I don't understand why you kept saying "my" definition. It's not mine. It's the actual definition in the context of exercise physiology, which is what we're talking about here.
Here's an alternative example. I'm an engineer. If you asked me "how strong is that steel bar," I would then ask you if wanted to know the compressive strength, shear strength, or tensile strength of the bar. If you said you wanted to know the tensile strength, I would give you the exact amount of force that is required to cause necking in that bar, which would I would derive mathematically by knowing the dimensions of the bar and the value of the maxima on the stress-strain curve for that particular alloy of steel. That's what tensile strength means. Exactly.
So next time we talk about strength, would you consider it reasonable if I started talking about the futility of trying to increase the tensile strength of your limbs? Tensile strength is another definition of the word strength, but it's not relevant in the context of physiology.
Just like if we talked about training that would give you more courage during a race - another meaning of the word strength - that would be equally absurd.
In the context of physiology, strength has only one definition. I didn't make it up. And I certainly can't change it in order to come up with something that makes everyone happy.
Words do mean what they mean in the context of the conversation - which in this case is a conversation about physiology. Agreement of the participants has no bearing if the participants are not in a position to actually dictate the definition. It doesn't matter whether you and I agree or don't agree that the definition of the word strength is what it is. What matters is that it is the agreed upon definition according to exercise physiologists.
It's not like here on Slowtwitch we get to have a vote to decide what power, leg, and strength mean. They all already mean something. If you don't want to abide by those definitions, that's going to make things very difficult when it comes to having a discussion.
It's the very fact that you and others been so resistant to actually accepting those definitions that has caused this thread to go on as long as it has.
These are the definitions. There aren't others. And they aren't "mine." They are just THE definitions.
STRENGTH: the ability of a person to exert force on physical objects using muscles
STRENGTH TRAINING: the use of resistance to muscular contraction to build the strength, anaerobic endurance, and size of skeletal muscles.
Both definitions come from Wikipedia, but they would be totally acceptable to any exercise physiologist.
A tall latte or a grande latte doesn't actually change what a latte is. It just gives size. Just like a raspberry latte, if such a thing existed, which I'm sure it does, also doesn't change what a latte is, it just further defines it, much the same way that, in engineering, you need to specify tensile strength, compressive strength, or shear strength. But a latte is simply a drink made from espresso and steamed milk. All those other words just further specify exactly what details further describe your latte.
It's perfectly acceptable for strength training to mean weight lifting OR plyometrics. Both are fine examples of strength training. But, especially in the case of weight training, not all weigh training is strength training. Just like VO2max intervals and LT intervals are both examples of aerobic training, but not all aerobic training is VO2max.
Strength training is designed to increase the force that your muscles can produce. Since force is not time dependent, the accepted definition considers peak force. So how strong you are means how much peak force can you generate. And it means for one repetition. Because otherwise you need to introduce time and distance, and that is an entirely different word - power, which is force*distance/time - or distance, which is another word - work, which is force*distance - or just time, which is another word - impulse, which is force*time.
All these words mean something. And I didn't decide what.
But if you want to talk about whether or not strength training actually has a benefit for triathletes, you actually need to know what you are talking about. Otherwise, I fail to see how you can actually have the discussion.
If one persons thinks that doing low-rep (2-4) heavy-weight deadlifts is strength training (it is) and another person thinks that doing 20min wall-sits is strength training (it isn't), then that's gonna make it really hard to evaluate whether or not strength training is beneficial. But if somehow you see a way around all that, please enlighten me.
But please, please stop saying that I want people to use "my" definition of these words. I just want people to use THE definition.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
than a super thin endurance athlete any day of the week. I have no problem caveating the argument with saying that in terms of "only endurance performance" that strength training vice more SBR will benefit a fractionally small number of individuals, but thats different than "Not at all" 
