by Mark Rippetoe
If strength is the objective (and it should be for everybody), understanding the difference between Training and Exercising is fundamental to being an effective athlete and an effective coach. So is understanding the difference between the basic barbell movements – the primary exercises – and the assistance exercises, the ones most people worry the most about.
Read article
I have not seen the training logs of Achilles, Skanderbeg, or Maximinus Thrax. Exactly how strong were they?
Also: how did ordinary people with cubicle jobs who spent all their time in front of a laptop stay strong in the 3d century, I wonder?
Also: there have been many healthy people throughout human existence. Pre-antibiotic. Before germ theory.
Also: there have been many well-fed people throughout human existence. Pre-agriculture. Before civilization.
Also: I can do this all day.
Last edited by Jonathon Sullivan; 02-12-2017 at 11:04 AM.
It's always more fun to refute your own version of the argument.
OK then. Fair enough. What are you saying exactly? How were people strong before barbells? Because many were strong. Very strong. Probably very many.
This is why God invented the edit feature so you can go back like, "OK. I'm above this. Lets just delete that last part. High road and all that. Now I feel better."you can cum into the kleenex when it suits you, and you don't have to go home in the cold.
I believe everybody took my meaning, which was implicit but plain. Except you. Because to do so would put your original post in its rightfully silly light. Life is pain.
You haven't answered my question. Just how strong were they? And how many were strong? And what was the distribution of strength in the population of, say, pre-Roman Gaul or Parma? Please retrieve this data. I'll wait.How were people strong before barbells? Because many were strong. Very strong. Probably very many.
Because, you see, I am so foolish as to entertain the notion that people are generally better educated, better nourished, better housed, more comfortable, slightly less barbaric, longer-lived on average, and usually a good bit taller than their ancestors. And similarly, it may be that our current approaches to fitness (the ability to meet the demands of our life and environment) and strength acquisition (especially barbell training with progressive overload) may be just a leeeeetle bit more rational, evidence-based, reprodicible, widely available and effective now than they were in the time of, say, Ashurbanipal--strong though I am sure he was compared to the half-starved, illiterate, unvaccinated peasants without access to Crossfit or Fitbot whom he slaughtered and enslaved in industrial quantities.
Because things are, you know, different now. This has not escaped the notice of most people.
Huh? I feel great. I....I really just don't understand what you're getting with that last part.This is why God invented the edit feature so you can go back like, "OK. I'm above this. Lets just delete that last part. High road and all that. Now I feel better."
There are also very strong people today who never pick up a barbell. The difference between those who roamed the earth before the advent of bars or bells is why they got strong. It wasn't because they wanted to, it was because survival depended on dragging a carcass, donning heavy armor while raising a sword to behead your enemy and positioning heavy rocks and tree trunks to create shelter (or whipping the guy doing that for you). So you amassed the strength necessary to do those things. Or you died. Nobody got strong just to show off how strong they were, and therefore measurements of strength weren't needed: either you were strong enough to survive or you weren't.
But, once you were able to do those things, more strength wasn't necessary and, in fact, the repetition for endurance sake was far more beneficial (number of carcasses dragged, heads lobbed off or boulders moved). So, could those in ancient times (or those in manual labor-centric professions today) have theoretically gotten stronger with the use of different activities? Sure. The paragraph you quoted talks of optimizing strength, not simply getting strong enough. There are plenty of exceptionally strong people, then and now, who haven't optimized their full potential strength. Anyone whose peak squat 1RM is 800lbs had, at one time, a 1RM of 500lbs. Clearly, in retrospect, their potential hadn't been optimized, but they were damn strong.