For all the whining from the haters and losers about how you can't make one-size-fits-all strength standards, The Standards 1.0 remain undefeated because they are as close to universal as you can reasonably get. If you are a man under the age of 45 or so, you have to be all the way at the far left side of the bell curve to not even have a shot at hitting 135/225/315/405 so as to represent an almost invisible portion of the spectrum. Hell, even up to 50 or 55 the majority can still do it, and we have some who do it in their 60s too.
I've actually coached a few people on the far left side of that curve. Out of several thousand who I've coached, I've had a few of those. They do exist. But they also tend to be realistic about their own situations, having been picked last in gym class since kindergarten. No shade on them, they're some of my favorite to coach because of how profoundly even getting to a 225x5 squat changes their life. But it's a teeny tiny minuscule % of the population.
If you can say anything generalizable about lifting expectations at all, you can say that almost every healthy able bodied man under about 45 can hit 135/225/315/405 if he puts his mind to it and trains properly.
Just because most people won't do that, for any variety of reasons, doesn't make it not true. It's not our fault that you refuse to read the blue book and learn how to squat correctly. It's not our fault you insist on remaining 138 lbs to brag about your 'double bodyweight deadlift' - which at 275 isn't even especially good for a recreational female lifter.
Like every general statement about human beings, you can find exceptions if you look with a microscope. But the people who do that are using the microscope to make excuses for mediocrity, not to discover deeper truths that only the microscope can reveal.
"Get stronger" is not a goal. Too general. What does that mean?
You need a target
It's why I love Standards 1.0 and 2.0
Attainable benchmarks that require a solid training PROCESS to achieve