Stu McGill, or “Dr. Spine,” is a world-renowned back bio-mechanist. His Level 1 course provided ample opportunities to compare his strength paradigm to that of the StrongFirst and Functional Movement systems.
Differing Opinion: Pure Conditioning
McGill advocates spending less time “under the bar” and more time doing asymmetric carries and using a sled. While there is some overlap with StrongFirst, for example in this rucking article, the approach sounds more reminiscent of Wendler’s 5-3-1 accessory conditioning work or certain CrossFit workouts.
A Sharp Contrast: Adding Load to Dysfunction
McGill stated that sometimes, “maybe 30% of the time,” adding load to dysfunction can actually improve movement. This is in direct contrast to the FMS principle that “We should not put fitness on movement dysfunction.”
My own personal experience working with clients has been that maybe closer to 5-10% of them can improve movement patterns by adding load to dysfunction.
Approaches Overlap: Strength and Neural Drive
Neural programming can be useful in “getting” the feel of how to set up properly. McGill’s example of a quake bar struck a chord, as it occasionally appears on the menu when I train at East Van Barbell Club. To me, a quake bar feels very similar neurologically to the FMS narrow half kneel stance, or the FMS stability arm bar. (Please contact me if you have no idea what any of these are!)
Strength–as in, low-rep maximum efforts–necessarily involves the nervous system. McGill refers to the 100% neural firing represented by a “game face” and the need to have mental imagery on board.
As an example, my hastily jotted notes have him comparing two people who can currently do 6 chinups. One trains in a 6/5/4 type of pattern, and the other trains single chinups in sets of 5, say, but using full neural drive. He contended that after a year of training, the first may be doing a negligibly higher amount of chinups, whereas the second will have achieved more like 30.
I’ve personally found as I prepare for my first bench-only competition that the mental component is huge to help me increase what I can lift.
Complete Paradigm Sync: Relaxation Training
McGill’s performance algorithm puts speed/power/agility at the top of the food chain, and he contends that for athletes, slightly undertrained is better than slightly overtrained. He gave the example of coach Charlie Francis, who when training Ben Johnson never took him to maximum exertion. For advanced athletes, McGill espouses training “fast” and “slow” days as opposed to the traditional heavy / light paradigm.
Of course, the two approaches sync completely because relaxation training is at the heart of the StrongFirst philosophy. A properly executed kettlebell swing embodies the dual concepts of tension and relaxation.
Subtly Different: Stiffness vs. Stability
Here is where I feel that StrongFirst and McGill really begin to differ. McGill champions a bracing pattern to create “Superstiffness.” He has had wonderful results with people in severe pain, as well as with elite athletes, but the middle part of the bell curve seems treated in a more cursory manner.
Think of the “conscious competence” model of learning – he somewhat glosses over the middle part of the model, in which deeper learning occurs, and moves straight to the stiff abdominal brace when it’s not always appropriate. (For more on this, read about my personal experiences with McGill during our transverse abdominis dialogue.)
In contrast, an oft-repeated StrongFirst axiom is that “strength is a skill,” and one that can be learned and honed. The difference further shows with FMS language referring to proximal stability and distal mobility, rather than core stiffness.
They’re on the same page, though, regarding core strength being anti-rotational and with power production coming from the hips. My notes have McGill saying that “Great athletes train to STOP twisting, not create it — and they actually become better twisters.”
Conceptual Divide: Endurance before Strength?
McGill’s approach completely syncs again with that of StrongFirst when he discusses the deadlift: “Don’t be greedy.” Moving forward too quickly with high loads is a direct route to injury and setbacks.
His advocacy of endurance before strength might be construed as somewhat differing, though. StrongFirst has an over-arching emphasis on quality and technique. From one perfect rep eventually comes two, and eventually, yes, even up to 100 at a time, such as in the infamous snatch test.
In a serendipitous coincidence, just this morning, Dr. Michael Hartle published a masterful article reconciling the need for quality AND quantity, so I will pass that baton to him.
Conclusion Distilled
As I see it, StrongFirst and the Functional Movement Systems approach strongly acknowledge the neurological component to conscious strength production, with McGill’s approach being somewhat more mechanical.
I love and fully espouse McGill’s conservative approach to neutral spine – especially when compared to something like the Starting Strength style of deadlift or squat — but bringing the whole human on board is how I prefer to work. This is why I uphold my support for the StrongFirst model.