Strong enough for what?

[Marenghi]

This would have been an excellent post had I said any of the things you attribute to me. But I didn't. My point was that if we go in with the mentality of "I'm just going to stop once I get strong enough," it sets one up for failure.

The mentality should be "I'm going to get as strong as I can," and if you can't increase due to whatever limitations exist, then so be it. But at least you're always thinking about moving forward, rather than standing still.

As for the mentality part: Sure. Just that in practice, some people I have spoken about, in order to reach their goals, WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH THE ONE REACHING BEING THEIR STRONGEST, CONSCIOUSLY need to decide that they wont train more than they have.

Would these not be examples where stronger becomes difficult or impossible? Did I not give several "special situations" in my own post, such as family obligations, disease, or occupation?

Yes of course, these also are situations, where "strong is strong enough". Tell that to your forum comrades.

Did Pluripotent ever say anything about "dedicating" to strength training, or that Eddie Hall would make a good commieball player?

Let me try to capture Pluripotent's point with a juxtaposition. I'm a 34-year-old attorney with low testosterone (naturally that of an average 95 year old...seriously) and a completely average SVJ working an average of 60 hours a week and raising a now-7 month old. With all that baggage, I joined the 500 deadlift club two months ago.

If I can do that, how difficult do you really think it would be for a 22 year old with elite genetics who is paid to be in the best physical shape of his life?

This is basically the same argument Bill Bean makes: Jason and Austin could go complete med school while getting so strong - so why cant professional athletes? Btw, Gene Hawley already gave an excellent explanation of the circumstances rugby players have to deal with in comparison to you, me Jason or Austin.
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)

So Id like to give you another reason why they dont - and in some cases even shouldnt.


The questions are:
1. Should they? Does the athlete really profit from a 500lbs DL? More concise: Does he profit from trying to and finally reach that goal more than dedicating less ressources to that goal and say, have a 400lbs DL? This is an empirical question, you cant simply claim this is the case is "...because stronger is better...because stronger is better". That depends highly on the sport - in one sport, a 600lbs deadlift is worth training for, in another one, a 500lbs DL is not.

2. Do you want to select ("entry level strength" what Pluripotent said) for a 500lbs DL? Again, this is an empirical question, different for every sport. High school and college strength training often is sub-par. Selecting for 500lbs DL strength levels in young athletes with shitty strength training background means we´re selecting for talent in max strength. That means were selecting sub-optimally, with a lot of false-positives (ones that are strong, but with little potential in technique, for example) and false-negatives (ones that currently are not strong, but score highly in other qualities).

Two examples:

a) May I introduce to you Andres Iniesta. 5ft 7, 150lbs

Iniesta is widely considered to be one of the best players of his generation and one of the greatest midfielders of all time.[4][5][6][7]

Andrés Iniesta - Wikipedia

Attachment 5783

Now, soccer is a team sports with slight opponent contact (legal and illegal). So theoretically, strong, heavy players with a lot of strength would have an advantage in certain situations. On the other hand, that wouldnt allow them do fullfill the heavy aerobic demands of the sport: If we wrote the year 1980 - Id agree Andres should try to put quite some muscles on. Average distance covered in a game was around 8km. Today for a midfielder like Andres, its 12km.

b) Lee Chong Wei Long-time World Ranking No.1 in Badminton, 5ft 7, 150lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Chong_Wei

Lee+Chong+Wei+Yonex+Hong+Kong+Open+J5wT0Z8fZkbl.jpg

In contrast to soccer, Badminton players cover less distance (net playing time is much less). They need to move one semi-heavy object around (as we saw, 150lbs for Lee Chong Wei), thats their own body. So for the lower body, the demands of the s-v-curve are both for strength and velocity. He indeed would profit from lower body strength. Whereas upper body/arm strength has different demands: He accelerates the racket and finally the ball/shuttle. Weight of the racket: 200g (7oz), weight of the ball: 20g. Demands are clearly very high for velocity, low for strength on the s-v-curve. I explained that in detail in another thread already.

Long arms are very advantageous for reach and high velocities (catapult effect, similar to a long torso in the clean).

And thats exactly the body type what elite players are (self-)selected and train for. If we selected for "upper body strength", lets say a 280lbs bench, it would be a catastrophic selection criteria, because that selects for heavier body weight, shorter arms - and near-static strength instead of high velocities with low weights.

You see, strength is specific. Demands are specific. Demands and the way to reach these demands are conflicting. Thats why "strength is strength" and "more strength is better" is simply wrong.

I understand, though--it's much more fun to attack a "dogma" that a "cult member" (since I'm an SSC, I am a cult member, right?) isn't even advocating than to address what they're actually saying.

I explicitly and very clearly stated what I disagree with. So if by "attacking you" you mean what Im doing, i.e. discussing a point with you in a civilized manner.

Im interested then in what you call this collection of purposeful ad hominem, strawman - and flat out insult?

I get the sense he has very little practical experience training. Doesn't stop him from spouting off on the topic, though.

Having never taken a trainee through this process of obtaining a 500lb deadlift; having no appreciation of how baseline that actually is in the athletic populations we're discussing here; having never done it himself; and having no understanding that replacing all the Silly Crap these guys are doing in the gym with 1.5 hours of effective stuff 3 times a week preseason and maybe 2x per week in-season is far more time efficient than the endless sets of planks, one legged kettlebell deadlifts, and wood choppers so many of them are currently wasting their time with - our Myopic Friend comes to the conclusion that stronger can't be de facto better in sports because eventually you have to train five, six, seven days a week in order to achieve this baseline Pluripotent spoke of

If you guys want to keep indulging this moron, I'll keep approving his bullshit repetitive posts. But he's trolling you. That's all.

[Pluripotent]

Drs.Feigenbaum and Baraki have both managed to obtain strength levels that would likely place them among the strongest players in the NFL, and they somehow managed to do that while going to Med School and through their residencies. And similar-age rugby players are so much busier than Med students they couldn't possibly be expected to obtain deadlift strength 200lb less than the Docs? Or is it more likely their coaches simply don't know how to do it, so they have them do Medicine Ball slams and Y Balance Tests instead?

Well, I went to med school and residency, and I'm still amazed at what the above Drs. were able to do. I got a late start, first started with SS 2nd year of residency and it's been 3 years now. Wish I would have found out about you guys sooner. I suppose I'll have to maintain a personal grudge against Rip and company for not getting in touch with me in my early 20s when I weighed all of 135 lbs and hurt my back doing random shit out of Arnold's book. But even then, I'm not sure I'd be able to be as awesome as Drs. Feigenbaum and Baraki. Maybe I'll have to set up a second account and start trolling those fuckers.

[DeriHughes]

Having never taken a trainee through this process of obtaining a 500lb deadlift; having no appreciation of how baseline that actually is in the athletic populations we're discussing here

This is the consistent issue with the arguments being made in this and the 'rugby thread'. Marenghi and others are of the opinion that a 500lb deadlift represents some extraordinary level of strength that requires significant dedication of resources over multiple years for professional athletes to achieve, despite the countless examples to the contrary. It just demonstrates the lack of relevant experience informing their opinions. Or, they are just trolling.

[David Mitchell]

I have a troll problem and need help. Is there a 12 step for that?

[hector_garza]

In every application that I wrote: When you decide not to get stronger - to be weaker than you could be if you will - if that saves you ressources for pursuing other qualities as an athlete in sports, especially when the needs of your sport dont call for more strength. Or for the average Joe who values health more than highest strength possible.

This is not a novel thought on your part.
It's a simple idea everyone is already aware of; opportunity cost.
There is a point where achieving the next level of strength will require so much effort that it is not the most productive goal for the athlete. Mark has written about this himself.
That point comes after easily attainable, baseline levels of strength are achieved.

Truckloads of us here have achieved deadlifts over 500lbs while working fulltime jobs and participating in recreational sports.

You fail to understand how simple it is to acquire basic levels of strength. You misrepresent Mark's position.

[Mugaaz]

The only useful post in this entire thread.

[Brodie Butland]

If you guys want to keep indulging this moron, I'll keep approving his bullshit repetitive posts. But he's trolling you. That's all.

I'm not sure it's trolling so much as a genuine failure to understand what we're actually saying, and then lacking the practical experience to make a coherent response. This phenomenon is already ubiquitous in political discussions...I don't see why it wouldn't creep into discussions of other things as well.

An academic who has not himself put up a three-plate squat and has never trained completely average other people with all sorts of life obligations to do the same might very well think that a three-plate squat is a difficult endeavor requiring a significant amount of time, and thus could in completely good faith make the claim that literal genetic freaks making millions of dollars a year to play a physical game probably don't have the time to do the same thing. But ask any SSC on this board who has trained males under 30, and they'll all say that a three-plate squat is vastly undershooting for those same genetic freaks...and we know, because we've done it ourselves, and we've consistently seen other completely average people do it, in 5 or fewer hours total out of a 168-hour week.

This is the problem of working exclusively in the ivory tower versus getting dirty in the trenches. Theory works great until reality doesn't match it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

As for the mentality part: Sure. Just that in practice, some people I have spoken about, in order to reach their goals, WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH THE ONE REACHING BEING THEIR STRONGEST, CONSCIOUSLY need to decide that they wont train more than they have.




Yes of course, these also are situations, where "strong is strong enough". Tell that to your forum comrades.




This is basically the same argument Bill Bean makes: Jason and Austin could go complete med school while getting so strong - so why cant professional athletes? Btw, Gene Hawley already gave an excellent explanation of the circumstances rugby players have to deal with in comparison to you, me Jason or Austin.
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)
Lifting stats in the NRL (Rugby)

So Id like to give you another reason why they dont - and in some cases even shouldnt.


The questions are:
1. Should they? Does the athlete really profit from a 500lbs DL? More concise: Does he profit from trying to and finally reach that goal more than dedicating less ressources to that goal and say, have a 400lbs DL? This is an empirical question, you cant simply claim this is the case is "...because stronger is better...because stronger is better". That depends highly on the sport - in one sport, a 600lbs deadlift is worth training for, in another one, a 500lbs DL is not.

2. Do you want to select ("entry level strength" what Pluripotent said) for a 500lbs DL? Again, this is an empirical question, different for every sport. High school and college strength training often is sub-par. Selecting for 500lbs DL strength levels in young athletes with shitty strength training background means we´re selecting for talent in max strength. That means were selecting sub-optimally, with a lot of false-positives (ones that are strong, but with little potential in technique, for example) and false-negatives (ones that currently are not strong, but score highly in other qualities).

Two examples:

a) May I introduce to you Andres Iniesta. 5ft 7, 150lbs Andrés Iniesta - Wikipedia

Attachment 5783

Now, soccer is a team sports with slight opponent contact (legal and illegal). So theoretically, strong, heavy players with a lot of strength would have an advantage in certain situations. On the other hand, that wouldnt allow them do fullfill the heavy aerobic demands of the sport: If we wrote the year 1980 - Id agree Andres should try to put quite some muscles on. Average distance covered in a game was around 8km. Today for a midfielder like Andres, its 12km.

b) Lee Chong Wei Long-time World Ranking No.1 in Badminton, 5ft 7, 150lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Chong_Wei

Lee+Chong+Wei+Yonex+Hong+Kong+Open+J5wT0Z8fZkbl.jpg

In contrast to soccer, Badminton players cover less distance (net playing time is much less). They need to move one semi-heavy object around (as we saw, 150lbs for Lee Chong Wei), thats their own body. So for the lower body, the demands of the s-v-curve are both for strength and velocity. He indeed would profit from lower body strength. Whereas upper body/arm strength has different demands: He accelerates the racket and finally the ball/shuttle. Weight of the racket: 200g (7oz), weight of the ball: 20g. Demands are clearly very high for velocity, low for strength on the s-v-curve. I explained that in detail in another thread already.

Long arms are very advantageous for reach and high velocities (catapult effect, similar to a long torso in the clean).

And thats exactly the body type what elite players are (self-)selected and train for. If we selected for "upper body strength", lets say a 280lbs bench, it would be a catastrophic selection criteria, because that selects for heavier body weight, shorter arms - and near-static strength instead of high velocities with low weights.

You see, strength is specific. Demands are specific. Demands and the way to reach these demands are conflicting. Thats why "strength is strength" and "more strength is better" is simply wrong.







I explicitly and very clearly stated what I disagree with. So if by "attacking you" you mean what Im doing, i.e. discussing a point with you in a civilized manner.

Im interested then in what you call this collection of purposeful ad hominem, strawman - and flat out insult?

This may be the longest trolling post in the history of the Q&A. I don't hang around in E&P, do the trolls down there post this much text?

[nykid]

This guy boggles the mind.

Everyone here understands the concept of limited training resources and "specific" strength. What you DON'T seem to understand is that for a genetic freak professional athlete, a 500 lb deadlift is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY EASY to obtain. I'm a skinny 33-year-old desk jockey dork and I squat 460 and pull 500 - the fact that there is even ONE solitary professional rugby player (or NFL player) weaker than me, despite a much better genetic profile and MORE muscle mass, is a reflection of their STUPID TRAINING, not their lack of resources.

[Marenghi]

Some posters insist on me having said that Id see a 500lbs DL always as either unnecessary or incredibly hard to reach for "elite" or "gifted" athletes.

This is flat out wrong. Where did I say that? Cite my exact quote before alleging a host of bullshit and ad hominems.

Quite the contrary, I have stated that it depends on the demands of a sport (or goals in general):

That depends highly on the sport - in one sport, a 600lbs deadlift is worth training for, in another one, a 500lbs DL is not.

You see, strength is specific. Demands are specific. Demands and the way to reach these demands are conflicting. Thats why "strength is strength" and "more strength is better" is simply wrong.

I even gave two specific examples where a 500lbs DL may not be a good trade-off (Andres Iniesta), one where it might be a good one for lower body strength, but not for upper body strength (Lee Chong Wei).

I give these examples, because some dont seem to understand that there are not only diminishing returns, but even drawbacks to trying to reach reach certain strength levels for certain athletes. I have the impression that some are also incredibly fixated on some sports where even high upper/lower body strength (no, in case youre again trying very hard to misunderstand me again - I mean more than a 500lbs DL with that) is desirable and training for it has positive trade-offs.

I chimed in the discussion because some generalizations like this

The first team that makes a 500 lbs deadlift an entry level requirement would likely make a sweep of everyone else, and sports would be forever changed.

are simply wrong, because as mentioned strength is specific, there is not "one strength", demands are specific and therefore "more strength" (there is none general strength) is not always better let alone "sports-changing". I hope I could clarify my point.