Sport specificity and strength

[SS-FZ]

Why is specificity required to test strength? Is a man who deadlifts 500 stronger than a man who deadlifts 450?

I don't know, maybe he's just better at the deadlift because he's practised it so much.

Why is strength tied to deadlift numbers? A man who can deadlift 500 isn't necessarily stronger than a man who deadlifts 450. A man who deadlifts 600 may be very likely to be stronger than a man with a 300 deadlift.

Now if we get both of these lifters on different exercises -- now who's 'stronger'? Is the 500lb deadlifter ALWAYS going to be able to exert the most force against external resistance in these newer, stranger exercises?

Specificity towards a goal is on a continuum (as described by PPST). If that goal is to dead-lift more weight, and we're using the dead-lift as the test of strength then specificity becomes relevant to our test, does it not?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Why is strength tied to deadlift numbers? A man who can deadlift 500 isn't necessarily stronger than a man who deadlifts 450. A man who deadlifts 600 may be very likely to be stronger than a man with a 300 deadlift.

What is strength? This is the key to this pointless discussion.

[SS-FZ]

What is strength? This is the key to this pointless discussion.

I get it,

Strength is the ability to produce force against an external resistance. The guy with the bigger dead-lift produced more forced against the floor in a particular position with the bar in his hands therefore he is stronger.

Here's what i'm saying: Strength by definition isn't tied to an exercise, maybe it is better to say it is tied to body-parts (muscle mass in those areas), since we know that larger muscle mass cross sectional area allow stronger muscle contractions that operate the system of levers (skeleton) in such a way that allows us to move more weight with those body-parts regardless of exercise choice/past practice of the movement etc...

Back to dead-lifts: Do sumo dead-lifts count? Are you telling me that someone who pulls 205kg sumo style 4 inches from the ground is stronger than someone who conventional dead-lifts 200kg with perfect form? Sure he produced more force against the floor, but is he "stronger"? -- or just better at cheating his ROM allowing him to do dead-lift more?

Dead-lifting and being strong are related but not the same thing.

I don't think this is a pointless discussion, I think it has some implications for training, exercise selection and sheds light on the role of hypertrophy in the context of strength. I could be wrong but we're all learning.

[Will Morris]

I think, based on the hypothetical situation presented, the powerlifter is stronger because at those loads, the practice effect is likely negligible.

A more realistic scenario: two powerlifters are training for a meet. #1 performs a meet taper and practices heavy triples, doubles, and singles leading up to meet. #2 continues to train fives and does not do a meet taper. Given the same training weights for 5s, is #1 able to perform more on a 1Rm because he is more practiced?......

Yeah, probably. 1RMs are a learned skill.

[VivekSaini007]

* raises hand *

[Scaldrew]

What is strength? This is the key to this pointless discussion.

Force consumption against an internal resistance?

[perman]

I think you're being intentionally obtuse Rip. If the bodybuilder would beat the powerlifter on most other strength tests besides 1RM on squat, bench and deadlift, it's not unreasonable to consider him generally "stronger" than the powerlifter. It's not as if 1RM in those lifts is some naturally derived metric, it's just a convenient metric that usually tells us who has higher strength. The test fails in this specific case.

[Dalton Clark]

The Starting Strength definition of strength is the ability (or capacity) to produce force against an external resistance. U In order for us to test application of force against an external resistance in a way that can be compared across the population, we must decide on a particular movement pattern. Let's say the squat or the deadlift since those two have been mentioned. Now, a part of being able to produce force against an external resistance is how talented the lifter is at moving the load/producing force in the most ideal way possible. It is impossible to separate the display of force from the practice of that display. The powerlifter is stronger on the squat than the bodybuilder in your example. Part of that is probably because he is more practiced.

Strength - in the testing sense - is limited to the movement. Someone can be stronger on the deadlift than another. Someone can be stronger on the squat or the bench or the press. The claim that one person is "stronger" than another is a generalization made from many different displays of strength in several different motor patterns that attempt to give a holistic view of their capacity.

[Joe Heisey]

Why is strength tied to deadlift numbers? A man who can deadlift 500 isn't necessarily stronger than a man who deadlifts 450. A man who deadlifts 600 may be very likely to be stronger than a man with a 300 deadlift.

The point is not that strength is tied to deadlift numbers, but deadlift numbers are tied to strength. Inasmuch as the increase of deadlift skill improves deadlift numbers, it only means that the muscles are being utilized properly, thus increasing force production. But even technical improvements won't account for a weak muscle.
What you're talking about is the ability to express that strength in unfamiliar movements (a skill deficiency). So of course a guy who's practiced strongman exercises will be better than a slightly stronger guy who doesn't know how to do it.

Now if we get both of these lifters on different exercises -- now who's 'stronger'? Is the 500lb deadlifter ALWAYS going to be able to exert the most force against external resistance in these newer, stranger exercises?

If they're new and strange for everyone being tested, then yes. But by the fact of not being deadlifts or squats, these exercises will be inferior tests of strength because they artificially isolate certain body parts from other body parts and don't test the body as a system.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Here's what i'm saying: Strength by definition isn't tied to an exercise, maybe it is better to say it is tied to body-parts (muscle mass in those areas), since we know that larger muscle mass cross sectional area allow stronger muscle contractions that operate the system of levers (skeleton) in such a way that allows us to move more weight with those body-parts regardless of exercise choice/past practice of the movement etc...

If you want to define it as the contractile force produced by a muscle group, then the test would involve only that muscle group. Assuming we decide to test strength, this seems pretty silly unless you're an arm trainer at Golds.

Back to dead-lifts: Do sumo dead-lifts count? Are you telling me that someone who pulls 205kg sumo style 4 inches from the ground is stronger than someone who conventional dead-lifts 200kg with perfect form? Sure he produced more force against the floor, but is he "stronger"? -- or just better at cheating his ROM allowing him to do dead-lift more?

And this is why I have argued for decades that sumo deadlifts should not be allowed in powerlifting, and that since ROM is controlled on the squat it should obviously be controlled on the bench and the deadlift too. There are ways, but Powerlifting is a trailer-park sport, peopled by folks who are real happy with the way it is now.

Dead-lifting and being strong are related but not the same thing.

Depends on what you mean by "dead-lifting," as we just observed. If you want to test and compare things, the tests must be of the same thing, right? I thought this was obvious.

I think it has some implications for training, exercise selection and sheds light on the role of hypertrophy in the context of strength.

What implications that we haven't already thought about did you have in mind?

The point is not that strength is tied to deadlift numbers, but deadlift numbers are tied to strength. Inasmuch as the increase of deadlift skill improves deadlift numbers, it only means that the muscles are being utilized properly, thus increasing force production. But even technical improvements won't account for a weak muscle.
What you're talking about is the ability to express that strength in unfamiliar movements (a skill deficiency). So of course a guy who's practiced strongman exercises will be better than a slightly stronger guy who doesn't know how to do it.


If they're new and strange for everyone being tested, then yes. But by the fact of not being deadlifts or squats, these exercises will be inferior tests of strength because they artificially isolate certain body parts from other body parts and don't test the body as a system.

I don't have much to add to this.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse Rip. If the bodybuilder would beat the powerlifter on most other strength tests besides 1RM on squat, bench and deadlift, it's not unreasonable to consider him generally "stronger" than the powerlifter. It's not as if 1RM in those lifts is some naturally derived metric, it's just a convenient metric that usually tells us who has higher strength. The test fails in this specific case.

And I think you're being pointlessly argumentative. If we are actually going to compare the strength of two different humans, we have to do it with tests upon which both agree to perform. If we are merely going to type about comparing strength on the internet in order to appear to be Speaking Truth To Power, I guess we can type about it any way we want to.