I Want Functional Strength

[climber511]

I guess what bugs me is when people say “this” is the ONLY way to get strong. Strong has a different meaning depending on who you talk to and what their goals are. This is what bugs me about all the “gurus” out there. They generally take one thing and tell everyone regardless of their personal goals, personal weaknesses, limitations, or injury history etc that this is the only way to success. If your goals happen to match what they say – WOW – the guy’s a star. But if I want for example to be an athlete in a sport with different characteristics then in reality the guy may be the worst thing you could possibly find, no matter how good he might be in his narrow field. We are often quick to push “our” idea of strength and training on people who want to “get stronger” without really finding out what THEY mean when they say that. Prescribing a workout without knowing this might set someone back instead of helping. The whole gain weight to get stronger thing comes to mind – sure it works if your definition of strong is increased weight lifted in say the 3 power lifts. But what if the guy is in a weight class sport or in a weight gain negative one like climbing, sprinting etc?

I think one should pick their “guru” much more carefully than we often do. And I feel guys who lift and/or coach weight training are often the worst ones when it comes to advice. When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. That’s a saying I am reminded of all too often when I see people ask for advice on increasing performance in X and the guy gets advice which is better suited to Y. Getting one rep strong is often not even close to the best answer for everyone depending on how you train to get that way and what you want to do with it.

[Mike Sharkey]

@wojo: of course a barbell is going to be a better tool for maximal 'strength' than a kettlebell. I would never argue otherwise. but the original question was 'functional' strength, which is a way way overused topic as I'm sure we all agree.

my point with sarah was that she undoubtedly has a lower sub-maximal lift than you or me, but she is throwing around 62# like it was a large orange cannoli. my assertion is this is far more likely to be the type of movements (and weight) you will use in daily life than a huge pull off the floor. when in her day is she going to actually need to move a 300# stone out of the way? probably never. but if she slinging grocery bags, or suitcases at the airport or picking her 2 year old up off the floor these are exactly the type of movements she will be dealing with.

further having to carry the weight over time is a completely different sensation and skill entirely. 5 reps or 10 reps or even 20 rep sets are very very different than having to carry and even extremely sub-maximal weight for 10 minutes. after 10 minutes, 50# becomes extremely heavy to someone even very strong, but again, its more likely to be a weight and action required of a person in daily life.

please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one is better than the other. for myself I use both (and bending and sandbags, etc) and go through cycles and phases with different approaches to training because i want to be well rounded, strong, fit, and capable with anything I might face. but whatever someone's sport or desired discipline is, adding some KB training in is going to be extremely beneficial both to the strength aspect and to the conditioning.

[burpsan]

I guess what bugs me is when people say “this” is the ONLY way to get strong. Strong has a different meaning depending on who you talk to and what their goals are. This is what bugs me about all the “gurus” out there. They generally take one thing and tell everyone regardless of their personal goals, personal weaknesses, limitations, or injury history etc that this is the only way to success. If your goals happen to match what they say – WOW – the guy’s a star. But if I want for example to be an athlete in a sport with different characteristics then in reality the guy may be the worst thing you could possibly find, no matter how good he might be in his narrow field. We are often quick to push “our” idea of strength and training on people who want to “get stronger” without really finding out what THEY mean when they say that. Prescribing a workout without knowing this might set someone back instead of helping. The whole gain weight to get stronger thing comes to mind – sure it works if your definition of strong is increased weight lifted in say the 3 power lifts. But what if the guy is in a weight class sport or in a weight gain negative one like climbing, sprinting etc?

I think one should pick their “guru” much more carefully than we often do. And I feel guys who lift and/or coach weight training are often the worst ones when it comes to advice. When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. That’s a saying I am reminded of all too often when I see people ask for advice on increasing performance in X and the guy gets advice which is better suited to Y. Getting one rep strong is often not even close to the best answer for everyone depending on how you train to get that way and what you want to do with it.

Well said!

My $.02 worth ... I've often appreciated sports science and the underlying laws (theories). An understanding and application of which, in my opinion, allows customization and goal specific, sport specific, body specific, etc ... effective training. Then it becomes easier to navigate through the industry of gurus and fads. Unfortunately, sports science and the theories often seems to be used deceptively in the industry to sell x,y,z. Eventually we're never talking about the same things even though the same terminology is used. LIke anything, a common understanding of what the terminology represents so that when discussions occur, we're at least talking about the same thing. Then maybe as the underlying science changes or new ideas are discovered in the trenches, we could all potentially benefit from the shared knowledge.

Us climbers have always been fiercely independent on our views ... I think its the nature of the sport and what draws us to it. I'm getting a sense that grip sport seems to follow suit. I get that there are sport specific demands and unique individual goals, but don't think any of our sports or activities are the holy grail of an exception to many of the underlying principles. Maybe for some of us, our sport or activity is so unique that our methods are exceptional, but rarely can one get too far away from at least some of the basic priniciples. The arguments seem to revolve more around the applications.

For the better part of a decade I tried every bit of training advice from climbing magazines, local climbers, hearsay, lies, etc. to improve my climbing abilities / capacity in my chosen activity of climbing. Most of which never really helped me meet my specific goals ... my biggest gains honestly were from bouldering and climbing itself. It was all a fun ride of discovery though. Until I started to understand some of the underlying principles could I actually chart a path and make measurable progress. It's all good.

Anyway, I think I'm starting to ramble and I may have led the thread astray ... sorry.

[Billy Jack]

I always think about when people say they want "functional" strength, what exact functionality are they looking for. Function could be packing groceries into the house, working on a drill floor, shingling a roof, hiking and doing wood samples for the forestry, chucking fish, being able to pack kids through the mall, etc. all of which have different types and degrees of strength and endurance.

Specificity towards your goals ideally doing exactly what you require to perform the task then exercises that best replicate it. Gym time did nothing for getting me stronger for doing chainsaw work 8-10 hours a day but a week of felling I was a helluva lot more "functionally" fit and after a few months it was easy peasy.

No offense to anyone else, but I think this is the best answer in this thread without overthinking everything.

To use an example to back this up, I can honestly say that I have never had a stronger back and shoulders than I have now. Why is that? I have spent the last several months lugging around a 20-25lb toddler in my arms almost everywhere we go as a family. If you are picking up and carrying a constantly shifting 25lb object for 3-4 hours every weekend, you will have functional strength for that activity. I don't think I could replicate that strength in any gym lift I have ever tried.

[mightyjoe]

I always think about when people say they want "functional" strength, what exact functionality are they looking for. Function could be packing groceries into the house, working on a drill floor, shingling a roof, hiking and doing wood samples for the forestry, chucking fish, being able to pack kids through the mall, etc. all of which have different types and degrees of strength and endurance.

Specificity towards your goals ideally doing exactly what you require to perform the task then exercises that best replicate it. Gym time did nothing for getting me stronger for doing chainsaw work 8-10 hours a day but a week of felling I was a helluva lot more "functionally" fit and after a few months it was easy peasy.

No offense to anyone else, but I think this is the best answer in this thread without overthinking everything.

To use an example to back this up, I can honestly say that I have never had a stronger back and shoulders than I have now. Why is that? I have spent the last several months lugging around a 20-25lb toddler in my arms almost everywhere we go as a family. If you are picking up and carrying a constantly shifting 25lb object for 3-4 hours every weekend, you will have functional strength for that activity. I don't think I could replicate that strength in any gym lift I have ever tried.

If your goal is functional strength at carrying around 25-30 lbs. in your arms almost everywhere you go then I would have to agree

that Jason's post is the best answer!

I don't know why anyone would get offended unless they have ego problems.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Mighty Joe

[Mikael Siversson]

I personally found that training grip only (although this does include some moderately heavy deadlifting with the axle) gave me a lot more 'functional' strength than did OL, PL or BB. This is partly because we use our hands so much in real life situations but also because grip training tends to include heavy one hand lifts that trains your core stabilising muscles.

Another important aspect of 'strength' is the ability to perform max singles time after time after time. If you don't train that way (eg dozens of max attempts in a workout) you are going to see your max strength drop off sharply after one or two max attempts.

[Mike Sharkey]

I would say if you can lift something 12 times in wouldn't really be considered a max.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mike Sharkey