When people come to study with me, I first ask them what they are looking for. In about 70% of cases, they say that they want to be strong. It usually does not include specifications in which domain, or what they even understand under “being strong”. How do we denominate what strength is? Is it a specific parameter that can be measured, or a way of life that determines whether someone is strong or not? Is it a simple act of exerting force against an object, or is it something bigger than that?
If we turn to the dictionary, it offers a whole list of definitions of the word “strength”, such as:
- The state or quality of being strong; physical power or capacity
- The capacity to resist attack; impregnability:
- The capacity to resist strain or stress; durability:
- The ability to deal with difficult situations or to maintain a moral or intellectual position:
- Capability in terms of numbers or resources:
- An attribute or quality of particular worth or utility; an asset:
- One that is regarded as the embodiment of protective or supportive power;
- Degree of concentration, distillation, or saturation:
- Operative effectiveness or potency:
- Intensity, as of sound or light:
- Intensity of emotion or belief:
- Cogency or persuasiveness:
- Effective or binding force; efficacy:
- Firmness of or a continuous rising tendency in prices, as of a currency or market.
We can discard half of those definitions in relationship to a human being, but still, there is a lot of room for interpretation of what someone might mean when they say they “want to be strong” just from looking at this list. I always assume that each person who claims this desire has in their mind some idea of what they are talking about, so my follow-up question is usually “what do you mean exactly?” This baffles people as they assume it is a clear-cut thing, but it plants the seed of doubt in their minds, and will eventually, I hope, lead to some good questions. So what do you really mean when you say it?
Any concept or object is better understood when we observe it through the relationships it forms. In fact, it is impossible to think about any matter otherwise. In athletics, performers are being compared in their relative and absolute strength, absolute strength being the total amount of force a person can produce, regardless of size; and relative strength is the amount of force they can produce in relation to their body weight. In physiology physical strength is related closely to the muscle cross-section area and for a long time, this was considered the main factor in force production. It is easy to imagine someone with huge muscle mass, being able to lift X amount of weight as compared to someone incapable of doing the same task and to declare: this one is strong and this other one isn’t. Fair enough from the point of applying force to an external object. But if the first person is, let’s say, a weightlifting champion from a good family who grew up in cradling and safe Boulder, Colorado, and the second person was born in Afghanistan and walked through the desert to escape the horrors of war and is now building a life in a completely new environment, will it be still relevant to compare their strength in absolute terms? Which one of these parameters is more important [in life] – the capacity to lift an object or psychological resilience? Which one of these strengths is someone talking about when they “want to be strong”? Is there a way to compare them?
If the previous example is more of a philosophical one, let’s go back to the sheer physical manifestation of strength. We had already the example of exerting force against an external object – lifting something off the ground or pushing it away. Which is a sensible parameter that we should have in mind talking about the matter because it is a universally accepted metric in some sports areas. Now let’s add someone else into the equation: a BJJ athlete, one head shorter than our lifter and with a much smaller amount of muscle mass. Let’s say the amount of both relative and absolute strength in the lifter is superior, but our BJJ guy is extremely efficient in applying the force he has. I can bet that the fight would go in favor of the more skilled practitioner, regardless of size (in fact this has been demonstrated a number of times in the early UFC fights). We have a different relationship here and the notion of strength takes a different tint – now it is not about the amount of force, but about the ability to apply the force. Would this be a comparison in strength or skill or both? Does the lifter become less strong if he is defeated in a fight, or does a fighter become less strong if he cannot deadlift his double bodyweight?
Let’s take another example, a climber and a gymnast. Both are undeniably strong, now how do we compare the two? Is there a way to do so, really? Does one type of strength – linear and explosive, beats the nonlinear and technical? Does it even make sense to compare? And which kind of these two strengths does someone want to develop when they say “I want to be strong”? Do they even think of the fact that there is more than one type of strength? I have already mentioned that on a physiological level, strength can is often seen as the capacity of muscle to exert force. But we know now that it has more to do with a conjunct effort of a nervous system. Both contribute, of course, but which one is more important when we discuss strength? What about women who lift cars off their children at the moment of danger? This shows a clear capacity to flip physiology by demand through psychological means. Maybe we should work on accessing these states to be truly strong when it is needed?
The approach to building physical strength is highly contextual and depends on an individual. There is no one single way to do it. Understanding the HOW requires a lot of homework and detailed reading of each particular situation. The toolbox of exercises and protocols itself, however big it might be, will not be efficient if you do not comprehend the subtleties of the application in each specific circumstance. When someone cannot lift themselves off the floor, it would make sense to start there and create a training program that will develop their capacity to manipulate their body weight. In many cases, this is a safe and sensible way to start. However, he can also go to a bouldering gym and start with the easy routes, or go to a beginner grappling class. It is true that already having some amount of linear physical strength can be helpful when you go into a complex scenario, but it is not by any means a definitive way of being successful at it. It had been shown that more complex neurologically skills have much more transfer to the simpler ones than vice versa (S. Kantak, N. Zahedi, 2017), so a climber, who is involved in an activity that is much more cognitively demanding, will be able to do a number of pull-ups when a calisthenics guy will not necessarily succeed on the climbing wall from the first attempt. However, it will take the latter much less time to learn to climb than someone who can do no pull-ups at all. Auxiliary work and cross-training were always a thing, and high-level performers and their coaches would know what and how to apply in each specific case, be it weight-lifting or calisthenics. Another way is to develop “organic strength”, a term that was coined by Ido Portal, where the capacity to exert force is not limited to linear vectors but is done in every possible angle around the joints, at the maximum ranges of motion. An incredibly useful system that helped many people to create very capable bodies. It also has its limitations as it does not address more specific areas that might be lacking, but we actually meet much more of this “organic strength” in real life than the linear one. So will the notion of “being strong” also include the mobility of the articular links? In my experience, one cannot go without the other. Or is it already a completely different area that has no relevance to the notion of strength at all? Is “organic strength” superior to linear strength, is it all the way around, or should they both come hand in hand and supplement each other? Is weight training not necessary for strength development, is it the only way to do it, or is it just sensible support for some types of activities?
The truth is, no one type of strength can be applied to everything. Some markers migrate from one field to another, but overall, as I have mentioned earlier, strength is a highly contextual manner. When we talk comparatively about strength between individuals we need to define the clear parameters of it in each specific case. The open definition is too vague to be able to juxtapose one type of strength with the other. It is like arguing who will win – a bear or a shark. However, when I say “I want to be strong”, what I mean is that I do want to be able to lift heavy things and manipulate my body and that of others in any circumstance which arises when it comes to a physical task; but also to have a mindset that will make me capable of withstanding the turmoil that life can throw on me, to have an unshakable internal axis. For me, the concept of strength goes far beyond just the capacity to exert force, it is a complex phenomenon that implies an overall development of a person. When I say “I want to be strong” I mean this totality of the idea, not only one part of it.
When we talk about the generalist movement perspective, we talk about bodies that are capable across the board, so many different aspects of strength are covered to some extent. Nonetheless, this approach will not be as useful for a specialized athlete who needs to play at the maximum of his capacity in one specific area. So when I am working with the general public, the approach is completely different than when I work with professionals. However, I will try to cover as much of the globality of the idea in both cases. I will push them to explore not only the limits of their physicality but their mental and emotional resilience, their capacity to show up to life, be solid about their decisions, and take responsibility for themselves. I always ask people that I work with - does your physical strength worth as much when you cannot handle life itself? I invite them to think about it in different terms and cover as much distance as they are willing to in exploring this concept.
Can we find a clear definition of strength, if there is any at all? For me, there isn’t. As I have said above, strength for me is a complex phenomenon that involves a lot of facets and has more to do with the global development of a human being than with fitness, even though the latter is an important part of it, of course. I firmly believe that without physical strength, you cannot fully develop and mature as an individual, but it should not be limited to that. Emotional resilience, capacity to face adversity, internal axis, personal responsibility, the very ability to stick to the training that will build your physical capacity – all of that and much more, for me, constitutes the concept of strength. And even though I can imagine what people who come to me because they “want to be strong” mean by that, I will do my best to first make them question the very idea they have about what they mean by that, and then will do my best to help them to build it up based on this new definition.