Coach,
Is "you can never get too strong" a non-literal and catchy piece of advice to lazies who are more concerned with visible abs and Functional Training than they are with getting stronger in the most efficient and effective way possible, kind of like GOMAD (which has been clarified)? Or is it a logical conclusion no matter Who the premise is?
Let me be clear; I understand perfectly that more Strength is never 'bad', instead it'd be the side-effects of more strength (mass, in particular). By 'bad' I mean negative in the context of performance, e.g. in endurance events... increased strength (after a point) means increased mass, the benefits of which will at some point no longer supercede the increased energy demands of that increased mass.
I vaguely remember you saying in one thread, something like "One can never be too strong, but there are a couple of sports in which one can be too big". How many is 'a couple'??? I'm pretty sure I understand the concept of diminishing returns with regards to Strength vs Endurance, but I want to make sure I haven't missed something. I could probably count 30 sports off the top of my head in under a minute where 'too big' becomes a reality. Am I missing something, do we have different ideas of what qualifies as a sport, or what?
Also, I suppose that wrt such a one-liner, if indeed the 'couple' thing was an exaggeration, as well as it works for ab-bros and the genetically medriocre who are worried about becoming Belgian Blues after a NLP, a pro athlete with the amount of conditioning and practice that they undertake will never have to understand that there is indeed such a thing as 'too big', as they'll never get there anyway, 'there' being the point of diminishing returns. So yeah, is it that or am I missing something?