Most powerful strength movements to develop for athletes to be able to throw, hit and move opponents with ease + strength standards to shoot for long term
I noticed that your relative standards stayed the same, but absolute standards differ from compared to this post: https://hybridathletetraining.substack.com/p/training-fundamentals-how-to-build. I.e 315 v 400 squat, 350 v 500 deadlift, etc. Does the former set of standards signal one should move to an intermediate program while the later denotes readiness to move to the third level of the hierarchy, or am I completely off base?
One is trying to help the reader understand if they are *not* an advanced lifter and the other is some higher standards to aim for to be at an advanced level.
However - as an FYI - don’t define yourself by these metrics in absolute at all. Many high caliber athletes won’t hit all of them either.
If you have developed the ability to train consistently, follow a plan intelligently, have some body awareness and confidence training by yourself, and are not highly deconditioned or weak, then I would say it’s more important you follow a good system > worry about the exact iteration of a program you follow.
It may also be relevant that your response to training is a lot more important than your objective numbers...if you are stalling out on a “beginner/intermediate etc” program it means change something regardless of what a general strength metric says.
I think most people need similar things regardless of how strong or developed you are. The difference is just in the progressions and needed recovery demands, as well as the expectations of what the trainee would realistically execute well.
The more advanced you are the more body control, training skill in the gym, and challenging progressions can be in order to stimulate advanced level adaptations.
However in essence we are always training the same underlying qualities using some similar general methods and perhaps program layouts.
I noticed that your relative standards stayed the same, but absolute standards differ from compared to this post: https://hybridathletetraining.substack.com/p/training-fundamentals-how-to-build. I.e 315 v 400 squat, 350 v 500 deadlift, etc. Does the former set of standards signal one should move to an intermediate program while the later denotes readiness to move to the third level of the hierarchy, or am I completely off base?
Essentially yes.
One is trying to help the reader understand if they are *not* an advanced lifter and the other is some higher standards to aim for to be at an advanced level.
However - as an FYI - don’t define yourself by these metrics in absolute at all. Many high caliber athletes won’t hit all of them either.
If you have developed the ability to train consistently, follow a plan intelligently, have some body awareness and confidence training by yourself, and are not highly deconditioned or weak, then I would say it’s more important you follow a good system > worry about the exact iteration of a program you follow.
It may also be relevant that your response to training is a lot more important than your objective numbers...if you are stalling out on a “beginner/intermediate etc” program it means change something regardless of what a general strength metric says.
I should add btw...
I think most people need similar things regardless of how strong or developed you are. The difference is just in the progressions and needed recovery demands, as well as the expectations of what the trainee would realistically execute well.
The more advanced you are the more body control, training skill in the gym, and challenging progressions can be in order to stimulate advanced level adaptations.
However in essence we are always training the same underlying qualities using some similar general methods and perhaps program layouts.