etc. of strength typically align. If you’re an Oly lifter speed strength is priority so again training, beliefs, understanding, etc. of strength typically align. The point is this: there are multiple types of strength and your goals dictate or shape this worldview. As your coach my job is to get you stronger and 2 things that jumped out to me as consistent across all types of strength are mental strength and “skill” or coordination.
From the previous responses, and I agree, you can’t have a truly strong athlete if they lack mental strength. Whether its pain tolerance, “focus”, arousal (all part of Hatfield’s psychoneural factors) a strong athlete has those in droves. What I believe can and should be focused on more is skill or coordination “synergists, stabilizers, and prime movers must be variably activated, in an efficient sequence, in order for maximum strength to be displayed”. This is what separates strong athletes from the rest of the pack. This ability to display strength (i.e Field Strong) is key is my book. If you want to win you have to have the ability to display your training when the lights are on.
So strength for me is: the ability to exert ones force, physical or mental, onto an object or person in conjunction with skill to overcome opposing force.
-
@menacedolan right on about reading posts first, I stopped about halfway before I got overwhelmed with view points.
@train608 I agree and do believe that on field performance is an indicator of strength. Anybody that plays a sport is using training as means to an end, to win. So if you can’t display the strength you busted your ass for in the weight room congrats you just wasted an off season. Anybody in this group knows that winning is part of the deal so your training, or more to the point for this question, your strength training better help you win.
-
I think that Super Training gives a good starting place for a definition of what strength is. “… the ability of a given muscle group of muscles to generate muscular force under specific conditions.” There are two parts of this definition that I like when I am trying to define my definition of strength. Take the first part, “the muscles ability to generate force.” Generate force is an encompassing line, which I like this because it can be anything from lifting weights, to running, jumping, tackling, etc. However looking to Hatfield he states, ” I have identified no fewer than 23 different sources of strength.” I think there is much more to be considered when defining strength then just the muscle contractions at play.
I feel with a little interpretation of the second part, “under specific conditions” those other factors are taken into account. Specific conditions can be anything from your training, field of competition, environmental factors, emotional, pain, etc.
My definition of strength would be “Your ability to perform a task required at any given moment under whatever the condition are presented.” So your ability to out lift, drive a runner backwards during a tackle, out run a defender, execute a task under pain, controlling/harnessing your emotional response and still perform a task, are all displays of strength. If you are able to do a task + conditional factor better then your opponent at a given time, I would say at that you have greater strength. When we are trying to figure out who is stronger then the other, I think that it all comes down to the arena that it is being competed in.
-
I think it is evident this question was meant to be broad, because this is one hell of a discussion! What I have seen is that to ask this question it flat out needs clarification as to what type of strength one is talking about.
-
What is strength? Man, what a rabbit hole this question can lead someone down. I agree with everyone’s statement regarding the various kinds of strength; emotional, mental, and physical. I think once more context is provided, like using the first chapters of the three books as reference points, than the question becomes “what is physical strength?” I’m a Supertraining guy so I’ll reference Siff’s definition. Strength is the product of muscular action initiated an orchestrated by electrical processes in the nervous system of the body. This is the “sciencey” definition. I like to think of strength as a unit of measure. It is a unit of measure of the body’s ability to overcome an external resistance. Once you look at strength in this matter than you can use it to help gauge progress and performance.
An amateur athlete lacking strength will use any strength increases as signs of progress during their maturation. An intermediate will get more specific with their strength training. They will look to funnel their training towards whatever their weaknesses are. They will begin to prioritize maximal strength, absolute strength, speed-strength, strength-speed, or explosive strength accordingly. They will use increases in any or all levels of strength as signs of progress. At the elite level, where the gains become few and rare, the athlete will be looking to improve just one tiny aspect in their performance. Typically, this will revolve around their specific skill sets being that at this point the athlete has matured and borderline “perfected” their game. A slight increase in any part of the skill sets will undoubtedly be a result of an increase in strength.
-
@denny I like the reference of strength as a unit of measure. It frames the question in terms that can be demonstrated, measured and repeated. What would your scale of units of measurement look like? 0 to 100? 0 to infinity? How many units would a 400lb squat be? And how many units until my beard fills in like @tonyfu?
-
@conorwlynch that’s a lot of units
-
-
-
I’ll side with @denny and state strength has to be considered a unit of measure, and because of that it has to be perfectly defined as any other physical magnitude is.
As @tonyfu and @carlcase did, I’ll choose Siff and Verkhoshansky’s definition “…the ability of a muscle or muscle group to generate a muscle force under specific conditions” as the one with a more objective approach.
However, I’d like to say that definition could be splitted in two different parts from my point of view, one being “the ability of a muscle to generate force” which can be directly associated with Hatfield’s Anatomical/Physiological Factors, and a second “the specific conditions” which would be in line with what Hatfield names Psychoneural/Learned response factors and External/Env. Factors.
I understand @benkuch, @menacedolan and @chobbs have a wider “holistic” perception of strength but my concern with that is it takes us further from the objectivity I think the strength definition needs.
Actually, that scope reminds me the CrossFit definition of strength, with which I’ve never fully agreed, which is “the productive capacity to apply force” always followed by the muscle up example: If we get a guy (who is already able to do pull ups and dips but not muscle ups) to do his first muscle up after just 15 minutes of skill practice, could we say that guy is stronger after those 15 minutes? My answer would be NO, as it’s impossible there has been any anatomical or physiological modification on his body. What we could say however is we have modified some of the other factors (mostly Psychoneural/learned response).
-
It is very hard to argue with any of the three authors. From Dr. Hatfield’s Defining Strength and his four factors (Absolute, Limit, Speed Strength, Anaerobic Power)… To Siff’s symphony of muscular interactions initiated by a carefully orchestrated electrical proceses in the nervous system… To Zartsiosky’s the ability to generate maximum maximorum external force(more in the muscular sense). My definition of Strength would be more sharing similar thoughts: Strength is the ability of our body to generate force through bio-mechanical and neurological responses to external force. It really is like a complicated symphony where all elements need to be firing in perfect synchronization. From the electrical responses of the central nervous system to the fibers contractions to the response of adaptation through training. But as I’ve read this authors I have failed to see the topic of creating muscle response an memory under fatigue and exhaustion. This concept comes from my krav maga training where we want to be able to respond to violent scenarios (worst scenarios) with the best of our abilities. We consistently train under duress to create that mental toughness to drive adaptation. I guess Siff did talk about some of those Russian coaches always training under Maximal Effort Training. More food for the shark tank… can’t wait to the live discussion!
H
-
@nono I agree completely, that is why I stated skill or coordination is an integral part of the strength equation. In your example all the person has done is coordinate his/her muscles to display his/her strength. Unfortunately for HQ they did not make that person stronger by teaching them a muscle up.
-
Why do we squat? Why do we run? What’s the usefulness of performing a press or a pull-up?
They allow us to become better at the rest of our daily lives.
When you do more of those exercises, what happens?
You are able to more things, better in everyday situations. You are better at handling the demands of your environment.
How do we interact with our environment? We receive information passively through our senses and then what?
We respond. With action.
And what is action? The use of force.
So when we get better in the gym, when we get better at living, we’re really getting better at creating and applying our own force. And that’s what strength is: how well you can apply force to your environment.
Which is an incredibly daunting idea, right? I mean, how long would it take to list out all of the elements in your environment? Let’s take it back to squatting.
Imagine you’re about to perform a back squat.
Is the room hot or cold? Are you tired or rested? Is this your first squat today or your fiftieth? Are you working out with your favorite training partner or someone who has never squatted before but brought their personal boombox with them playing one Sarah McGlaughlin track on repeat? The factors that influence your squat are endless, but the task remains the same: Apply force to your environment. The more force you can apply and the more environmental conditions you can apply it to, the stronger you are.
So let’s cue up “Straight Outta Compton” and throw some iron on the bar.
Alright, so that was a little over the top, but I imagined myself giving that talk to a group of novice athletes about to squat. There are elements of Newton, Siff and Hatfield. I wanted to create an understanding that strength is expressed against other objects or forces. Without something to express force against, strength does not exist. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, right? That’s Isaac Newton. Then Mel gets us to a cellular level with “…the ability of a given muscle or group of muscles to generate muscular force under specific conditions.” (Siff, 2003) So the heart of strength is muscular force production, but that force is relative to ‘specific conditions’, i.e. the environment it acts against. The fantastic lists laid out by Dr. Hatfield (1989) address elements of the environment including: equipment, heat, cold, humidity, precipitation and altitude amongst others. While those factors affect the ability of muscle fibers to produce force, the end measurement remains: How much force could your muscles apply to the task you used them for in your environment? Did you have enough strength?
Hatfield, Fred (1989). Power: a scientific approach. 2.
Siff, Mel (2003). Supertraining. 1.
-
@train608 I think that you hit it on the head that the WAYTF really defines what your measure of what someones strength should be. Without context we cannot properly judge the individuals strength. JWs story is the perfect reference. Based purely on maximal strength he would be considered strong he might no be considered strong but where it really mattered was the transfer of training. He result prove he had high transfer, and was stronger.
-
Thoughts after the lecture today:
1. Defining strength and what you think optimizes strength are two different things. Let’s compare two athletes: Athlete A has a 1RM squat of 605. Athlete B has a 1RM squat of 405. Both athletes attempt a 20 rep set of squats at 315. Athlete B finishes, but Athlete A stops after 15 reps. They step on to the football field. In three consecutive blocking drills Athlete B is able to drive Athlete A backwards 5 yards. What can you definitively say given that information?
- Athlete A exerted more force against a barbell for one rep.
- Athlete B exerted force against a 315lb barbell 5 more times than Athlete A.
- Athlete B exerted enough force to overcome Athlete A’s force and push him backwards 5 yards three times in a row.
Can you definitively say that was because Athlete B had a “stronger” mindset? No, although everything intuitively points to that as the explanation. My issue is that mindset can be broken down into neural patterns, hormonal production and chemical reactions in the brain. What we think of as being separate from the body is another component of the entire physical process required to produce muscular force. And in order to identify one aspect of that process as part of the definition of what strength is, it should be able to remain constant no matter what else changes.
If we repeat the same test 5 days later, with all conditions (including Athlete B’s mental edge) remaining the same would the result most likely be similar? Yes.
If we repeat the same test 5 days later, but Athlete B has not been allowed to eat for 5 days would the results be similar? Most likely not. Therefore Athlete B’s mental edge is significant, but not an absolute determining factor in strength.
I think that mental fortitude is best included as a tremendously significant factor in the chain of events that allows for strength to be displayed. But it is still one of many such factors, not a defining factor.
2. Metrics vs. Performance. Objective vs. Subjective. Harry touched on this during conversation, but I think a great parallel here is the NFL Combine. Metrics at the Combine work because the standard is consistent and you can directly compare the standard of movement from one athlete to the next in the same physical space. But when you compare Combine metrics with the same tests performed at college pro days, scores often vary significantly. So the value of metrics is directly related to consistency with which they are measured.
Metrics are also the isolation exercises of the athletic world. The remove conflicting elements and test for individual components of physical capacity. Whereas performance and competition challenges the athlete display and combine all of those elements of their physical capacity seamlessly, effortlessly, through space and often with other people working as hard as possible to prevent them from doing just that.
I like the idea that metrics allow us to measure progress for the amateur athlete, but they are mostly useful relative to that athlete’s past and future performance.
3. @carlcase Loved your definition of SAID. Think you could post it in the activities section for that assignment? Thanks bro!
-
I will also clarify my position from this holistic approach we are all talking about. I agree that when referring to strength and what it is it is beneficial to talk about it in terms everyone comprehends and understands easily. So I think what @connorwlynch @denny and others have said is the route I would go 99% of the time. And what @luke said today about the foundation for everything else is 100% accurate. But I think what we have established in this discussion is, when you are talking with a bunch of S&C nerds it is important to clarify what you are referring to because we know there are so many forms and realms of strength.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.