The Importance Of Strength
Strength is the one physical attribute that crosses all athletic/sporting
barriers, as well as the gender barrier. There is not one person, male or
female, or one activity that they’d choose to perform, that wouldn’t benefit
from them being stronger! Think about it: the stronger you are, the easier (or
less physically demanding) everything else becomes, relatively speaking.
With that being said, I realize that there are optimal amounts of strength
required for various activities, and that more strength doesn’t always
translate into better performance/results, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
It is for these reasons that building a solid foundation of strength,
systemically throughout the body, is the underlying theme to all training
programs that I am in charge of developing for the people that I work with, and
it should be for anyone that hasn’t achieved optimal levels of strength. Once
someone has attained an optimal level of strength, there is a lot more room to
play around with variety and still make progress. Until then, it is of little
value to spend time performing movements that you are only able to move minimal
amounts of weight with.
The nervous system, and its interaction with the muscular system, is primarily
responsible for gains in strength, especially in ‘beginners’ and those with
little training experience, so let’s go over a brief rundown of how it does
that.
Brief rundown of the nervous system and how it relates to
moving weight
A ‘motor unit’ consists of a ‘pool’ of motor neurons and ALL the muscle
fibers that it innervates. Another way to look at it is each muscle fiber(s) is
supplied by its own pool of motor neurons.
Motor signals originate in the motor cortex, travel down a corticospinal
pathway and connect to a motor neuron (in what is called the ventral horn of
the spinal cord), which then relays the message to the muscle fibers to
contract. A muscle fiber is either fully contracted as a result of it being
recruited to assist with the execution of the task at hand, or not contracted
at all due to not being recruited because the brain doesn’t perceive the task
to be challenging enough to need to recruit it. There is no in between, and no
such thing as a ‘half contracted’ muscle fiber. Even though it may feel as if a
muscle feels ‘harder’ at times, than it does at others, this is simply due to
the fact that more muscle fibers are being recruited based on the demand placed
upon the muscle.
The nervous system balances excitation (+) with inhibition (-) which determines
the end result. Through strength training, one can increase the excitability of
corticomotorneurons in the motor cortex, and motor neurons in the spinal cord.
The more excitable a motor neuron becomes the larger response ANY given signal
will produce.
If maximal force production, or strength development, is the goal, maximal
excitation coupled with minimal inhibition is the obvious desired adaptation.
Theoretical examples of excitation and inhibition
Let’s say ones brain perceives a given task (ex. lift a given amount of
weight) will require the recruitment of 10 hypothetical motor units (we’ll use
a round number for simplicity). The brain then sends those 10 from the motor
cortex to the motor neuron where they are processed (assuming none are
inhibited), to which 10 hypothetical motor neurons are then be sent to their correlated
muscle fibers to generate force/contraction.
Following periods of strength training (generally several weeks), the
excitability may be increased to the point where, for every 10 motor units sent
from the motor cortex, 15 hypothetical motor neurons may then be sent to the
muscles, whereas before it would have only been 10. More motor neurons being
recruited per motor unit would mean that the nervous system has become more
efficient, resulting in being able to produce more force!
The concept of increased force production due to decreased inhibition is
similar to the above example about increased excitation. For example, it is
possible that, out of the 10 hypothetical motor units that are sent from the
motor cortex in the example above, only 5 of them may make it to the motor
neuron, due to some form of presynaptic (before the signal reaches the motor
neuron) inhibition. Decreasing this inhibition, which results from strength
training, could lead to 7, or 8, hypothetical motor units making it to the
motor neuron. The more motor units that make it to the neuron, the more neurons
that can ultimately be recruited.
For the record, the nervous system is a lot more complex than the examples
above may suggest, but their purpose is to help one develop an understanding of
its role in force production.
The ways in which the nervous system specifically contributes
to force production
The following is the order in which the nervous system works to produce
force. The first factor, motor unit recruitment could be looked at as the
‘quantity’, while the remaining factors, rate coding, motor unit
synchronization, doublet firing, and alterations in antagonist activity could
be looked at as ‘quality’. Combined, quantity and quality, could be looked at
as ‘efficiency’.
Motor unit recruitment – motor units are recruited as needed in order from
smallest to largest. The largest, high-threshold motor units are only called
upon when the smaller, low-threshold motor units have already been recruited.
There is a ceiling effect to motor unit recruitment, as you are limited by the
amount of motor units that can be recruited, and once you’ve reached the
maximum number of motor unit activation, increased force production will have
to come from the following ways.
Rate coding – the frequency, or ‘rate’, of discharge is referred to as
rate coding. A motor unit fires at an increasingly rapid rate to produce
increasing amounts of force once it is recruited. Only when a motor unit
reaches its maximal firing rate, are additional motor units recruited.
Motor unit synchronization – when two different motor units are firing at
the same rate (or very close to), there is a rapid increase in force
production, as the second firing is able to take advantage of increased
muscular stiffness created by the first contraction.
Doublet firing – is very similar to synchronization, only it involves the
same motor unit discharging at a faster than normal rate, which results in a
rapid increase in force production, as the second firing is able to take
advantage of increased muscular stiffness created by the first contraction,
much like with synchronization.
Alterations in antagonistic activity – strength training results in
decreased antagonistic activity/increased antagonist inhibition.
Hypothetically, if the agonist recruits 15 motor units, and the antagonist recruits
5 motor units to provide joint stability, the net result is 10 net motor units.
But, if the antagonist recruits less motor units, there will be a higher net
result, leading to more force production.
*The reason beginners, or those ‘just getting back into it’, typically see
rapid gains in strength, is due to the fact that the nervous system adapts
relatively quickly to training (or anything for that matter), and not because
muscles have ‘memory’. Muscles only know tension. They don’t know why they are
creating tension, and cannot differentiate whether that tension is being placed
upon them due to lifting a free weight, machine, or any other form of
resistance.
The nervous system is a trainable characteristic, which means, if one has
not spent a great deal of time and effort in developing it, their ability to
recruit the high-threshold motor units, as fast as possible, in synch with one
another is limited, and therefore there is a lot of room for improvement.
Factors that influence neural adaptations
If strength is the goal, then it is of paramount importance that one trains
the nervous system to become as efficient as possible at recruiting the
high-threshold motor units as soon, and as often as possible, when a weight is
lifted. There are a few ways in which the nervous system can be trained to
become more efficient and improve performance, and they are, but are not
limited to:
Intended
concentric lifting speed: The faster one intends to lift a weight, irrespective of
how heavy it is, the more force that is required, which means the maximal
amount of motor units are more likely to be recruited faster, and in synch, to complete
the lift. This is why ones intent should almost always be, to lift with as much
force as possible, because the sooner the highest-threshold motor units are
recruited, the more time they have, before fatigue becomes a limiting factor,
to increase their firing rate, therefore more force can ultimately be produced.
Lifting as fast as possible basically trains the nervous system to go from
‘0-60’ in as little time as possible.
Lift heavy: The heavier the weight
is that one attempts to lift, the more force that is required to do so, which
means the maximal amount of motor units are more likely to be recruited as fast
as possible, as well as in synch with one another, to complete the lift. The
heavier the weight is, the less reps that can be performed, which means there
will be minimal reliance on the lactic acid energy system, which enables one to
focus on the quality of movement and cement the proper motor pattern needed to
maximize improvements in the lift, without reaching technical failure which is
typically associated with higher rep sets.
The major drawback to lifting heavy is that the coordination pattern of
the lift may be negatively affected, and technical breakdown is more likely to occur
as a result of the weight being so damn heavy.
For example, it is all too common to see an elite lifter attempt a maximal
deadlift, in which their back instinctively rounds forward, which by most
standards would be considered ‘poor form’. This is primarily a compensatory
effect that allows many lifters to handle far greater weights, as the deadlift
itself is a dynamic spinal extension movement (the spine is lengthened in the
bottom position, and shortened in the top position), and rounding the spine places
the muscles of the core in a mechanically advantageous position to increase the
amount of intra-abdominal pressure to stabilize the spine, even though the risk
of injury is greater.
Technical breakdown (like allowing the back to round during a max deadlift)
combined with maximal weight, greatly increases the risk of injury. Though lifting
heavy is necessary if one wants to continuously gain strength, nearly every
near maximal attempt will include some form of technical breakdown, as that’s
just how the body will naturally compensate in whatever way in needs to to lift
extremely heavy weights. However, consistently performing reps in which there
is some form of technical breakdown will not lead to the development of the
proper motor pattern needed to maximize improvements in the lift, and the
pattern that is developed will take a lot longer to unlearn, than it took to
develop, which is why it is suggested that maximal lifts be used sparingly.
Lift
moderate-light: Where heavy lifting excels in terms of recruiting motor
units by default of the weight being heavy, lifting moderate-light weights makes
up for by enabling one to lift with more explosiveness, and focus on the
quality of the movement to cement the proper motor pattern needed to maximize
improvements in a given lift, without reaching technical failure (unless enough
reps are performed to the point that lactic acid interferes with muscular
contraction).
If power = force X acceleration, and acceleration = distance / time
(therefore power = force X distance / time), then moderate-light weights permit
more power to be exerted than near maximal weights do, which will lead to
positive adaptations as far as strength development is concerned.
For example, out of the three variables that make up the power equation,
there is one constant (distance), as the bar can is limited to how far it can
travel based on the length of one’s limbs, and two variables (force and time) that
are subject to change based on the load used relative to ones strength levels. Hypothetically
speaking, let’s say the maximal amount of force that one can generate (AKA 1RM)
in the deadlift is 400 lbs, and being that a max weight cannot be lifted
explosively, we’ll say it takes 3 seconds to complete the rep (which is very
generous, as true max lifts can take up to double that amount of time, or more,
to complete). This means that one rep performed with 400 lbs. would produce
(400 lbs. X 2 ft. / 3 sec. = 2.67) 267 units of power, and since only one rep
can be performed, the total units of power produced during the set remains at
267.
Surely, if we drop the intensity to 80% of 1RM (320 lbs.), which would be
equivalent to roughly ones 8 rep max, it would be safe to assume that one rep
performed as explosively as possible could be completed in roughly 2 seconds
(in reality it would probably be less than 2 seconds, but for arguments sake,
and the purpose of keeping it simple we’ll go with 2). This means that one rep
performed with 320 lbs, by an individual that is capable of pulling 400 lbs,
would produce (320 X 2 / 2 = 320) 320 units of power. Combine this with the
fact that the weight could easily be lifted at that speed for roughly 4-6 reps
before fatigue would negatively affect acceleration, and the total units of
power produced during the set is (320 units of power X 4-6 reps = 1,280-1,920)
between 1,280, and 1,920 units of power. That’s a total of 4.79-7.91 times more
units of power produced compared to the max rep set!
Ultimately the limiting factor in the power equation becomes time, as one
can only rise so fast from the bottom of a deadlift, to the top, regardless of
how much weight is on the bar. If the intensity was lowered to 60% of 1RM (240
lbs.), which would be equivalent to roughly ones 20 rep max, it would be safe
to assume that one rep performed as explosively as possible could be completed
in roughly ¾ of a second. This means that one rep performed with 240 lbs, by
and individual that is capable of pulling 400 lbs, would produce (240 X 2 /
0.75 = 640) 640 units of power. Combine this with the fact that the weight
could easily be lifted at that speed for roughly 10-15 reps before fatigue
would negatively affect acceleration, and the total units of power produced
during the set is (640 units of power X 10-15 reps = 6,400-9,600) between
6,400, and 9,600 units of power. That’s a total of 23.97-35.96 times more units
of power produced compared to max rep set!
There does come a point though, where lowering the weight further, just to
lift the weight faster, provides no additional benefit. To prove this point,
let’s use 40% of 1RM (160 lbs.), and assume that one could not lift any amount
of weight through a full range of motion in the deadlift, in less than ½ a second.
In this case, one rep would also produce (160 X 2 / 0.5 = 640) 640 units of
power. In this hypothetical example, there would be no additional benefit to
use loads under 60% of 1RM. While a 40% load produces just as many units of
power as 60% does, the absolute amount of weight used does influence the end
result. If it didn’t, the best lifters in the world wouldn’t bother risking
injury by putting any weight on the bar.
Train to failure: As far as motor
unit recruitment is concerned, training to failure is the great equalizer that bridges
the gap between lifting heavy and lifting moderate-light. For whatever reason, when
it comes to motor unit recruitment, emphasis is only ever placed on lifting
heavy. But what a lot of people fail to realize is that, if motor units are
recruited as needed, then training to failure, in which you cannot perform
another rep, would mean that all available motor units had been recruited and exhausted,
irrespective of how many reps were performed. If they weren’t, then it wouldn’t
be failure! If lifting sub-maximal weights to failure did not recruit and
fatigue the high-threshold motor units, and therefore the larger fast-twitch
muscle fibers, bodybuilders wouldn’t train the way they do (typically
relatively light weight, with incomplete rest intervals), and build the kind of
size they have. Recruiting and exhausting only the low-threshold motor units,
and therefore the smaller slow-twitch muscle fibers, does not result in
building the kind of size bodybuilders have, regardless of the amount of
pharmaceuticals they are using.
Strength is a skill that is developed
A skill is something that is developed through stress and repetition, over
a sustained period of time. A skill is also something that is very specifically
developed, meaning that performing a given task will only maximize your ability
to perform that task, and not any others. This doesn’t mean that developing one
skill may not improve your ability to perform other tasks, as it may have some
level of carryover (which is why any athlete would strength train in the first
place) it simply means that it will not maximize your potential at performing
other tasks. An example of this would be, if one wanted to improve their
accuracy shooting a hockey puck or basketball, or hitting a baseball, then that
should be the primary focus, and all other tasks should become secondary until
that skill is developed to a satisfactory level, because no amount of weight
lifting (or any other activity aimed at improving performance) will improve
your accuracy as much as performing those specific tasks will.
In regards to strength training, excelling at one lift will not have complete
carryover to other lifts. This is why the term ‘World’s Strongest Man’ that is
given to men who win strongman competitions like the ‘World’s Strongest Man’,
as well as the absolute Olympic weightlifting champion (typically the winner of
the heavyweight division), is inaccurate. If strength was ‘standardized’, and
the ability to perform one lift/event better than anybody in the world carried
over to other lifts/events, then the ‘World’s Strongest Man’ would indeed be
able to bench press more than anybody in the world, squat more than anybody in
the world, deadlift more than anybody in the world, clean and jerk more than
anybody in the world, snatch more than anybody in the world, farmer’s walk more
than anybody in the world, you get the point. But, because there is a different
name in the record books under each of those lifts/events, the term ‘World’s
Strongest Man’ is not validated. The purpose of mentioning this is to reinforce
the point that strength is a very specific skill, and to excel at one lift,
does not mean you will excel at all, and as always, your goal should ultimately
determine exactly what you do, to get what you want.
The connection between strength and every other notable
physical attribute
There are many physical attributes that can be trained and developed, to
which one can become (more) ‘skilled’ at. The most practical as it relates to
human movement/functionality, in no particular order, are:
-
Speed – how fast one can go (distance / time)
-
Acceleration – amount of time it takes to get to top speed
-
Agility – how quickly one can change direction (decelerate
to accelerate)
-
Power – force X acceleration, AKA one’s ability to move a
certain weight, a certain distance in the shortest amount of time
-
Endurance/stamina – the ability to maintain/repeat an
effort over a sustained period of time
-
Flexibility – the range of motion around a joint
-
Size – pretty straight forward, the amount of muscle mass
one carries on their frame
-
STRENGTH! – the total amount of force that can be
generated, irrespective of time
While the attributes listed above can certainly be enhanced with specific
(drills/exercises used to specifically develop each attribute) and non-specific
training (strength training to make the body stronger as a whole) programs, it
is important to note that one’s God given ability, or natural talent will
ultimately determine just how far they can go with their athletic endeavors. No
amount of any type of training will take an untalented person, and make them as
good as a talented person, if the talented person is working just as hard (or
in some cases putting in only a fraction of the effort). The only time the
talented person will be beat by an untalented person is if the talented person doesn’t
bother to develop their craft. After all, “Hard work beats talent, when talent
doesn’t work hard”.
The difference
between talent and skill
Will Smith says, “Talent you have naturally. Skill is only developed
through hours, and hours, and hours of beating on your craft.” As it relates to
the scope of this article, you can’t necessarily train a weak person to be strong,
but you certainly can train them to be ‘stronger’! And the same can be said of
each of the physical attributes, or skills, listed above.
If we look at each of the trainable physical attributes listed above
individually, and break them down in attempt to identify what the greatest
limiting factor is to each one, the common denominator would be strength,
either directly, or indirectly. While each and every attribute may be limited
by any of the others on the list, unless one is severely underdeveloped in one
of the attributes, strength is likely the single most limiting factor there is.
Speed vs. strength
For someone who wants to improve their speed (running, skating, biking,
swimming, etc.), the primary focus would obviously be to work on the mechanics,
or form/technique, as it relates to the specific movement. Once they’ve
developed the proper motor pattern to propel their body into motion and attain maximum
speed, the only thing that would essentially prevent them from getting faster
would be their strength levels. Therefore, to increase their speed once they’ve
mastered the movement, they would need to increase their strength.
Ones speed will have very little to do with limiting one’s ability to gain
strength, therefore making strength the more valuable attribute of the two.
Strength wins!
Acceleration vs. strength
As with speed, acceleration is strongly dependent on technique, but
technique will only take you so far. There comes a point where your ability to
generate force (strength), and to generate it as fast as possible (power), is
limited by your strength levels, and eventually you’ll have to increase your
strength levels if you want to cut down on the amount of time it takes you to
get to maximum speed.
Like speed, one’s ability to accelerate will have very little to do with
one’s ability to gain strength, therefore making strength the more valuable
attribute of the two. Strength wins again!
Agility vs. strength
Agility is commonly referred to as one’s ability to decelerate, change
direction, and accelerate once more. Once again, there is a sound technique
that ought to be developed to make one as efficient as possible when it comes
to changing directions, but sooner or later strength will become a limiting
factor in reaching ones potential. The stronger one is, the faster they can
decelerate and come to a complete stop (if needed), and then change direction
and take off.
As with speed and acceleration, one’s ability to change direction will
have very little to do with one’s ability to gain strength, therefore making
strength the more valuable attribute of the two. Strength wins yet again!
Power vs. strength
Power and strength are dependent on one another in a sense that without
one, the other cannot be fully developed to ones potential. This is why ‘power’
lifters have two very different types of training days/methods incorporated
into their routine: Maximal Effort (ME) days/methods, and Dynamic Effort (DE)
days/methods. The ME days/methods consist of near maximal weights, which are
used to improve overall strength levels so that greater loads can be used with
DE days/methods, and the DE days/methods consist of relatively lighter weights,
lifted with as much explosiveness as humanly possible, and are used to improve the
rate of force development, as well as promote further neural adaptations by
focusing on the quality of the movement to cement the proper motor pattern
needed to maximize improvements in a given lift, and also allow the body to
heal from heavy weights used with ME days/methods.
With nearly every training program, especially ones used to maximize
power, the amount of weight that one would select to hit the prescribed number
of sets and reps is generally dependent on one variable, and that is, how much
weight one can lift for one rep, AKA 1 rep max (1RM). For example, typically
training programs, and even warm-up protocols, will suggest that you use ‘X%’
of your 1RM for your working sets. However, ‘X%’ would hypothetically be a greater
number if your 1RM was greater than it currently is, therefore, the amount of
weight you use for your working sets, or warm-up, and how much tension you can
subject your muscles to, is limited to how much you can lift for 1, making
strength once again, a limiting factor. It is for this reason that strength
barely edges out power as a more valuable attribute. While more power can
result in more strength, it’s a lot easier for someone that is already strong
to maximize power, than it is for someone who is weak to have a lot of power. Strength
wins again!
Endurance/stamina vs. strength
Cardiovascular conditioning is the single greatest contributing factor in
providing one with the ability to sustain a certain amount of effort over a
prolonged period of time, as it is the heart that provides the muscles with the
oxygen needed to be able to utilize fat as the primary energy source needed for
continuous muscular contraction. However, there comes a point and time when the
heart will be as strong as it needs to be to get through whatever athletic
endeavor you choose to involve yourself in, and that is when strength becomes
the major limiting factor in enabling you to improve further. In the case of endurance/stamina,
the stronger an individual is, the less effort that goes into each and every
stride, which theoretically means one will not exert as much energy to sustain
a certain amount of effort, and therefore can maintain pace for a greater
amount of time (this isn’t always the case though, as you’ll eventually find
out if you keep reading).
Ones endurance/stamina ‘could’ hypothetically limit their ability to gain
strength, because if one has very little endurance/stamina, such that, they are
not able repeat their efforts (perform another set), or need a hell of a lot of
time before attempting to repeat an effort, then they are limited to how much
work they can essentially get done within a training session. However, at the
end of the day anyone could probably still expose their muscles to some form of
tension, which would likely be enough to illicit a positive response. It is for
this reason that strength trumps endurance/stamina as the more valuable
attribute. Strength wins another one!
Flexibility vs. strength
Strength itself does not directly limit the range of motion around a
joint, but it can indirectly limit ones overall flexibility, as adaptations
that result from strength training can limit ones flexibility, if there are
imbalances within the body that are not addressed with ones training program.
On the other hand, strength can also indirectly increase ones range of motion
around a joint by increasing ones intrinsic stability. When the brain senses
instability (think walking on ice), it subconsciously tries to create stability
by forcing muscles to contract, or ‘tighten up’, which ultimately ends up
limiting ones flexibility. In this example, the brain does this to prevent what
could lead to one falling and injuring themselves. By strengthening the body
systemically, there is a greater sense of stability from within, and when the
brain senses that the body is stable, it allows muscles to go through greater
ranges of motion, because it feels safe and there is no threat.
Lack of flexibility can easily limit one’s ability to gain strength by
preventing one from being able to perform certain movements safely, and through
a proper range of motion. For this reason, adequate flexibility is needed if
one wishes to fully maximize their potential to get as strong as possible, but
being that flexibility is often the result of a lack of intrinsic stability,
this can often be ‘fixed’ with ‘activation’ drills/exercises.
Flexibility, or lack thereof, is an attribute that can ultimately be the
major limiting factor in one’s ability to develop any of the skills listed
above, strength included, but is often neglected in the discussion of what is
‘holding someone back’, unless it’s a really glaring issue. The major difference
between flexibility and strength, when it comes to being ones limiting factor
is, flexibility can only be developed so much, as in, once someone is as attained
an optimal level of flexibility, there really isn’t any room for improvement.
With strength, constant and never ending improvements can be made in many
quantifiable ways, which therefore makes strength the more valuable attribute,
when compared to flexibility. Strength wins!
Size vs. strength
If ever there was a mathematical equation, or formula, that would summarize
what is needed to build muscle (size), it would be, “Load X Time Under
Tension”. The more weight (load) that is placed upon a muscle and the longer it
is subjected to it (time under tension), the bigger and stronger the muscles
will ultimately have to be. This equation can be interpreted in many ways,
leaving room for many methods to be used to achieve the same result (building
muscle in this case).
One could look at that equation and interpret it to mean that, if they
wanted to build muscle, then creating as much tension as possible, by way of
handling maximal loads is the way to go. While near maximal loads definitely place
heavy emphasis on the ‘load’ side of the equation, they unfortunately put very
little emphasis on the ‘time under tension’ side of the equation, as near
maximal loads are usually only lifted for a few seconds at a time.
On the other hand, one could very easily interpret that equation to mean
that, if they wanted to build muscle, then creating as much tension as
possible, by way of lifting relatively moderate, to light, loads, for extended
periods of time is the way to go. In this case, strength becomes the limiting
factor once again, in how much weight can be used. While lifting lighter loads
in an attempt to subject your muscles to tension for prolonged periods of time
is, in fact, a very effective way to build muscle, it would be even more
effective if you were able to use a heavier weight, for an identical period of
time. For example, if one could bench press 225 lbs. for 10, and over time
increased their strength to the point where they could bench 315 lbs. for 10, the
muscles involved in the bench press would (likely) have to grow in direct
proportion to those gains.
As stated at the beginning, strength gains are primarily the result of
neurological adaptations, but are not limited to neurological adaptations. This
is where ones size can become a limiting factor, as strength is also heavily
influenced by biomechanical factors, all of which could be summarized under one
term, ‘muscle architecture’ (muscle fiber type, pennation angle,
cross-sectional area, and muscle length to name a few). While one can
hypothetically continue to get stronger and stronger, as there is no limit to
how strong one can get, there comes a time and a point where getting stronger
is considerably more challenging than in the beginning stages. Once the ‘beginner’
neurological adaptations have been considerably developed through stress and
repetition, the size of the muscles will ultimately need to become greater in
size if one wishes to keep getting stronger since they also play a role in how
much tension can be created.
Because these two attributes are so tightly linked together, and quite
frankly are dependent on each other for maximal development of the other, it’s
difficult to say which one is more valuable than the other. Both these attributes
have seemingly no limitations, as one could hypothetically continue to get
stronger and stronger, just as much as one could hypothetically get bigger and bigger,
although size gains are extremely dependent on various other factors (hormonal,
nutritional, genetic, etc). All factors being equal, ones training experience
will ultimately determine which of these attributes is more valuable. If one
wishes to gain size, then their strength levels will ultimately limit their
ability to handle the weights necessary for them to build more size. If one
wishes to get stronger, then their size will ultimately limit their ability to
generate the force necessary to lift heavier weights. It’s for this reason that
I’d say it’s a tie between these two attributes. However, I’ll entertain those
of you who don’t believe in ties, by selecting the one attribute that I believe
to be more valuable, and surprise, surprise, it’s strength once again.
In my experience, it’s a lot more common for one to hit a size plateau, before
they hit a strength plateau. I can’t recall encountering anyone who has attained
optimal levels of strength (relative to their size), and still have room to add
size to their frame. If someone has maxed out their strength so to speak, in
relation to the size of their body, the only limitations that should prevent
them from building the amount of muscle that they desire should be non-training
related (hormonal, nutritional, genetic, etc), as they would easily have the
ability to adjust the amount of reps, sets, and weight however they like to
maximize both variables in the ‘Load X Time Under Tension’ equation.
Strength vs. strength
As far as strength is concerned, it is possible that one’s own strength
levels could limit their ability to continue to gain strength, if the strength
that they possess is not in balance. For example, if one has imbalanced
development from one muscle to the next, as a result of overemphasizing the
development of any of the attributes above at the expense of strength training,
then the relatively weaker muscle(s) may not be able to generate the tension
necessary to provide the intrinsic stability needed, to allow for heavier loads
to be used for movements performed by other non-related muscles. If a muscle is
too weak to provide stability, the nervous system essentially shuts down the
muscles being trained, as a way of trying to prevent the body from injury. This
is why all programs should place equal emphasis on developing each muscle
equally, unless there is a glaring imbalance that needs to be corrected in the
first place.
At this point it’s clear that strength is the single greatest limiting
factor in one being able to maximize their potential, irrespective of their
goal. Until one develops optimal levels of strength, all other attributes should
take a back seat to strength development (unless of course there is a specific
need to which any of the other attributes ought to be developed).
Optimal strength levels
Ones goal will ultimately determine how strong would be considered ‘optimal’.
The following are strength standards, for the lifts that have the most room for
improvement, for a male weighing between 180-190 lbs.
Deadlift 294% of bodyweight
Squat 262% bodyweight
Bench Press 192% of bodyweight
Chin-UP 166% of bodyweight
With any training program that I overlook, the goal is to get an
individual as close to hitting those numbers as possible. The numbers listed above
would be considered ‘elite’ for a male weighing in between 180-190 lbs, and
should be adjusted based on whether the individual is lighter, or heavier. The
lighter an individual is, the more weight they could expect to lift in relation
to their bodyweight, whereas the heavier an individual is, the less weight they
could expect to lift in relation to their bodyweight.
For example, all things being equal (training experience, body
composition, etc), a lighter individual will almost always outperform a heavier
individual when it comes to bodyweight exercises like pull/chin-ups and dips.
The reason for this is because more force is needed per repetition the heavier
an individual is, and more force means more recruitment, which means the
high-threshold motor units will be called upon sooner, and because the
high-threshold motor units are least resistant to fatigue, one will ‘run out of
gas’ sooner.
Most people fail, not because they aim to high and miss,
but because they aim too low and HIT
I realize that only a select few will ever be able to meet the strength
standards outlined above, and that’s fine. Success to me isn’t determined on whether
or not one achieves those levels of strength. Those numbers are simply goals that
I’ve outlined for myself, as well as anyone under my guidance, to provide
direction when designing a training program. Even though one would be
considered ‘elite’ by many by meeting those standards, the fact that many have,
proves that there’s no reason why anybody can’t, if they devote the time and
effort necessary towards achieving it because, ‘it is possible’!
When it sucks to be strong
You may have missed it near the beginning, so let me say it again, “The
more excitable a motor neuron becomes the larger response ANY given signal will
produce”. One more time, in case it’s not sinking in, “ANY given signal will
produce”.
This means that, as one becomes more efficient at recruiting the
high-threshold motor units as a result of strength training, the more one will
unintentionally call upon them for anything, and everything, they choose to do.
Since the fast-twitch muscle fibers that are the least fatigue resistant, any
task you choose to do will become more daunting from an endurance/stamina
standpoint.
While increased strength levels will make anything and everything one
chooses to do relatively easier than if they were weaker, the fact that the
muscle fibers that provide that strength fatigue much faster than muscle fibers
that are not capable of generating as much force, may not be a desirable effect
for those who work long days in which both strength as well as
endurance/stamina are needed.
A mover for example (anyone that has strength trained over a sustained
period of time and has ‘moved’, or helped someone move, can relate here as well),
would typically need a great deal of strength to move large pieces of furniture
and home utilities, but also a great deal of endurance/stamina to be able to
repeat their efforts throughout a day, as moving generally consists of multiple
pieces of furniture (beds, couches, love seats, dressers, etc.) and utilities
(fridge, oven, dishwasher, washer, dryer, etc.), and requires your muscles to
generate tension for prolonged periods of time (in some cases this means
holding onto something for minutes at a time without rest) to ensure that
nothing is destroyed in the process (like smashing something off the wall for
example). This combined with the fact that moving generally doesn’t allow for
‘complete’ rest intervals could lead to unwanted fatigue. There’s nothing worse
than knowing you are physically strong enough to do something, but your muscles
are too pumped, and causing enough discomfort to make you not want to do it.
As I workout for the last 3 years and it changes my body and mind set when it comes to exercsie, I've learned that strenght training is the best and this includes that stamina of your body which can be achieve to proper rest and avoiding nutritional deficiencies like zinc deficiency and fatigue which is a common problem to vegetarians and people doing excessive exercise.
ReplyDelete