Strength is Specific

[Xfitter]

Google "just get strong beardsley".

I downloaded the 97 page ebook before seeing the summary. Ugh. (I was originally googling FMS.)

It appears that he is equating the action of the thing being acted on with the force that acted on it.

"you will learn that strength gains are greater when tested with the same muscle action, velocity, range of motion, external load type, and degree of stability as are used in training. So if you want to improve your ability to decelerate, eccentric training is better than concentric training. To improve force production at high speeds, high-velocity is better than low-velocity training. To get strong over partial ranges of motion, partials are better than full range of motion exercises. To get strong against a constant load, train with a constant load. To get strong in unstable environments, training under those conditions gets you stronger than a more stable set-up."

Might just be trick in definitions leading to the ever-so tempting proprietary complexity, but I just can't get through his writing style!

Discuss.

[Mark Rippetoe]

When you train the tested conditions, and when you test what you have trained, you will see improvement. I see no reason to discuss this, but have fun if you want to.

[CJ Gotcher]

Practice is specific, and when you practice creating force against an external resistance under unstable conditions, you'll get stronger within that narrow circumstance, certainly.

Strength, however, is general. You (using the general 'you,' not referring to Xfitter) would never look at a muscled, 215 pound male who can squat 600+ pounds and think to yourself "But I've got him on the wobbleboard, so I'm stronger" unless you're either
a) unable to accept that someone is stronger than you at something and desperate for an out, or
b) delusional.

More importantly, all else being equal, that 215-pound male can reach and surpass your wobbleboard squat (or insert sporting activity here) with a great deal less time and effort than it took you to get there because his excess capacity (and therefore tolerance for error) vastly exceeds yours and it doesn't take long to 'figure out' the special conditions of the test. This concept of 'dynamic correspondence' (I blame the Russians) is the root of a lot of bullshit.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

I don't see anything in this that is utterly incorrect. It bleeds over a bit into the Training vs Practice discussion, but that's about it. Rip's right though...lots of other stuff to get mad at besides this