Is "Farm Strong" Really Good Enough?

    The Strength and Conditioning world has been meeting a lot of resistance from self-proclaimed tough guys lately. Here's the argument: "I can't squat or bench, but I can sure sling bricks and lumber around with the boys. That's all I need."

    While there is a great deal of ignorance in this statement, it seems to be a mantra that is regurgitated by many. My first question is, why would any man be against getting stronger? Do they not realize that, especially if they have an active job, getting stronger would just make their job a lot easier? Does a 10-brick Tong not feel lighter if you are stronger? Does climbing a ladder on the job site all day not feel easier if your squat numbers are up? If you are moving furniture all day, who do you think will perform better, with more ease: the guy who never lifts, or the guy who has a decent deadlift? One more: when you have to move 65 wheelbarrows of concrete that day, which person do you think will have an easier time: the bigger, stronger guy, who has big squat and deadlift numbers? Or, the skinny guy who is only "worker strong?" How simple logic goes over the heads of so many is simply beyond us in this field.

I believe these anti-strength arguments come from two places:

1. The 1970s myth of "if you lift weights, you'll become big and bulky."

2. Instead of admitting that they are embarrassingly weak, most of these men would rather hide behind these cult-like statements because it sounds cooler than going to the gym and putting in actual work.

    The first argument is easily destroyed after anyone attempts to get big and bulky for a few months, or even a few years. As it turns out, even the most genetically gifted, drug-using pro bodybuilders must still put in decades of work. For many, they will spend 10+ years working hard, doing all the drugs, but are still never big enough to even step on stage. Despite what your aerobics-loving mom told you, just lifting a few weights does not make you big and bulky. In fact, if anyone could benefit from getting stronger, it would be both you and your mom.

    The second argument seems to stem from whatever is trendy online. A decade ago, Crossfit helped demonize actual strength training and got most people on board with performing highly technical lifts, to failure. It seemed cool because it was different, the "athletes" (who are also on drugs) looked normal. It also mocked anyone who performed basic strength training. You know the type: the average guy who performs the compound lifts year-round, eats right, and actually has the physique you have been pursuing for years. Yea, screw that guy; he doesn't know anything. Another version of this "farmer strong" argument comes from the rough and tough workers, or at least the men who think they are rough and tough. Then the younger kids get ahold of that, and it goes on and on...

    I could simply point out the logical error that if working on a farm or construction site made you jacked, we'd only see jacked tradesmen, and there would be no fat farmers or ranchers. We could also point to the actually jacked workers, who do train for strength, and mention their physique and job performance. You know that jacked pipe fitter on your crew? The guy y'all pick on for bringing eggs and protein to work? Yea, he's in much better shape than all of you. But why? Notice, after your 12 hour shift, you are crushed and only have the energy to hit the drive through and then your couch, in front of the TV. What about the jacked guy on your crew, the one you pick on for not joining in on poker night? He's drinking his pre-workout while walking to his truck, then he heads to the gym. Not only does the work day not crush him like it does you and your buddies, but he even has the energy to go train afterward. Is he crazy? Is he on drugs? Did the job make him this strong and energetic? Or, did him putting up some standard man numbers in the gym make him this way? 

    Don't get me wrong; a man who has an active job is much better off than someone with an office job. The problem is the ignorance that the active job makes someone strong. So, let's break it down in knuckle-dragger terms:

"Strength:" Overall force production. It is measured by force generated against the environment, or an object, i.e. - a barbell. How do we measure strength? Easy: we measure the weight on the bar.

    Now, some might argue the following: "I load 100, 75 lb bails of hay everyday. Let's see your average bodybuilder do that." A strong argument, but does it hold any weight? Of course, if you start that job completely fresh, moving such weights all day will absolutely break you off. You will be sore for a few days; maybe even a few weeks. However, after a while, your body adapts, and this job, that was once training, now has  simply become an activity. Unless you add an extra pound or two to each bail of hay each week, you will never get stronger doing this work. Of course, you are stronger than the average male who does nothing. You might even see the bodybuilder, the fake argument you have created, struggle in this environment. However, what you fail to recognize is that, once the bodybuilder adapts to this type of work, he will actually become better at it than you. As long as his strength numbers in the gym continue to improve, and he continues bailing hay, he will continue to out-perform you. Why? Because he is stronger!

    I could offer 100s of examples as above, but we don't have all day. The bottom line is that being stronger improves literally every aspect of one's life: performing at work, performing in the field, and performing in daily life. We all have to sit down and get back up eventually, right? We all carry groceries and load our trucks with equipment. We're not telling you to become obese and only care about a 600 lb deadlift. For some reason, that's what everyone jumps to: the mythical, obese power lifter. Here's a simple test for all of you. First, turn off the TV and stop watching other people live. Second, spend two months simply performing the compound lifts, progressively getting stronger in each. Then, observe how you feel doing literally anything afterward. As long as you train for strength and train properly, you should notice a drastic increase in performance, both on the job and in your personal life. Afterall, we do want to be strong, manly men, right? 

Give strength a chance

Carry on

Minuteman Combat Fitness Test

 

The Minuteman Combat Fitness Test

STRENGTH (1ST EVENT)

1. Barbell Squat: 1RM | 1.2x Body Weight

2. Bench Press: 1RM | Body Weight

3. Deadlift: 1RM | 1.4x Body Weight

4. 5 Strict-Form Pull-Ups

ENDURANCE 

1. 1-Mile Run:  < 9 Minutes*

2. 6-Mile Ruck:  < 1 Hour & 50 Minutes**

*Run is performed in PT clothes

**Ruck is performed in full patrol kit with weapon, pack, and in boots. Pack must weigh minimum 15%  of Body Weight. Route should have no more than 150 ft total elevation gain

BACKGROUND

    Strength, as measured by total force production (weight moved), is the foundation of all human activity. Without doing any other form of training, improving one's strength leads to an exceptional improvement in everything we do. This is especially true for men in a combat role. Carrying a 40-50 lb. kit, over varying terrain, for hours or days, is extremely demanding on the body. Patrolling in kit, as an example, is however a sub-maximal load. That means if an individual becomes stronger over time, all sub-maximal loads become even more so, meaning that those activities become easier to perform. By training for strength, we improve our efficiency in every activity we conduct. Also, an often over-looked benefit to improving one's strength is overall resilience: to the weather and variations, against sickness, as well as during times of extreme mental stress. This is why men must be strong, and we must test their strength. Be advised, however, that these numbers are minimum standards, and individuals should always strive to exceed them. Why squats, deadlift, and bench press? Why not the kettlebell or bodyweight exercises that the "functional fitness" gurus promote? The answer is fairly simple:

• These normal movement patterns can be progressively loaded over a long period of time. Neither KBs nor bodyweight exercises meet this criterion
• These exercises are the most objective displays of strength

    Cardio-vascular endurance, or "cardio," is also a critical during combat operations. Combined with strength, an individual with excellent endurance performs better in the field. Despite how Hollywood and video games portray combat operations, we should view this activity as a sport that's similar to baseball: a very long, mostly aerobic event, with inter-dispersed, short bursts of aerobic performance. One must be able to "go the distance," as well as perform an action, such as a 3-5 second rush or flanking maneuver, very quickly. Units must also be able to perform these actions repeatedly, over a long period of time. 

LEARN HOW TO TRAIN HERE

References & Background

This is a large collaboration with input from many different groups:

• Combat Veterans
• SOF Veterans
• Strength and Conditioning Experts
• Current civil defense group leaders
• SAR Members
• National Forest Firefighters
• LEOs

Starting Strength & Crew

Infantry Small Unit Mountain Operations

US Army Battle Focused Training (FM 7-1)

Physiology of Sport & Exercise, Kenney

Basics of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

This is straight from the Joint Publication (JP) 3-31, Joint Land Operations: 

"The Army SOP is designed to standardize the way units operate, ensuring that tasks are performed consistently and efficiently. It is a critical component of the Army’s operational planning and execution process, as it provides a clear understanding of the procedures and protocols that must be followed in various situations." 

SOPs can be at any level, for any group, or any specific task. An SOP can also be different between different units for accomplishing the same task. Basically, imagine if you are 60 years old, and are writing a book about kicking ass in life. At some point you have figured out a few tasks that can be solved by using a simple problem solving approach. Your SOP might include planning stages, equipment requirements, what you are doing while out performing the job or activity, and maybe even a follow-up at the end. Your SOP might simply include basic procedures on how to navigate from point to another in your vehicle. Then, you'll make a separate SOP on that same trip but while on foot. Pretty simple, right? So what is the point of an SOP? 

While we may think everything we know and do are just "common sense," it may not be common sense to everyone you are leading or working with. But, the fact remains, you know the correct or most efficient way to accomplish a task, and you need your team to be able to do it your way. So what if you are sick or injured, or just not around? Can you trust your team to perform the task, by your standards, without you being there? Most likely not. You can, however, enable them to pull out the SOP for said task, and follow those instructions. As leaders, we cannot expect our team to know everything that we know, or to perform everything exactly like we can. However, we can teach them as much as possible and then, when you are not around and they become ignorant, the SOP will become their default. Lastly, SOPs can be used as assisting people through basic tasks during times of extreme stress. This is where unit training and battle drills come in to play. 

We build our tactics and battle drill SOPs by evaluating our unit capabilities, combined with analyzing the operational considerations of our environment (METT-TC). What is our job, and what are we capable of accomplishing? So first, we develop our SOPs. Next, we must test those SOPs. This is where training and sometimes, real-world testing comes into play. Hopefully we are testing our SOPs in training before the real-world does it for us, because that can suck. 

In summary, we should establish SOPs for basic tasks that we can expect our team to be able to accomplish. Can we conduct a reconnaissance patrol? If so, how do we actually do it? It could come down to a simple word document with task, conditions, and standards, or just a word doc with a step by step instruction. Many unit SOPs for radio communications and first aid applications will be step by step. However, when we are talking about battlefield tactics, the SOP will become lengthier and more complicated. The bottom line is that we have to build the SOPs in the first place, and then test them to improve them.

A few examples of necessary SOPs:

1. TOC setup, organization, and duties

2. Small Unit Tactics: Patrolling, OPs, Reconnaissance, Battle Drills, etc

3. Unit training and planning

4. Communications and Radio Etiquette

5. Team structure and equipment (MTOE)