The Difference Between Strength and Skill

While guys like Pavel will claim that “strength is a skill” – it’s true only to a point, and I think that the point is largely misunderstood or misinterpreted nowadays.

Doing strength-building movements – especially and particularly the classic lifts: deadlift, squat, overhead press, clean, chins (weighted), dips (weighted), bench, maybe row – require some “skill,” but I wouldn’t classify them as “motor skills” in the typical sense.

Those are “strength skills.”  They are practiced in a certain way (with ever increasing load/intensity) in order to disrupt homeostasis and create adaptations in the body.

That is, simply repeating the movements involved in strength exercises will not get you stronger.  Practice the movement all you want, but if you don’t add weight (progressively over time), you won’t get any stronger.  You might, however, get more skilled.

The first example that comes to mind that allows for a nice comparison of these two types of “skill” development is the sport of Olympic weightlifting.

In the Soviet Union, and I think in many Eastern Bloc countries with state-funded Olympic training programs, children would be chosen to begin training for their sport at a very young age…perhaps around 5 years old.

For the first three to five years of the child’s training career, they would never touch a real barbell, let alone a weighted barbell.  Instead, they’d practice with a towel, or a wooden dowel.

They’d practice the motor skill of the Olympic lifts – which is a very very specific motor skill (hence those lifts being a sport unto themselves).

Around the age of 10, the child might be allowed to begin practicing with a lightweight barbell, and from there, ever so gradually, progressively add weight – always making sure that they maintained the highest level of motor skill in the execution of the movement.

While a lot of this has to do with children simply being ill-suited for progressive weight training, because they’re still growing at a rapid rate, much of it also has to do with getting a person at a young enough age that they can accumulate 10,000 hours of practice at the skill before they achieve full developmental maturity.

This hearkens back to my old blog posts on skill and skill development.  Skill is problem solving.  It’s the ability to creatively solve problems given the resources available.  “Talent” is what we call “inborn skill.”  And, it seems, that it doesn’t really exist.

While some people may be more uniquely suited for expertise at certain skills (say, because of limb/torso ratios, etc.), the expression of that “talent” is all that really matters.

So, it’s impossible for us to know how real, frequent, or infrequent “inborn” talent is or is not – that is, until every child is given equal access to every musical instrument, athletic sport, computer program, or whatever other skill you want to measure, from the age of 2 on.  Not only that, but they need also be given the freedom, time, money, and emotional support to continue.  Got that?  Great, now tell me how “talented” someone is.

But this post isn’t about talent.  It’s about STRENGTH and SKILL.

The truth is, we all need both.

It’s just that I see so little focus on the real training of EITHER these days.

Most folks in the gym go in and pump some iron to look good.  They don’t try to lift heavy poundages.  They don’t do the classic lifts at all.

They also do bizarre skill-based workouts…things you might do for fun if you were a little kid, but that are treated with unsettling seriousness in an “adult” gym.  Things like balancing on a stability ball on your knees while you move the medicine balls you’re holding in each hand in strange patterns, or while catching and throwing a medicine ball.  Not a lot of laughter…a lot of grimacing.

But what’s the point of that?  I mean what’s the point both of the seriousness with which it’s undertaken, and of the “exercise” itself.  It doesn’t build strength.  There’s no progressing it.  There’s no overload to it.  The body is in too unstable a position to overload.  And it only builds the strangest type of “skill” possible…one divorced from anything you might encounter in life at all.

If you’re going to be performing that trick on a stage, or a streetcorner, for your paycheck, it’s important to practice that.

But if not – what the hell are you doing?

The saddest thing of all is that the trainers aren’t even laughing.  I mean, not the ones who are making the people do it.

Take a look at your programming, ye trainers and trainees.  Return to the basics.

Train STRENGTH with heavy stuff, progressively made heavier, and predominantly with “traditional” (bilateral, barbell) movements.

Train SKILL outside, or wherever you exercise that skill, and try to make it as absolutely perfect as possible…

Real Progessive Training

I’m working on a project right now…I might call it “Real Progressive Training” or something catchier, like – HOT TRAINING FOR FUNCTIONAL SUPERFITNESS BODY HOT!  Yes, I said “hot” twice!  If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will!  I might add the word “kardashian” to the title too…for no specific reason…

But that aside, let’s talk about “functional training” for a second.  It’s constantly on my mind.  As a trainer, I want my clients’ function to improve.  I want them to have greater range of motion in their joints, with greater control of that range of motion, and greater strength (of all types) in that control.

One of my biggest pet peeves in this industry, though, is mindless application of methods.  “Functional Training” is still a hot topic, and everyone attributes “functional” benefits to their product – Crossfit, stability balls, etc.  Let’s take the example of stability balls.

Stability Balls

If you haven’t heard of stability balls, I’m not sure where you’ve been.  They’re everywhere.  They’re in homes, they’re sold as “functional” desk chairs, they’re in gyms, they’re in the street!!!  Stability balls, aka Swiss balls, were first used as circus implements in Italy, back in the earlier part of the 1900′s.  A Swiss physiotherpist found that the instability caused by the balls helped her patients to recover normal function more quickly.

I would imagine it was an inductive case of monkey-see, monkey-do.  If the people with the greatest balance in the world (circus performers) balance on these things, using them with my clients (albeit in a toned-down manner) will eventually bestow unto them a small fraction of the attributes those circus performers have.

Anyhow, soon physical therapists all over the world were using these things with their clients, to introduce instability, and thereby challenge their clients’ proprioceptive (awareness of position in space/time) and kinesthetic abilities.

One young enterprising trainer (Paul Chek) grasped onto the potential for the use of these tools in training normal clients.  Another inductive case of monkey-see, monkey-do.  It probably went like this -  “If it helps sick people to get better faster, it must help people who are well to get even better.”

However, instead of going back to the souce (the circus), and taking cues from there, this trainer took all his cues from the physical therapists.  He basically started giving sick-people exercises to non-sick people.  This is now a huge (and hugely misguided) industry – giving physical therapy/rehabilitative exercises to general personal training clients.

That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be any crossover, or that knowing these techniques is bad.  However, these techniques are usually misused, and certainly overused by personal trainers.

Case In Point

Strong and Asking to be Injured...

Strong and Asking to be Injured...

Let me relay a personal story first.  A good friend was doing bench presses on a stability ball, with 70lb dumbbells.  The ball burst.  He landed on his back on the floor.  When his elbows hit the floor with those 70lb dumbbells on top of them, his radial and ulnar bones shattered.  He was in immobilization rings for six weeks, and in physical therapy (not personal training) for six months afterward.

There are two points I want to make here:

1. Once you pass a certain weight threshold, why would you want to be unstable?!  Further, and related, at that threshold, how unstable are you, really?  In the image above, with the 100-and-whatever-pound dumbbell pushing down into the floor, how unstable is that guy (that’s Paul Chek, for those who don’t know).  And,

2. At what point do you throw the risk/reward calculation out the window?  Take the above example again.  What is he gaining, that can’t be gained in another (safer) way?  Is it really necessary to do that movement, that way?  What happens if that ball bursts?  It may not seem like very far, but 2 feet is a long way to go when you have 100+ pounds on your chest.  Ribs will break, at a minimum.  What if the ball slips out behind him?  Broken coccyx?  Why the hell is that bench right there?!  He’s not using it for anything!  Is it there just to compound the danger?!

Consider this, friends, before you buy in to “functional” training.  Use your common sense.  And when my next project is done, buy my book.