Strength: Overcoming Tradition & Assumptions

The term "strength" comes with many images and stereotypes. The most common stereotype usually includes intimidating men who look like action figures, in spaces that look like iron jungles.

Strength is associated with mass gain, limb girth increases, muscle hypertrophy and maximal force production against an external load. With regard to lower body strength, we speak in terms of multiples of bodyweight (BW), with the ratio of 2x BW historically viewed as necessary and desirable. We have historically trained in terms of 1 RM. There has been a trend recently to adopt a VBT (velocity based training) approach, as we know 1 RM changes on a daily basis and technology now allows us to more finely tune things with velocity as the target within each set.

These things can be helpful as we initially learn to measure and document progress. But I think it is important to step back from this narrow outlook, because this view of strength does not serve all of us well, in either the rehab or performance world.

Much of how we "do" strength and measure it comes from the world (and world view) of elite men's collision sport (American football, rugby) and then barbell sport (weightlifting / powerlifting). In these arenas, we find numbers that represent maximal values --- speed, power, force. Facilities, equipment, methods have tended to revolve around pursuit of maximal in this very specific context. The movements that are used to measure these quantities represent an extremely narrow window of human movements. Big numbers from large humans, usually men, moving fast -- and sometimes incredibly slowly, usually on two legs.

Maximal lifts with a barbell are interesting but they aren't necessarily useful for all sports and all athletes. They are impressive in some sense, but the reality is that they are meaningless -- and sometimes very risky -- for a great many. The assumption that maximal strength as expressed by a maximal effort deadlift or back squat is meaningful -- and transfers to improved health and performance -- is just that: an assumption. 

For those of you who know me, you know I have a very long and positive relationship with barbell training and weightlifting. I am not saying none of this is useful. I am not saying it is inherently dangerous; but no one can deny that the pursuit of maximal measures carries significant risk for an athlete -- acute and chronic. I am advocating for using these tools more mindfully and broadening our definitions and methods, to better support and prepare the people in our care. We must do better. And if you cannot do it (barbell work) well, please do not do it. 

For many athletes, and a great majority of female athletes, the holy grail of performance is management of their own bodyweight in the context of non-collision sport, on a single leg. Within a variety of directions, shapes speeds and cognitive demands. On a variety of surfaces. 

Strength, as it relates to musculoskeletal health and development, cannot be narrowly defined by maximal measures of force and the accumulation of (excess) lean body mass. It must take movement quality into consideration -- command, control and coordination -- as it relates to fundamental physical competencies, long-term development and sport demands. And at the very heart of it, it is about health and availability to thrive in sport training.

What might this kind of strength look like? Here is a video snapshot of SOME of the strength work of ONE athlete at the end of her career as an acrobatic skier. She had to absorb high forces on two legs -- not produce them. She did not have to run in training or competition, or have high aerobic or anaerobic capacity. She needed the right amount of body mass and strength to stay robust and manage the pounding of training. There was no benefit to excess mass; there were health consequences to not enough. We had to build enough of the right strength without adding to the physical pounding that took place during ski and water ramp training.

This is what this type of strength looked like; training age of 3 years, after rehabbing from a period of debilitating back pain.

For younger athletes of mostly court and field sports, I would take a bit of a different approach. I would emphasize more single leg work and it would include a great deal of high quality lunges, step ups, more variations of SLS, skipping, bounding, leaping and hopping. I would include high quality barbell and hex bar work only as needed, with loading tied to bodyweight and effort, not any 1RM.  I would have many other ways to load, specifically bags and vests. With the explicit understanding that robust management of bodyweight alone is the final goal.

How to know when enough is enough? Well, that depends. A good coach understands that and makes that judgement. And this is one of my professional goals in life: help coaches make better judgements about how much strength is necessary and needs to be done to get there.