What To Focus On When You Get Strong Enough | Starting Strength Radio Clips

Should you focus on speed, flexibility, endurance, and balance once you get 'strong enough'? Rip has the answer.

[bagel]

As soon as he read, "strength is no longer the most important physical attribute", I knew there was a browbeating incoming.

[Jason-bgjc]

But do you really have enough balance if you can't do a weighted single leg pistol squat on a BOSU ball?

[siddislikesgoogle]

My balance has improved significantly thanks to becoming stronger.

[digs]

Rip's really a strength purist, rightfully so in most cases.

[ensnaredbyflesh]

The spirit of the question is about diminishing returns, and Rip seems to miss that. The stronger you get, the bigger the investment of time and energy is required to continue making equivalent gains. Eventually, you reach a point at which focusing on speed specificity, endurance specificity or whatever becomes a more fruitful investment given that this hypothetical person has not developed nearly as much in those areas.
Mark has this fallacy that strength training will continue improving all other physical attributes at a constant rate forever.

[michaelblacktree]

If you're just a regular Joe who works out to be healthy, and attain that level of strength, then maybe your priorities will shift. I imagine the focus would shift to maintenance and longevity.

[nomaderic]

I know it correlates but I can't say for how long. Before I ever lifted weights I ran like a 17 second hundred. Like a couple months into lifting I ran a 15, then the other day I ran a 13. I dont train for that it was just always for fun to see if I got faster and I always did. Solely from weight training and getting my squat up

[JohnnyMaboy]

Everyone writes a question partially to get an answer, partially to get roasted

[ronaldkennedy]

Mark is hilarious.the sarcastic tone when he properly says, "comador decker", is fuckin epic.

[magicalmixer]

Love Rip, but man I think Commodore is asking a different question than what Rip is answering. Of course someone's endurance, speed, agility, etc. will get better with better strength because more muscle recruitment is available. But, the crux of the question comes from the idea of Diminishing Returns. What would be better at the next step when we finally start feeling that "asymptote" of strength?

[klunky]

Wish we had gotten a ‘that’s not heavy!’

[Mantorok]

I think the question is a bit more interesting if he went at it from a sport specificity angle. Rip is very clear time and time again that eventually you will need to put on weight in order to get stronger. If your goal is "strength, " that's no problem. But what if you are a martial artist, and you want to stay in a weight class? What if you are a skill position in football, or a dancer, or gymnast, or otherwise an athlete who can't afford to pack on more weight?

My answer is I think that's a high threshold to hit, and anyone who does hit it will know a thing or two about bulking and cutting cycles, so it's a moot point. If you go from 190 with some fat to 190 and shredded to the gills, you will perform better in your sport, whatever it is.

[mkdorkov]

That wasn't even sport's performance question.... "top 1% of the population". I think it'd be a good idea to work on those different qualities if you had the time and interest....especially cardio and flexibility.

[selfcritical]

When asked about emphasizing different qualities in post-novice trainees, Rip answers by...describing the effects of a novice progression on secondary characteristics. The entire question was about rotating once the cost of achieving more strength gains goes up. The answer was super straw-manny

[IrvinLep]

Rip missed the mark here. Yes, if you bring your deadlift from 135 to 365 you are going to improve all your attributes. But if your deadlift is already at 365 moving it to 505 will not improve your speed and endurance nearly as much, if at all. And there is a ton of research showing that doing slow, grindy lifts (which you necessarily do if you are lifting twice your body weight on the bench) will actually decrease your speed and power. It's all about specificity.
For fuck's sake, even SS includes the power clean to keep your explosive strength on par with your absolute strength!

[Gyftomancer]

Rip didn't understand the question, similar to many guys to the comments. That guy didn't ask what an athlete should do.

[kusftuod]

how is 2x bw squat and 2.5x bw deadlift strong?? I did that in less than 6 months of training, and I'm just average

[sylver]

Looks like the answer is quite a bit off the mark on this one.

Getting strong is the priority if you're weak, but once you have reasonable levels of strength, gaining additional strength may not longer be the best investment of your training time to improve the performance of an activity.

Take a weak grappler, and get him through a basic strength progression, and you have a massively better grappler. At that point, he'll probably be quite a bit stronger than his opposition who hasn't done so. He's no longer getting overpowered by the strong guys, he can finish his submissions if he gets them, etc. All great. But at that point, the benefits of more strength begin to taper off, and improving strength further becomes a time hog with diminishing returns on the mat.


If strength was all there was to elite sport, strength athletes would dominate all sports. And they don't. Not even close. Sports are dominated by strong athletes who have other characteristics and skills beside just raw strength. Take Teddy Riner, a judo legend and a 6'8", 300lb giant. Benches a respectable 500lb. There are a lot of guys out there who can beat that number by a hundred pounds, but not on the mat. On the mat they get crushed because they lack the balance, flexibility, timing, speed, technique... There is a point where acquiring other attributes gives better returns than just raw strength.

[jbcrazy]

I click on these now to get my daily chuckle out of Crusty Rip.

[sineidavid]

😂😂 There's a back story to this Commodore