strength being most essential element of physical fitness

[stronger]

I've heard Rip mention this several times in print or in interviews. If I recall correctly, he said a professor at a school put together a list of aspects of fitness, including flexibilty, speed, etc., and strength was the key to them all.

Does anyone have a link to this information? Is this a chart, a paper or just an offhand remark?


thanks in advance

[Bloodninja666]

I seem to remember what I think is a joint paper by rip and a guy named Lon Kilgore addressing the definition of Fitness. You might try looking for that.

[Shaf]

This sort of thing has been talked about by generations of coaches, the problem is that athletes keep getting weaker and less conditioned via real life work.

Back in 1970 or so, John Jesse lamented, in his Wrestling Physical Conditioning Encyclopedia that his athletes were weak and out of shape. He commented that 5-10 years before his athletes were very accustomed to physical labor, having to help out on the family farm and usually having jobs that required actual sweat-inducing work for long periods of time.

I think there's a threshold. The vast majority of young athletes today, and hell, even old athletes, don't do a single thing that could be counted as physical labor. Got to mow the lawn? Fire up the tractor. Have to shovel the driveway? Fire up the snowblower. Got to bale the hay and store it? Hire a day laborer.

Basically you have to start at step zero with kids. Can you do a push up? No. Can you do a freehand squat? No. Can you do a pull up? No. This is a legitimate issue. But the average 12 year old boy can sure fire up the Xbox360 and tear into a bag of Doritos and a 2L of Mt. Dew to fuel his 6 hour session of CODMW2 online.

So, strength and work capacity is at the heart of the matter, and it's been that way for a long, long time.

As far as strength helping everything? Maybe. I think there's a place you get to as an athlete where anymore strength work or conditioning work is going to take you away from advanced sport specific skill development.

[Gary Gibson]

This sort of thing has been talked about by generations of coaches, the problem is that athletes keep getting weaker and less conditioned via real life work.

Back in 1970 or so, John Jesse lamented, in his Wrestling Physical Conditioning Encyclopedia that his athletes were weak and out of shape. He commented that 5-10 years before his athletes were very accustomed to physical labor, having to help out on the family farm and usually having jobs that required actual sweat-inducing work for long periods of time.

I think there's a threshold. The vast majority of young athletes today, and hell, even old athletes, don't do a single thing that could be counted as physical labor. Got to mow the lawn? Fire up the tractor. Have to shovel the driveway? Fire up the snowblower. Got to bale the hay and store it? Hire a day laborer.

Basically you have to start at step zero with kids. Can you do a push up? No. Can you do a freehand squat? No. Can you do a pull up? No. This is a legitimate issue. But the average 12 year old boy can sure fire up the Xbox360 and tear into a bag of Doritos and a 2L of Mt. Dew to fuel his 6 hour session of CODMW2 online.

So, strength and work capacity is at the heart of the matter, and it's been that way for a long, long time.

As far as strength helping everything? Maybe. I think there's a place you get to as an athlete where anymore strength work or conditioning work is going to take you away from advanced sport specific skill development.

Absolutely right. The only people who need to specialize in being strong and to get as strong as possible are people in strength sports. Other athletes can only benefit from strength so much. Stronger is better, but only up to a point. Do you really need to squat 600 lbs to dominate in tennis? Or do you need to have some talent and work on your game while benefiting from a certain level of strength? And barbell strength is going to be more important to track and field athletes than it will to baseball players, but not as important as it will be to powerlifters and weightlifters (obviously).

[Gottatri2lift]

Gary and Stef are right on!! A strength base is necessary for everyone, the degree is the variable. Cyclists are a prime example. They do not need to bench press 300, but if they are doing mtb or cyclocross a stronger upper body will help with accepting the jarring during the race. It depends on the goals of a person.

There are many people that can't do a pullup or chinup, and it is saddening. Being in the military I have the luxury of a gym and a positive pressure for physical fitness, but geez, one fucking pullup or chinup!!

Again Gary and Stef are right on.

[Sami]

I think it might be worthwhile pointing out (to some) that training for strength is only good up to a point, not the actual possession of strength. It gets to a point where the time and effort of obtaining more strength will negatively impact training for one's sport. If you could make yourself as strong and powerful as the most proficient Olympic weightlifter or Powerlifter, without having to eat or train as hard or for as long, then you would go for it.

It think it's important to clarify this for the skinny weak athletes that they think they're 'Strong Enough' for their sport, even though they spend 30 minutes a week "doing weights" (read, bench and curls).

There's a balance. Get as much strength and conditioning done as one can without negatively impacting sports specific performance.

[Sami]

Gary and Stef are right on!! A strength base is necessary for everyone, the degree is the variable. Cyclists are a prime example. They do not need to bench press 300, but if they are doing mtb or cyclocross a stronger upper body will help with accepting the jarring during the race. It depends on the goals of a person.

There are many people that can't do a pullup or chinup, and it is saddening. Being in the military I have the luxury of a gym and a positive pressure for physical fitness, but geez, one fucking pullup or chinup!!

Again Gary and Stef are right on.

Careful...

[Gary Gibson]

I think it might be worthwhile pointing out (to some) that training for strength is only good up to a point, not the actual possession of strength. It gets to a point where the time and effort of obtaining more strength will negatively impact training for one's sport. If you could make yourself as strong and powerful as the most proficient Olympic weightlifter or Powerlifter, without having to eat or train as hard or for as long, then you would go for it.

It think it's important to clarify this for the skinny weak athletes that they think they're 'Strong Enough' for their sport, even though they spend 30 minutes a week "doing weights" (read, bench and curls).

There's a balance. Get as much strength and conditioning done as one can without negatively impacting sports specific performance.

This is an important distinction and I'm glad you made it.

Of course, being as powerful an Olympic weightlifter and as strong as top powerlifter while being the world's greatest cyclist, tennis player and pianist just isn't in the cards for anyone. So yeah, you have to devote a lot of time to the actual skill of your sport and that will necessarily limit strength progress at some point.

I'm just glad I picked a sport that requires that I get very good at moving very heavy barbells.

[gzt]

This sort of thing has been talked about by generations of coaches, the problem is that athletes keep getting weaker and less conditioned via real life work.

Back in 1970 or so, John Jesse lamented, in his Wrestling Physical Conditioning Encyclopedia that his athletes were weak and out of shape. He commented that 5-10 years before his athletes were very accustomed to physical labor, having to help out on the family farm and usually having jobs that required actual sweat-inducing work for long periods of time.

I think there's a threshold. The vast majority of young athletes today, and hell, even old athletes, don't do a single thing that could be counted as physical labor. Got to mow the lawn? Fire up the tractor. Have to shovel the driveway? Fire up the snowblower. Got to bale the hay and store it? Hire a day laborer.

Basically you have to start at step zero with kids. Can you do a push up? No. Can you do a freehand squat? No. Can you do a pull up? No. This is a legitimate issue. But the average 12 year old boy can sure fire up the Xbox360 and tear into a bag of Doritos and a 2L of Mt. Dew to fuel his 6 hour session of CODMW2 online.
We just aren't getting people like Shane Hamman and Ed Coan who squat in the 500s the first time you put a bar on their back, that's for sure.

[Guido]

Gary and Stef are right on!! A strength base is necessary for everyone, the degree is the variable. Cyclists are a prime example. They do not need to bench press 300, but if they are doing mtb or cyclocross a stronger upper body will help with accepting the jarring during the race. It depends on the goals of a person.

There are many people that can't do a pullup or chinup, and it is saddening. Being in the military I have the luxury of a gym and a positive pressure for physical fitness, but geez, one fucking pullup or chinup!!

Again Gary and Stef are right on.Good points. "Diminishing returns". It applies to a lot of things, including strength training. Only those concerned with abosolute strength for strangth sports will bother to spend years going from a 315 to a 365 bench press. Nobody else cares. once they've reached an acceptable level of strength to succeed or dominate in their sport they couldn't care less. Sometimes even I have to remember that it's not everyone's goal to get silly strong as it is mine.

Still, it saddens me that so many out there don't ven have an adequate level of strength to go along with their other fitness attributes (if they even have any).

[Shaf]

I don't know if that's a deliberate mistake, and if it is if either Stef or I should be offended by it. Maybe her.

If it's not, it generated a chuckle.

[WayneRooney]

There are many different types of strength and I personally don't think maximal strength is the most important attribute unless you're talking about competitive powerlifting. In terms of physical fitness, strength endurance and cardiovascular conditioning seem more important for the majority of sports (and in terms of general physical wellbeing).

In many sports, skill can often overcome strength. I love it when someone has enough raw skill and talent to outwit a much stronger opponent.

[TheDeliverator]

I think breathing is the most essential element of physical fitness.

If you can't breathe, you die, and that makes any kind of physical fitness much more difficult.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

"In terms of physical fitness, strength endurance"
You can't have strength endurance without strength.

" There are many different types of strength"

Not really. Strength is the ability to generate force. There are different ways of displaying strength, but it's still maximal force production.

"I love it when someone has enough raw skill and talent to outwit a much stronger opponent."

THis happens very rarely.

[MazdaMatt]

THis happens very rarely.

Yeah right. If you're talking about powerlifting and perhaps wrestling and oly-lifting it happens rarely, but it isn't uncommon at all to see many skilled hockey players dancing around the big ones. Same with (dare i say) most sports - or nearly all sports that are not a man-to-man show-down of strength.

[WayneRooney]

When I used to play soccer, we had a 16 year old striker who was short, wiry and unable to lift hardly anything when he went to the gym. Seriously, he was lifting 10kg dumbbells and couldn't do 3 sets of 10.

However, if you gave him the ball with his back to goal, he could turn in the blink of an eye, accelerate and blast past the centre backs. Running down the wing, he would often ghost past three or four players before calmly slotting the ball home.

The older lads from our rivals said that next time we played they were going to break his legs. They couldn't get close to him and he scored four second half goals.

[PMDL]

I hear there's something called "sport specificity".

It might mean that different activities have different demands.

It also might mean that, all else being equal, stronger is better. But all else usually isn't equal.

[cjangelo]

I hear there's something called "sport specificity".

It might mean that different activities have different demands.

It also might mean that, all else being equal, stronger is better. But all else usually isn't equal.

Yeah right, like, whatever. Next you'll start throwing around phrases like, "bioenergetic and biodynamic demands of the sport." As if you have any idea what you're talking about--You've probably never even read a single article at tnation.com!

[gzt]

Yeah right, like, whatever. Next you'll start throwing around phrases like, "bioenergetic and biodynamic demands of the sport." As if you have any idea what you're talking about--You've probably never even read a single article at tnation.com!
Well, it's better than "broad time and modal domains"...

[George Noble]

Yeah right, like, whatever. Next you'll start throwing around phrases like, "bioenergetic and biodynamic demands of the sport." As if you have any idea what you're talking about--You've probably never even read a single article at tnation.com!
Is bioenergetic when you solve the energy crisis by making hamsters run around in little wheels?

[nisora33]

I hear there's something called "sport specificity".

It might mean that different activities have different demands.

It also might mean that, all else being equal, stronger is better. But all else usually isn't equal.

I say: "ATTITUDE!"

[Chewie_jrc]

Good discussion, and pretty civil as far as SS forum topics go...

This is something I've been thinking about a bit lately and the main points have already been made. IE, more strength is always better (of course) but you reach a point where the effort required to obtain that strength is probably not worth it (diminishing returns).

Outside of strength and power sports, where do you folks feel this point usually is? It seems that EVERYBODY should at least exhaust their novice strength gains. The gains are rapid, it's easy to develop the skills required, and it's only a few months invested if you do it right. Really high return on investment. Then what...maybe delve into the intermediate strength territory for awhile to "cement" those gains before moving to sport specific stuff?

Just spit-balling here, what are your guys' thoughts?

[PVC]

Outside of strength and power sports, where do you folks feel this point usually is? It seems that EVERYBODY should at least exhaust their novice strength gains. The gains are rapid, it's easy to develop the skills required, and it's only a few months invested if you do it right. Really high return on investment. Then what...maybe delve into the intermediate strength territory for awhile to "cement" those gains before moving to sport specific stuff?

I agree with you mostly, and I think it's highly dependent on the sport (obviously). For fighting sports and for football and rugby, it would be well worth going past the novice stage. Probably for hockey as well. And I guess it would be worth it for baseball too, since baseball players don't have that many skills to practice (hit the ball, throw the ball, and run fast for 90 ft).

For most other sports I would say it's specifically not worth it to go much past the novice stage, especially since many sports are more endurance based. If you can bench press 250 lbs and squat 400 lbs, then I highly doubt the limiting factor in your tennis serve is your strength.

[Sami]

I don't know about when to stop, but there should definitely be some minimums. Like 2xBW deadlift, 1.5BW squat, 1xBW bench, 1xBW power clean, 0.75xBW press.

That's for all sports. I'm there or almost there for most of those. :D

[Gottatri2lift]

I don't know if that's a deliberate mistake, and if it is if either Stef or I should be offended by it. Maybe her.

If it's not, it generated a chuckle.


I apologize, this was a mistake. I am glad it generated a chuckle and I don't mean any disrespect towards Shaf or Stef.

[Campbell]

I agree with you mostly, and I think it's highly dependent on the sport (obviously). For fighting sports and for football and rugby, it would be well worth going past the novice stage.

I agree. I do MMA and Judo and strength makes a huge difference. We have a couple of guys who fight MMA and are beast-like in their strength. It is such a massive advantage it is unbelievable.

Even at the really high levels of grappling and fighting sports this is true. Guys like Jeff Monson and Matt Hughes got where they were because their strength makes them almost impossible to control.

[Gary Gibson]

I agree. I do MMA and Judo and strength makes a huge difference. We have a couple of guys who fight MMA and are beast-like in their strength. It is such a massive advantage it is unbelievable.

Even at the really high levels of grappling and fighting sports this is true. Guys like Jeff Monson and Matt Hughes got where they were because their strength makes them almost impossible to control.

I have zero fighting experience, but this is how I imagined it would be. But the world is full of people who believe that strength classes are for decoration only, that wire-fu is real, that Bruce Lee was more magical than Jesus, and that Batman could judo chop Superman into submission.


I agree with you mostly, and I think it's highly dependent on the sport (obviously). For fighting sports and for football and rugby, it would be well worth going past the novice stage. Probably for hockey as well. And I guess it would be worth it for baseball too, since baseball players don't have that many skills to practice (hit the ball, throw the ball, and run fast for 90 ft).

For most other sports I would say it's specifically not worth it to go much past the novice stage, especially since many sports are more endurance based. If you can bench press 250 lbs and squat 400 lbs, then I highly doubt the limiting factor in your tennis serve is your strength.

Yep, depends on the sport. Strength would help them all, but it would help others a lot more. If your sport involves a barbell, it probably helps the most. Same thing if it involves moving really heavy objects like bodies or hammers really hard and fast. American football, rugby, hammer throw, yes. Darts, poker and golf, not so much.