Strong enough for what?

[LimieJosh]

I was a soccer player who benefited from being stronger than most players I played against. This was partly natural, but partly the result of the training that was required of me to play rugby at the level I did as a kid, and the persistence of those adaptations. So certainly we can say that strength is beneficial to soccer players. The issue is how to prioritize acquiring it when the demands of playing and practicing are already so high. In a 9 month competitive season in which you play twice a week, and have to find a way to do some effective training ground work on at least one day in between, there is not really much if any physical resources left to put towards in-season strength training. I certainly have known players who suffered from putting too much of their resources towards extra-curricular strength training and left too little in the tank to put towards what little time we had on the training ground between matches. In a 20 year career though that number totals probably not more than the number you can count on one hand. For as deconditioned to strength training as the overwhelming majority of competitive players are, all you would need to do to get meaningful results would be to work up to one moderate set of 5 for the squat and bench and then get the hell out of there to eat and sleep. However, to do that in the competitive season requires help from the coach, and that is where the biggest problem was for me throughout my career, even as someone with the appreciation for what it could do for me, some understanding of what to do, and the desire to follow through.

If I know my upcoming week includes games on Saturday, Wednesday, and Sunday, and I know what we’re going to be doing on the days in between, I can find a way to get in the gym do enough to maintain what I had at the beginning of the season. For most players that would be enough to actually see improvements even during the competitive season. However, what tended to be the biggest obstacle was dick coaches with no appreciation of how to physically prepare players. If all of a sudden you throw additional conditioning at us on a day we hadn’t planned for because you thought we were flagging in the last game then you’re screwing me. If you are unsure about your selection and instead of doing low demand tactical drills we have a full field practice match, with selections for the next game on the line, then you’re fucking us all. If you decide to make us do conditioning as punishment then you’re the problem. Unfortunately, these coaches who avoid the temptation to act like that are the purple unicorn of the soccer world, and this is true in my experience in both the US and UK. And I suspect it is also true of most sports for which strength helps but is not the most important trait. Hell, I’ve seen it extensively even in your hand egg version of football in which strength is primary (and the games less frequent).

[Pawn]

And while I couldve linked to any scientific literature, Chris Beardsley tackled the question on hand directly in his article, so I linked to that that several times. (I also gave a recommendation for a good entry-level textbook, Science and Practice of Strength Training, that everyone should read before discussing such topics.). Seems that I failed miserably as almost noone has read it, proving the suspicion that some simply wont learn (the one who did read it, commented without further explanation that the "author made internal inconsistencies in the definition of strength and seemed to have failed high school physics" - ahh, yeah. Those poor scientists all over the world, back to high school. ). Or that I should post them with an incentive, I dont know. How do you get people to read stuff that could possibly lead to more knowledge - but also challenge their beliefs? Thats always hard to answer, not only in students.

I original had a response to the linked article, but figured going through them would be a 'dick-move' and did not post them. The article itself is embarrassing to read.

Okay... the primary claim of this article is that there are at least 8 ways in which strength is specific. Examples are given for the (at least) 8 types of strength. Lets go through them one by one.

#1. Eccentric Strength - The premise that training the concentric motion produces a different training stimulus than the eccentric motion; this would be self-evident. Similarly a front squat produces a different training stimulus to a deadlift. A different movement pattern does not constitute a new 'strength'.

#2. High-velocity Strength - So Power. Also... evidence that movement patterns train movement patterns.

#3. Maximum Strength - Aside from the laughable definition of light and heavy... moving heavier things through the same movement pattern means you are stronger.

#4. Range of Motion - How is 'range of motion' exclusionary to 'strength'? It appears to be the same statement... force exerted against an external resistance through a movement pattern.

#5. Stability - So... not falling down while performing a movement pattern... by applying a force against an external resistance... If you use a fixed machine... then you don't train the movement pattern or strength of the muscles required to maintain balance.

#6. External load type - Constant Loads, Accommodating Resistance, Constant Force, etc. -- So force applied against an external resistance that varies throughout the movement pattern.

#7. Force Vector - Varying the direction of the load (external resistance) -- So force applied against an external resistance.

#8. Muscle group - You need to train body parts... So force applied against an external resistance through a movement pattern.

So our new definition appears to be:
"Strength is force applied against an external resistance through a specific movement pattern."



I think the flaw in logic here appears to be that 'strength' means 'size'. They are linked factors, but the argument is that being 'stronger is inherently better' which is not the same as saying that 'larger is inherently better'.

Does anybody think that increasing an athlete's squat by 50 lbs without changing their mass or body composition will negatively impact their performance within their sport?

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Lets go through them one by one.

Excellent post. Devastating.

[quikky]

You make us so very uncomfortable, and this board is our Safe Space.

And "Marenghi" is a Trigger Word.

How about you put a trigger warning on threads like this? I seriously, honestly, regret reading this thread. I have been micro-aggressed upon, and it hurts.

[Mark Rippetoe]

However, I tried to get across some substantial differences in understanding on training in athletes. Some simply lack information beyond the SS books to understand the topic. So I tried to give information. And while I couldve linked to any scientific literature, Chris Beardsley tackled the question on hand directly in his article, so I linked to that that several times. (I also gave a recommendation for a good entry-level textbook, Science and Practice of Strength Training, that everyone should read before discussing such topics.).

This is really the amazing part of this thread. I think he actually believes this.

[Brodie Butland]

I original had a response to the linked article, but figured going through them would be a 'dick-move' and did not post them. The article itself is embarrassing to read.

Okay... the primary claim of this article is that there are at least 8 ways in which strength is specific. Examples are given for the (at least) 8 types of strength. Lets go through them one by one.

#1. Eccentric Strength - The premise that training the concentric motion produces a different training stimulus than the eccentric motion; this would be self-evident. Similarly a front squat produces a different training stimulus to a deadlift. A different movement pattern does not constitute a new 'strength'.

#2. High-velocity Strength - So Power. Also... evidence that movement patterns train movement patterns.

#3. Maximum Strength - Aside from the laughable definition of light and heavy... moving heavier things through the same movement pattern means you are stronger.

#4. Range of Motion - How is 'range of motion' exclusionary to 'strength'? It appears to be the same statement... force exerted against an external resistance through a movement pattern.

#5. Stability - So... not falling down while performing a movement pattern... by applying a force against an external resistance... If you use a fixed machine... then you don't train the movement pattern or strength of the muscles required to maintain balance.

#6. External load type - Constant Loads, Accommodating Resistance, Constant Force, etc. -- So force applied against an external resistance that varies throughout the movement pattern.

#7. Force Vector - Varying the direction of the load (external resistance) -- So force applied against an external resistance.

#8. Muscle group - You need to train body parts... So force applied against an external resistance through a movement pattern.

If only we could come up with a group of movements that would train all of these various items at once...

[m_sporkboy]

How about you put a trigger warning on threads like this? I seriously, honestly, regret reading this thread. I have been micro-aggressed upon, and it hurts.

I don't know about triggered, but I definitely feel dumber for having read it.

[Marenghi]

Pawn: Its not about the parroted "there is one strength and the rest is movement patterns - so lets do some "general strength training" and take care of the latter by sports practice". Because those different modes change disticnt neurological as well as morphological structures. "Different movement patterns" is a bad and misleading description for that (as Brodie´s post shows, as he made the wrong conclusion).

Of course there is a difference between muscle size and strength - with size being the more general adaptation. This is not a flaw of the arcticle. In fact, Chris Beardsley has written a piece on exactly this distinction in the specificity context. (Yeah, so many articles to read...).

And of course a 50lbs deadlift increase can be either favourable, useless, or even detrimental to some sports performance, depending on all the factors I mentioned throughout this thread: sports demands, trade-offs, level of athlete. Thats the whole point of specificity in athletes and their respective sports. I know its hard to grasp that concept if you only think of beginners or of certain sports - I tried to make that clear with two sports examples of an elite soccer and badminton player.

Which leads us to Brodie´s rhetorical wondering : Inded, there almost always is an exercise that is well suited to improve a specific type of strength. A deadlift for example is one exercise of many to cater to a very specific kind of strength: If you read through Chris´points, you could describe a typical 3 or 5RM set as: high strength, near-static/low velocity, arbitrary ROM (defined by the plates), concentric-only for the prime movers (isometric for most of the back muscles), bilateral, stable ground, semi-stable, constant load. Again, that may or not may be a suitable exercise, depending on the type of strength you need, the level of athlete you have.

I think I have made my point clear. If someone thinks to see any "flaws" in this information which as I said is not new and well-known in sports science, it may be wise to research a bit and inform yourself, reading closely, before jumping to any misled conclusions as for example Brodie did when chiming in. I gave some ressources, just go from there or anywhere else and search the literature.

That is, if you have an open mind to learn and accept that maybe, some tiny portion of what some people (maybe you) think may not be what is shown by evidence.

Safe space, I know, Rip. Wont bother your audience again.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I think I have made my point clear. If someone thinks to see any "flaws" in this information which as I said is not new and well-known in sports science, it may be wise to research a bit and inform yourself, reading closely, before jumping to any misled conclusions as for example Brodie did when chiming in. I gave some ressources, just go from there or anywhere else and search the literature.

That is, if you have an open mind to learn and accept that maybe, some tiny portion of what some people (maybe you) think may not be what is shown by evidence.

The "sports science" is shit, and the evidence is shit.

Safe space, I know, Rip. Wont bother your audience again.

You already promised.

[I_iz_a_fatass]

And of course a 50lbs deadlift increase can be either favourable, useless, or even detrimental to some sports performance, depending on all the factors I mentioned throughout this thread: sports demands, trade-offs, level of athlete.

must not feed the troll... must not feed the troll... must not feed the troll...

Can you show an example where this happened?