I remember hearing a sotry about tom platz having a squat contest with a highly noted PLer. The PLer maxed out about 300-400 lbs over platz. They both tried to do 500 lbs as many as they could. The PLer hit it about 10 times. Platz quit after about 25 reps because he felt he proved his point.
Who had stronger legs?
Its all relative. I think a man who can rip a phone book in half is one strong mofo, even if he cant DL X lbs.
ripping a phonebook in half is not impressive. Its mostly technique. I learned to do that when i was like 13 from my 83 year old grandmother.
Id say dr. squat had more strength, platz had more endurance.
So we are now defining a 1 rep max as strength? I thought that was called power. Otherwise i guess the sport would be strength lifting. Its like saying Mariuz is not the strongest man in the world, he just has the most endurance.
Im going full on with Kuri here. a few of you seem to think Strength can only be defined as a 1 rep Max in The bench/dead/squat. The funny part is that the 1 rep squat/bench/dead is a measurement of power, force at an applied speed. There are a whole heck load of exercises out there aside from the PL big three.
And the whole "only small guys care about efficiency" is such a cop out. There is a reason PL and OL contests have weight classes. Dont be thick and blanket a statement about strength can only be found in heavyweights.
So we are now defining a 1 rep max as strength? I thought that was called power.
A maximum effort deadlift involves less power production than a maximum effort snatch or clean. Deadlifts can be pretty slow. That is why "powerlifting" is kind of an unfortunate name for a sport when the other barbell sport involves better displays of power.
I think a powerlifting is probably the best example of human application of force so I guess the question is, is strength power, force, endurance, some combination thereof, something else entirely?
I'm not sure of any objective way to define "strength" in terms of actual physical measurements so I guess powerlifters will define it as maximum force, weightlifters as maximum power and bodybuilders as moderately high reps with relatively high weight since people tend to define things in a self serving way when given the opportunity.
ripping a phonebook in half is not impressive. Its mostly technique. I learned to do that when i was like 13 from my 83 year old grandmother.
The real question is, how much did you weigh when you did it?
BW doesn't matter in most strength sports. Hell I have better co-efficients the the worlds best deadlifter yet i would have to put 200lbs on my deadlift before my name even got mentioned on a PL site. In terms of powerlifting, i am a small guy (198lbs class) thats the lightweight class in some feds.
My mom is pretty 'strong' too, she raised 3 kids while working fulltime. What a strong women. Whos stronger, my mom or savickas?
How about some grip strength feats like closing a #4 captains of crush gripper, or bending a "red nail".
What exactly is a red nail?
7 inches long and 5/16ths of an inch thick and made of Cold Rolled Steel. Through various testing methods, it has been found that the Iron Mind Red Nail takes over 385 lbs of force to bend.
Anyone that can accomplish either one of these things is damn strong in my book, and training for them takes just as much hard work and dedication as training for a huge squat or bench. It's all about where you choose to focus your efforts.
Im going full on with Kuri here. a few of you seem to think Strength can only be defined as a 1 rep Max in The bench/dead/squat. The funny part is that the 1 rep squat/bench/dead is a measurement of power, force at an applied speed. There are a whole heck load of exercises out there aside from the PL big three.
if you think 1rm of deadlift is a measure of power, I want whatever it is you are smoking.
So we are now defining a 1 rep max as strength? I thought that was called power. Otherwise i guess the sport would be strength lifting. Its like saying Mariuz is not the strongest man in the world, he just has the most endurance.
Im going full on with Kuri here. a few of you seem to think Strength can only be defined as a 1 rep Max in The bench/dead/squat. The funny part is that the 1 rep squat/bench/dead is a measurement of power, force at an applied speed. There are a whole heck load of exercises out there aside from the PL big three.
And the whole "only small guys care about efficiency" is such a cop out. There is a reason PL and OL contests have weight classes. Dont be thick and blanket a statement about strength can only be found in heavyweights.
I'm gonna throw down some nerd for a second so bear with me.
Strength is technically defined as the most force a muscle (or muscle group) can apply. By definition, this is an isometric contraction -- the most force you can apply is to simply hold an object in place. This is called the maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) by researchers.
In practice, your true 1RM (meaning, what you can lift after exposure to specific training for it) will be some fraction less than the MVIC. Very heavy, very slow, and not far off from being static. Think how a 1RM attempt will be slow and grinding.
Power is actually defined as either rate of doing work (Force * distance divided by time) or as force * velocity (strength * speed, if you will). A powerful movement by definition requires high force and high speed.
The problem there is that they two can't really co-exist. If you lift something light as hard as you can, it flies away. If you lift something heavy as hard as you can, it grinds up. The former is high velocity, the latter high force. To develop power, you need somewhere in the middle, something that's still kinda heavy, but you can still move really, really fast.
Usually power is best developed in the range of 30-70% of the 1RM. If the object being lifted is heavier, you'd train with heavier %s (think WSB's speed days). If it's lighter, you'd train with lighter %s.
Strength-endurance is a whole other can of worms. Strength endurance is all about being able to sustain a given % of maximum for a long period of time. The stronger you are, the easier it'll be for you to keep moving any given absolute weight. If the contest calls for maximum reps with 500 lbs, who has the advantage -- the guy that maxes at 510, or the guy that maxes at 800?
So technically speaking, it'd be MVIC that determines strength. But, the caveat is, strength is still a skill that has to be applied in order to be practical. The gear-whore powerlifters might throw up impressive numbers; but take off the triple-ply gear and get them to do some other activities and they aren't usually so good at it. These days I'm finding I'm far more impressed by strength-endurance type stuff than I am by just throwing on layers of gear and squatting high.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
And there is still a lot of power needed to lift big weights in powerlifting, less than in the Olympic lifts yes, but still a lot of power. That's why people do speed work!
So strength is maximum force production, and power is a measure of force produced over time, and strength endurance is about endurance.
So it's pretty accurate to say that Dr. Squat had more strength, and Tom Platz had more strength endurance then right?
And there is still a lot of power needed to lift big weights in powerlifting, less than in the Olympic lifts yes, but still a lot of power. That's why people do speed work!
Power training has the effect of shifting the force-velocity curve up and to the right. Meaning, it increases both maximal force and maximal velocity.
As the saying goes, a powerful athlete is always strong, but a strong athlete isn't always powerful.
The problem is training this by itself doesn't teach you to cope with heavy/grinding stuff-- it doesn't build isometric/static strength. To be good at near-maximum lifts, you have to include some static/grinding work. Hence max-effort days.
But there's other ways of going about that besides simply loading weights to a maximum each and every workout. Guys that aren't lifting in gear and don't have the luxury of "enhanced recovery" can't really sustain that for long periods of time-- they get introduced to what's called "an injury" (then again, so do the gear-whores...sometimes it just takes a little longer).
That's why you'll see a lot of the Russian guys thriving on Sheiko's programs. High volume >>>> high intensity, when it comes to longevity.
Quote:
So strength is maximum force production, and power is a measure of force produced over time, and strength endurance is about endurance.
Basically.
Quote:
So it's pretty accurate to say that Dr. Squat had more strength, and Tom Platz had more strength endurance then right?
Hatfield's best squat was 1014. I think Platz "only" maxed around 800 or so, but ended up hitting something ridiculous like 500x23 in their contest.
Of course, Platz had legs that were the definition of genetic freakiness, but his training as a bodybuilder reflected more of the strength-endurance side of things also.
So from that standpoint, Hatfield was stronger because he trained for maximum force. Platz wasn't as strong by that definition, but he also didn't train for it.
The point is really moot, though. Who knows what Platz would have done if he'd spent 6-12 months training for a max squat? It's not like he was short on the potential, and the guys back then weren't wearing small cranes and squatting to "APF depth" to hit their lifts.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Last edited by PowerManDL : 05-30-2008 at 12:58 AM.
I've heard that sheiko type high volume programs are still pretty murderous, and still cause alot of injuries for many people. And alot of russians have "enhanced recovery" abilities
That recovery issue is why some people use linear periodisation in their training I guess, because for most it's not possible to sustain near 1rm efforts week after week. Or, they deload .
The sheiko programs are not that bad, its just that most generally jump from a pathetically low volume training load, straight into the CMS/MS training, which they are in no way or shape ready for. The beginners, intermediate style sheiko workouts are pretty reasonable, and the ultra elite (which make the CMS/MS look like childs play) are not for those who have to work for a living.
If you take a recreational runner and throw them straight into elite marathon runners training program, it will murder them. Everyone thinks they are elite and should be doing the hard stuff...
The Russian classification for a CMS/MS level lifter is 1600-1700 for the heaviest class, which was back in the day, in the rather basic single ply stuff.
The sheiko programs are not that bad, its just that most generally jump from a pathetically low volume training load, straight into the CMS/MS training, which they are in no way or shape ready for. The beginners, intermediate style sheiko workouts are pretty reasonable, and the ultra elite (which make the CMS/MS look like childs play) are not for those who have to work for a living.
If you take a recreational runner and throw them straight into elite marathon runners training program, it will murder them. Everyone thinks they are elite and should be doing the hard stuff...
The Russian classification for a CMS/MS level lifter is 1600-1700 for the heaviest class, which was back in the day, in the rather basic single ply stuff.
How serious is that bolded part?
I know of one of the country's top lifters(3rd) and top bench presser, tried to do sheiko a little while back, he got destroyed, and didn't finish the program.
He is also a lecturer at a university, with a phD.
I think I was just thinking of the elite phases then, and that's probably what I have been hearing all about!
I know of one of the country's top lifters(3rd) and top bench presser, tried to do sheiko a little while back, he got destroyed, and didn't finish the program.
If you are used to a low volume workout, and then jump straight into a CMS/MS or above, you are asking to fail.
Quote:
He is also a lecturer at a university, with a phD.
wont give him super volume powers
Quote:
I think I was just thinking of the elite phases then, and that's probably what I have been hearing all about!
If you start at the base proigrams, its bench 3x weekly, squat 2x weekly and deadlift once. nothing major.
Elite program will be a tad more. This is the bench program for one of the top chicks
Quote:
Originally Posted by week 1
Day 1 MORNING
Bench: 5x1x50, 4x1x60, 3x2x70, 2x5x75
Second bench: 5x1x50, 5x1x60, 4x5x70
Chest Muscles: 10x5
ive yet to find my limit in terms of volume in training, after i did smolov for 4 weeks i could have easily done a few more weeks of it (and no, my percents where not to low).
The sheiko stuff has always been pretty interesting to me. Maybe ill give it a run sometime this winter. I can train 2x per day if needed.
Going back to the original question. I believe strength is going to be defined differently by different people. (obviously it is after reading this thread)
I also believe that strength is defined differently in each sport. So the strongest powerlifter is the strongest powerlifter. Is he stronger than the strongest Olympic lifter. Yes, in the power lifts, no in the Olympic lifts. Who is stronger? Neither, their strength is just different.
Just like the WSM. The guy who wins is not necessarily the strongest guy, just the strong guy who is better at the events.
Even then the winner of the WSM has never done well in the Arnold Classic strongman contest. Savickis (sp.) has won the Arnold the last 6X. Always beating the man who beat him in the WSM. (Mariusz Pudzianowski has refused his invite to the Arnold where the WSM is always invited. Even though the Arnold has more prize money than any other strongman competition in the world. Coincidence?)
The Arnolds events are much heavier than the WSM events. So athletes with different types of strength will win the WSM and the Arnold. That is an example of different definitions of strength within the same sport.
I also believe strength is going to be defined differently by people at different strength levels. An elite strongman is going to have different standards of what a "good" lift is compared to a beginner in strongman. Things just change as one progresses.
Strength is going to be defined differently in other sports as well. A strong football player is going to be at a different strength level than a strong sprinter.
A strong shot putter will be at a different strength level than a strong wrestler. they may both be strong withing their respective arenas, but once you take them out of their skill-set, the definition of what strength is changes.
Just my 2 cents on the definition of strength. Hope I am not boring anyone.
Oh, and in response to -
Quote:
And the whole "only small guys care about efficiency" is such a cop out. There is a reason PL and OL contests have weight classes. Dont be thick and blanket a statement about strength can only be found in heavyweights.
That is another reason the definition of strength is different. I actually had this conversation with a friend of mine yesterday.
There are a couple mindsets when it comes to strength and bodyweight.
1. Who cares how big you are, can you pick it up? No, you are not strong enough. Yes, you are.
2. The stronger the guy is compared to his bodyweight the more respectable he is.
Just like the WSM. The guy who wins is not necessarily the strongest guy, just the strong guy who is better at the events.
this is right
Quote:
Even then the winner of the WSM has never done well in the Arnold Classic strongman contest. Savickis (sp.) has won the Arnold the last 6X. Always beating the man who beat him in the WSM. (Mariusz Pudzianowski has refused his invite to the Arnold where the WSM is always invited. Even though the Arnold has more prize money than any other strongman competition in the world. Coincidence?)
This is wrong. Savickas has won the arnold 6 times, yes. But, a few years ago, strongman split into 2 organizations, WSM and IFSA. Savickas went with IFSA and competed against guys like Ortmayer, Koklyaev, and Virastyuk. Where Pudz went to WSM and competed against guys like Phister, Marunde, Pope, etc.
You can't make a blanket statement like that. Before the split, Pudz and Savickas competed against eachother, and Pudz beat him in WSM. Pudz DID compete in the arnold before (2003 5th place, 2004 4th place and 2005 he got 6th place) and Savickas beat him each time.
Savickas was treated like a king with IFSA, but now that they're backrupt, i would think that a lot of the athletes (like poundstone and ortmayer), are going to be jumping ship, and we're going to see an extremely talented group competing in this years worlds.
Quote:
The Arnolds events are much heavier than the WSM events. So athletes with different types of strength will win the WSM and the Arnold. That is an example of different definitions of strength within the same sport.
this is true, but it comes down to the fact that Savickas is more of a static strength athlete, where pudz is more athletic. It does help that savickas is much heavier than pudz.
Quote:
I also believe strength is going to be defined differently by people at different strength levels. An elite strongman is going to have different standards of what a "good" lift is compared to a beginner in strongman. Things just change as one progresses.
Strength is going to be defined differently in other sports as well. A strong football player is going to be at a different strength level than a strong sprinter.
A strong shot putter will be at a different strength level than a strong wrestler. they may both be strong withing their respective arenas, but once you take them out of their skill-set, the definition of what strength is changes.
Just my 2 cents on the definition of strength. Hope I am not boring anyone.
Oh, and in response to -
That is another reason the definition of strength is different. I actually had this conversation with a friend of mine yesterday.
There are a couple mindsets when it comes to strength and bodyweight.
1. Who cares how big you are, can you pick it up? No, you are not strong enough. Yes, you are.
2. The stronger the guy is compared to his bodyweight the more respectable he is.
Again, just different definitions of strength.
i agree with the rest of this post.
__________________ True Protein 5% off discount code: ZHS099 www.trueprotein.com
This is wrong. Savickas has won the arnold 6 times, yes. But, a few years ago, strongman split into 2 organizations, WSM and IFSA. Savickas went with IFSA and competed against guys like Ortmayer, Koklyaev, and Virastyuk. Where Pudz went to WSM and competed against guys like Phister, Marunde, Pope, etc.
You can't make a blanket statement like that. Before the split, Pudz and Savickas competed against eachother, and Pudz beat him in WSM. Pudz DID compete in the arnold before (2003 5th place, 2004 4th place and 2005 he got 6th place) and Savickas beat him each time.
Savickas was treated like a king with IFSA, but now that they're backrupt, i would think that a lot of the athletes (like poundstone and ortmayer), are going to be jumping ship, and we're going to see an extremely talented group competing in this years worlds.
My bad when it comes to the specific facts of who competed where. My point was the different types of strength tested at the Arnold and the WSM. I am not saying one guy is better than the other. I am making the point that their strength is different and they win under different conditions. Making the definition of strength different at different contests.
The Guy who won the WSM (is automatically invited to the Arnold) generally does not place well at the Arnold. (when he shows up) It is because of the difference in the type of strength being tested, even within the same sport. (strongman) So the definition of who is stronger is different from contest to contest.
The Arnold has been one of the few contests where people are invited for being good strongmen, regardless which organization they compete in. That is another reason I chose that example.
Quote:
we're going to see an extremely talented group competing in this years worlds.
.
Linear Mode
