What Is Strong?

[Rick Walker]

Jim Wendler from Elite Fitness and Paul Carter from Functional Strength blog defined Strong as the following:

-Squat: 500 x20

-Deadlift: 500 x20

-Bench press: 315 x20

-Overhead Press: 315 x1 strict, no leg drive

-Pull-ups: bodyweight + 100 pounds x10

-Dips: bodyweight + 200 pounds x10

-Strict curl: 185 x10

These are to be done with belt/knee sleeves/wrist wraps only, and REGARDLESS of bodyweight.

Thoughts??

[jad]

LOL, yeah that ought to qualify. I'd love to see someone strict 185#x10 since Rob's 100# strict db challenge is proving to be the Bigfoot of the curling world

[andurniat]

A very good list. I need to print that off and hang in the gym.

The first person that came to mind when seeing this list was Jason 'Cyborg' Lawson. I'm sure there are others, but I've seen Jason lift firsthand and he's STRONG in all ways.

[Bill Piche]

I am sure they didn't mention juiced or not.

[The Natural]

It all depends on the standard one uses.

In my opinion, the strength athletes who would be able to perform those squat and DL feats would not waste their time training with rep ranges that high, as they are probably competitive athletes, either powerlifters or strongmen, more concerned with rep ranges from 1-10. So in a way it is counterproductive to list those as the standards for what is strong, since the only people who could do them would never bother trying.

Most of these 'What is strong?' questions have to be tailored to the audience. Most of the time the audience consists mainly of really dedicated gym rats. The serious competitive athletes are less concerned with "What is strong?", since they already know they are strong, and more concerned with "What do I need to do to win the next competition?"

So for the gym rat crowd, I think those standards are far too high.

DL: 500x10, 600x1

Squat: 500x10, 600x1.

Strict Press: 275x1.

Bench: 315x10, 405x1.

Curl: 135x10 (no cheating)

Dips/Chinups: far too dependent on BW. But if pushed, for chinups, BWx10 for a HW guy, BWx20 for a LW guy. Don't know much about dips.

I think that's a better standard.

[mightyjoe]

The definition of STRONG has been beaten to death on many strength

forums and there's never been a consensus on it.

One thing that all agree on is it's a relative term riding the fence

of subjectivity.

Many examples could be given but like I said this subject has been

long over due its grave. RIP!

Edited August 15, 2010 by Mighty Joe

[The Natural]

The definition of STRONG has been beaten to death on many strength

forums and there's never been a consensus on it.

One thing that all agree on is it's a relative term riding the fence

of subjectivity.

Many examples could be given but like I said this subject has been

long over due its grave. RIP!

The follow up question is always 'strong relative to what goal?" To be strong enough for a national level p/l comp, you'll need to be strong in a way that the gym rat cannot really understand.

When people ask "What is strong?" and don't specify a type of competition, or the level of competition, I think that in their hearts they really mean "What's strong enough to get a nod of admiration from other guys who are really serious about lifting weights?" In other words, if you were to train at a 'serious' gym for a while, what would you have to do to get a reputation as a strong guy?

I think that makes the question a little more concrete, and that's the one I try to answer.

Edited August 15, 2010 by The Natural

[djukac]

I would like to give an opinion on what is strong, but I'm weak as a kitten

But I think squat around 550, deadlift 600+ and standing press around 300 would be good indicators of a strong person.

Edited August 15, 2010 by djukac

[mightyjoe]

The definition of STRONG has been beaten to death on many strength

forums and there's never been a consensus on it.

One thing that all agree on is it's a relative term riding the fence

of subjectivity.

Many examples could be given but like I said this subject has been

long over due its grave. RIP!

The follow up question is always 'strong relative to what goal?" To be strong enough for a national level p/l comp, you'll need to be strong in a way that the gym rat cannot really understand.

When people ask "What is strong?" and don't specify a type of competition, or the level of competition, I think that in their hearts they really mean "What's strong enough to get a nod of admiration from other guys who are really serious about lifting weights?" In other words, if you were to train at a 'serious' gym for a while, what would you have to do to get a reputation as a strong guy?

I think that makes the question a little more concrete, and that's the one I try to answer.

Very well said Rex!

Great post my friend!

[mightyjoe]

I would like to give an opinion on what is strong, but I'm weak as a kitten

But I think squat around 550, deadlift 600+ and standing press around 300 would be good indicators of a strong person.

Is that STRONG though???

An ant is capable of lifting 50 times it's bodyweight.

See what I mean by relative. Strong? Relative to what?

Is closing a #3 gripper STRONG? That gripper is childs play for some.

Hard for others. Impossible to others.

STRONG?

What do you mean?

[climber511]

Strong is always 5# or one PR more than one can lift today. I don't think anyone serious ever believes they are strong "enough". It's a moving target for most of us.

[Rick Walker]

I am not sure how they meant it, but I do know they said imagine what the athlete who could achieve those feats would look like and perform like.

I personally think those numbers, for a DRUG FREE athlete, are the upper level of what strength is. Combine that with the ability to push a Prowler up hill or run a 5K and you have someone who could meet all of life's challenges head on.

I like to look at things like this, because quite frankly, I could give a shit less about totals, etc.

If I was dropped into the middle of the jungle, could I survive and walk out? Could I throw my old spikes on and play a pick up tackle football game with a bunch of 20 year olds? Could I play 1 on 1 without gassing? Could I carry a 100lb sack on my back for a 10 mile hike? Could I ride my bike up a 5000' peak in an hour? Could I push a Prowler up my driveway 10 times and smile about it? Could I hike 50 miles if my car were stranded in the middle of nowhere? Could I survive a Zombie apocalypse? Can I push my car 3 miles if I run out of gas? Could I hold onto my wife with 1 arm if she slipped off a walking bridge and was facing a 200' drop to rocks? Could I do all of that, and still hit the numbers Wendler speaks of??

If I could...I would be strong.

[Rick Walker]

Instead of 750-pound raw squats, I would love to see you, REX, push the Prowler loaded to 50-pounds up a 7% grade of 40 yards 10 times.

But shit, I know, that wouldnt up your total...

I think most of us are more worried about living a long, healthly, productive life. You might be better off hanging out on more ELITE message boards instead of on here with us mere mortals.

[rico300zx]

Instead of 750-pound raw squats, I would love to see you, REX, push the Prowler loaded to 50-pounds up a 7% grade of 40 yards 10 times.

But shit, I know, that wouldnt up your total...

I think most of us are more worried about living a long, healthly, productive life. You might be better off hanging out on more ELITE message boards instead of on here with us mere mortals.

Rick,

All prowlers aside, Rex keep many of us in line when we start thinking we're strong. Beside he only pops in to bust balls every now and then anyway.

Rico

[AP]

When these kind of lists come out I find it strange that for some people words like strong, world class, and elite all mean nearly the same thing. They get weeded down until there's only like one guy in the world who could ever have met the requirements.

Don Reinhoudt

Seriously, strong? I think most regular people would define strong as like 300lb deadlift or a 225 benchpress. Being lifters we should have a higher standard but certainly at any commercial-type gym 3/4/5 or a 1200lb raw powerlifting total would put you in the "strong" category. Those numbers small as they are would make you stronger than world champion armwrestlers, elite level international wrestlers, many NFL NHL MLB players, respected highland games competitors, stronger than probably any serious tour de france rider (sorry Rick!), quite stronger than the average gym rat etc. If you want to forget about weight classes and maybe bump it up a bit 4/5/6 or 1500lbs RAW I suppose that's fine by me.

I just think it's weird like some kind of bigorexia that guys who have been lifting for decades and (not saying Jim or Paul just anybody) use steroids still wouldn't consider themselves "strong". Now if you want to compete against the best in the world in strongman or PL or olympic lifting you're going to have to go quite a bit beyond just strong.

[AP]

All prowlers aside, Rex keep many of us in line when we start thinking we're strong. Beside he only pops in to bust balls every now and then anyway.

Rico

Tru that, but unless I'm mistaken even Rex wouldn't be that close to being considered strong by Paul and Jim's definition. That's ludicrous!

[blueviper42]

Those numbers small as they are would make you stronger than world champion armwrestlers, elite level international wrestlers,...

Stronger in certain aspects, yes, but not stronger in the areas needed for armwrestling. A world class armwrestler is miles ahead of any world class strong man in aspects needed for armwrestling. The absolute strongest power lifters and strongmen would have no chance whatsoever against a world class 165 pound armwrestler. For the general and popular definition of strength then obviously the former would be leagues stronger which was probably what you meant, but I still wanted to add that in.

As a side note I feel somewhat accomplished that I can at least complete the chinups part of Rex's list.

Edited August 16, 2010 by thewalrus

[AP]

Those numbers small as they are would make you stronger than world champion armwrestlers

Stronger in certain aspects, yes, but not stronger in the areas needed for armwrestling. A world class armwrestler is miles ahead of any world class strong man in aspects needed for armwrestling. The absolute strongest power lifters and strongmen would have no chance whatsoever against a world class 165 pound armwrestler. For the general and popular definition of strength then obviously the former would be leagues stronger which was probably what you meant, but I still wanted to add that in.

That's partly my point, yes, the same is true of the original list only much more so. Is there a single high level armwrestler in the world that would be strong or close to it according to Jim and Paul? I think armwrestlers would/should fit the general definition of strong.

[climber511]

Jim Wendler from Elite Fitness and Paul Carter from Functional Strength blog defined Strong as the following:

-Squat: 500 x20

-Deadlift: 500 x20

-Bench press: 315 x20

-Overhead Press: 315 x1 strict, no leg drive

-Pull-ups: bodyweight + 100 pounds x10

-Dips: bodyweight + 200 pounds x10

-Strict curl: 185 x10

These are to be done with belt/knee sleeves/wrist wraps only, and REGARDLESS of bodyweight.

Thoughts??

That would obviously be "strong" but until I actually see where someone has done it - it's just a fantasy list of BS someone made up. I can't think of anyone I think can do it at present. And regardless of bodyweight - I really call BS into the realm of just plain stupid.

[JohanB]

This question could be solved with simple science. Give me enough money and would construct the whole experiment myself.

First, you randomly select a couple of thousand ppl from random populations so that you get a stratified selection of participants.

Then you simply decide what parameters you have for strength, it might be:

Squat

Deadlift

Overhead press

Or something else.

Then, if you have the time and money, you test all the subjects in all of those lifts and voila! You have some numbers to work with.

You then use simple statistics to build some nice graphs, you use the pearson chi-square test to find statistical differences. Based on some number-crunching you then know what could be considered strong within the researched population by looing at some breaking points such as the 95th percentile.

[AP]

This question could be solved with simple science. Give me enough money and would construct the whole experiment myself.

First, you randomly select a couple of thousand ppl from random populations so that you get a stratified selection of participants.

Then you simply decide what parameters you have for strength, it might be:

Squat

Deadlift

Overhead press

Or something else.

Then, if you have the time and money, you test all the subjects in all of those lifts and voila! You have some numbers to work with.

You then use simple statistics to build some nice graphs, you use the pearson chi-square test to find statistical differences. Based on some number-crunching you then know what could be considered strong within the researched population by looing at some breaking points such as the 95th percentile.

I'm guessing that if you used a random sample - ie mostly untrained population - even 95th % would be unbearably low. Like 175 sq, 250 dl, 115 overhead lbs.

[JohanB]

This question could be solved with simple science. Give me enough money and would construct the whole experiment myself.

First, you randomly select a couple of thousand ppl from random populations so that you get a stratified selection of participants.

Then you simply decide what parameters you have for strength, it might be:

Squat

Deadlift

Overhead press

Or something else.

Then, if you have the time and money, you test all the subjects in all of those lifts and voila! You have some numbers to work with.

You then use simple statistics to build some nice graphs, you use the pearson chi-square test to find statistical differences. Based on some number-crunching you then know what could be considered strong within the researched population by looing at some breaking points such as the 95th percentile.

I'm guessing that if you used a random sample - ie mostly untrained population - even 95th % would be unbearably low. Like 175 sq, 250 dl, 115 overhead lbs.

That would be my guess as well.

But one could make things interesting by only using idividuals with a one year minimum weight lifting experience.

Alot depends on the selected population.

[jad]

Those numbers small as they are would make you stronger than world champion armwrestlers, elite level international wrestlers,...

Stronger in certain aspects, yes, but not stronger in the areas needed for armwrestling. A world class armwrestler is miles ahead of any world class strong man in aspects needed for armwrestling. The absolute strongest power lifters and strongmen would have no chance whatsoever against a world class 165 pound armwrestler. For the general and popular definition of strength then obviously the former would be leagues stronger which was probably what you meant, but I still wanted to add that in.

As a side note I feel somewhat accomplished that I can at least complete the chinups part of Rex's list.

Not to mention, there's not a world class AW on the planet that could touch 185#x10 on the strict curl. Cyplenkov or an in shape Vovoeda could maybe do the strict 135x10 but strict curls are about as useful as a big DL for AWs.

[The Natural]

Strong is only relevant in the event that tests it. Can the guy/gal that completes this list bend a 5/16 x 7" G8 in IMPs? No? Not strong. It's all in the circles you travel in.

I agree that strength is relative to the task or goal, however, some demonstrations are more indicative of a general, widely transferable strength than others. When someone is strong at several of these basic tests of strength, he can be said to be stronger than someone who's only good at a few narrow (less transferable) tasks. Savickas and Coan, for example, are stronger than anyone who has ever bent a G8 bolt.

[The Natural]

I respect your opinion. Of course if the task is powerlifts, Coan would be head and shoulders above 99.9% of the population, but what if the task was a Ranger mission, hump an 80lb pack through a swamp, then carry a wounded teammate 2 miles to an out point.?

I don't think most people would consider that to be strength related. More of an endurance event. It can be said to be a test of mental strength, but then again, so is ice skating, rugby, and just about any other sport, plus many things that are not sports. I thought we were discussing physical strength specifically, not mental strength or physical endurance. Incidentally, someone on this board once remarked that Ranger training depleted him of more strength and muscle than anything else he had ever experienced, and that Rangers were some of the more gaunt members of the armed forces.