What, Exactly, Constitutes “Strong Enough”?

“Arriving at one goal is the starting point to another.”
- John Dewey

Franco Columbu, movin’ some serious iron…

I receive something like the following, or a close variant of this type question, quite often – it’s probably the second most common (right behind, “dude, how do I get swole?”) training-related question I field – and it’s a legitimate concern for those just getting into the iron game.  In fact it’s of concern – or should be – for anyone in the iron game, regardless of whether the goal is performance-related, or just lookin’ good nekkid.  But before we travel too far down the rabbit hole, let’s check out TTP reader Paul’s question:

Keith,

I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog and learning more about your application of Evolutionary Fitness. I find myself constantly on your blog, Mark Sisson’s blog, Richard Nikoley’s blog (great for health information and recipes!) and, of course, Art De Vany’s website.

I have a question for you…would you have a recommendation for minimal strength requirements, i.e., something to shoot for on the strength end of the spectrum? For example, I think I read on your site that you think anything more than 2x bodyweight for squats is not very useful. Any other guidelines for pullups, chins, dips, muscle-ups, etc?

The reason that I ask is that I have good lower body strength, but struggle with upper body strength. Should I spend more time working on strength-focused workouts until I can do, say 10 bw pullups, before focusing on speed workouts? Thank you for your help and for your great website..

First off let me say that just asking the question indicates a high degree of sophistication, especially from what I gather to be someone of a fairly young training age (i.e., someone who hasn’t been in the iron game long – nothing to do with chronological age).  Because the truth of the matter is that strength (and relative strength) are the kingpin about which everything weight room related ought to hinge.  Now, why in the world would I make a statement like that, when I’m known to drone on and on about the power-to-bodyweight ratio, and about how speed and agility are what ought to be coveted as far as athletic parameters are concerned?  Quite simply, because strength is by far the easiest of all parameters to train.  It’s also the easiest parameter to manipulate, and – (and this can’t be stressed enough) – it’s also the one parameter that’s most often overdone.

What?  Are you saying that a trainee can be too strong?  Well, not exactly.  What I am saying is that a trainee can easily overtrain strength to the detriment of speed – and yes, if this is the case, then any added strength past the point of speed detriment is, in most cases, useless (strongman-like trainees notwithstanding) .  And even within the power lifting community, the need to maintain speed (and by extension, power) while increasing strength is realized – this is the basis behind Louie Simmons’ Conjugate method of training.  Vern Gambetta recently posted about the phenomena of the wrong-minded pursuit of strength to the detriment of speed over at Elite Track.  And for some good follow-up on that particular post, check out this related discussion thread.  Lots of interesting comments.

So this is just one example of what makes training as much (and more, in my opinion) art as it is science.  All methods work for the trainee who happens to be weak in the area the particular method is designed to address.  No method, however, works in perpetuity.  NONE.  And the greater the training age, the greater the sophistication required to further adequate progression – and the easier it is to do more harm than good.  There is only the right answer for a particular trainee at a particular point in that trainee’s development.  Two weeks from now, a new relative weakness will appear, and that will need to be addressed.  And so it goes, with this “flux” being the only condition that remains in perpetuity.  Adjust, adapt, reassess, change…in training (as in life itself?), there truly is no destination – there is only the ride.

But if that is the danger of the far end of the strength spectrum, what of the other end?  What of the trainee who is truly “not strong enough”?

Meet Allyson Felix…

To quickly summarize Allyson’s bio, what we have here is an immensely talented young sprinter (Allyson in her high school years) who was weak relative to both her cns/RFD capabilities and (an educated guess here) to her fast/slow twitch fiber ratio.  Coach Barry Ross put Allyson on a steady diet of basic strength training and, as a result (and not at all surprising), her sprint times plummeted even further.  The ability to transfer a greater force at a given speed (and at a given bodyweight – a very important, yet often overlooked factor) equates to an increased power output.  Easy enough.  The danger here though, of course, lay in the pushing of the strength focus up to (and, in many instances, past) the point of diminished returns.  The magic, if there is any, lay in finding the smallest (training) dose required to elicit a progressive response, not in dishing out the most work that an athlete/trainee can tolerate.  Anyone can beat the dog piss out of a trainee; a true professional doses appropriately, and utilizes recovery to to the maximum.With all of that said, though, what of our friend Paul and his original question?  How much strength should Paul be looking for?

This is a dicey, dicey question, and I almost hate to engage it without a list of caveats as long as my arm.  It’s so very easy to dispense with the ol’ 2x bodyweight squat, 1.5 x bodyweight bench press, blather – the truth is, though, that it depends.  It depends on so many factors (and the context surrounding those factors), in fact, as to make blanket thumb rules just about useless. And what manner of factors are we talking about, here?  Well, things like age, sex, build, training age, natural strengths and weaknesses, stated ultimate goals…and the list goes on.  Without knowing too much about Paul, though, I can toss out these ideas for what he might shoot for.  I think they represent a realistic strength base from which the average guy might then diverge into athletic betterment or more bodybuilding-type pursuits:

• 2xBW deadlift (primary) or 2xbw squat (secondary) – depending upon the trainee’s build (i.e., short & squat vs tall & lean…or somewhere in between)

• 1xbw military (or btn) press with minimum jerk/push

• Approx. 7 bw+ 10% chin-ups (hands supinated)

• Approx 7 bw+15% full dips

The dips and chins also account for someone who might need to shed fat (thereby decreasing the exercise loading, while gaining strength) in order to meet the “standard”.

I’ll delve more deeply into the deadlift vs squat, and why I prefer the deadlift in most instances as a vehicle for both increasing and gauging overall strength, and how this relates to the Allyson Felix scenario, in an upcoming post.  In the meantime, if you have differing ideas on “base strength” standards, please post them.  All I ask is that you qualify your standard by way of trainee goal and “bio” so we can establish some context to the scenario.

In health,
Keith

12/29/09, Strength-Endurance Emphasis

Shifting focus a bit for the next few weeks to the strength-endurance end of the modality continuum.  The loading in each movement will be heavier, and the rep speed a bit slower (relatively speaking), though I’m still striving for as fast & as crisp a rep as possible.  As I progress over the next few weeks, I’ll increase the loading while at the same time attempting to decrease the total amount of time-to-completion for each movement.  This workout was dead-simple, yet totally effective.  Lift heavy, lift fast, and cut recovery to a minimum.  Make every rep count.  Simple in design – a killer in execution, though.  Began the session with sprint starts, jumps and ballistic stretching, then:

1. Deadlift/shrug/toe-raise combo*: 135 x 5; 225 x 5; 315 x 21 (rest-pause, all singles.  16:20 total time).  Reps 1- 13 no straps, 13 – 21 with straps
2. Bradford press: 95 x 5, 5; 135 x 21 (rest-pause, 2s and 3s.  5:35 total time).  I begin the movement behind the neck (with just the slightest of initiation from the hips, and stretch-reflex in the front) – so btn to front, then back to behind the neck = 1 rep. 

*Think of this as a low pull broken down into 3 distinct segments: the deadlift portion, the toe-off (or toe-raise, in this case), and the shrug.  Hold the toe-up and shrug for a full count at the apex of the lift.  Deadlift from floor to hips as fast as possible, micro pause, toe-up & shrug.  Toe-up and shrug are more fluid, but yet still distinct movements.  I did use an over/under grip in lieu of an over/over (normal clean grip) in deference to the heavier deadlift portion of the movement.  Would like to see the 16:20 time come down significantly – approximately 46 secs/rep affords a little too much recovery for my liking.  Each rep was crisp here, though, with no grinds.  Next time out I’ll probably increase the weight 10 lbs and strive to bring the total time down.

Note: post workout (1-hour) nutrition consisted of a Fage (total) yogurt and a handful of shelled pecans.

Technorati Tags: strength-endurance, deadlift, bradford press

12/28/09, Transitioning Out of Hibernation Mode

I’ve been on an intense bout of rest and relaxation since the evening of the 22nd, so I approached this workout as a transition back into the swing of things.  Just wanted to get out and move; get the ol’ blood pumping a bit.  Once I get back into the gym (tomorrow morning), I’ll be shifting my focus slightly toward the strength end of the modality continuum.  The loading will be a bit heavier, the rep speed – though still pretty crisp – won’t have the explosiveness indicative of a max power emphasis workout.  The mentality, though – as always – will be to move the weight as fast as possible.  More on the method as I progress through the block.

Today’s workout began with a good dose of fixie sprints around the beautiful town of G-Vegas, NC.  I appreciate having returned to a point just far enough south so as to have access to snow and slush-free streets.  Good ride, and good to be back in the saddle.  Then:

• 50 shoulder dislocates x 2 sets
• 150 push-ups/50 yd. sprint combo*
• straight bar muscle-ups, reverse grip/regular grip power pull-ups combo ( 1 “set” = 4 rev. grip power pull-ups, transition in air, 2 regular grip power pull-ups, transition….until miss or failure) x “a bunch” of sets – didn’t keep track, just kept at it until form degenerated so as to be deemed atrocious.

*An old GPP standby, and a nod to the folks at CrossFit; something my firefighter trainees will learn to loathe come February (do your homework boys and girls!): with a running clock, perform 150 quality push-ups with a fifty yard sprint at each break.  In other words, (for example) 30 push-ups, sprint, 25 push-ups, sprint…until a total of 150 push-ups have been completed.  No pause in the push-up reps allowed; if the slightest of pauses is necessitated, a sprint must ensue.  And this is a quality, all-out sprint – not a stride, lope, or half-assed effort performed as a “recovery” cycle.  If a rest is required (and you can bet your ass there will be), it must come after the sprint and before the next “set” of push-ups.  The number of push-ups within each set does not matter, so long as they are quality reps.  The shoulder dislocates did me no favors in the push-up department here, so I wound up performing plenty of sprints -  especially in the last 50 or so reps.  8:35 total time.  I don’t know what my last outing of this timed-out at, but I’d have to say it was a hell of a lot faster than that.  There’s always something to work on, something to improve.

12/22/09, Front-Loading the Week Ahead

Evening workout.  Purposefully digging a bit of a recovery hole, here, as I don’t normally hit 3 tough workouts in a row.  Between now and the 29th, though, things will be pretty slack on the workout front.  Maybe some sprint intervals here and there, some Tabata-like stuff possibly – I’ll be traveling quite a bit, though, and experience has taught me that working out while on the road (particularly during the winter) is usually a non-starter.

Proper attention to auto-regulation was crucial in this workout, as I came in (I suspect) already in a physical deficit.  Just the right amount of stimulus would set me up for a good week of recovery/coasting/surplus rebound; too much, and I’ll have dug too deep a hole – or worse, wind up hurting myself.  As it turned out, and in deference to the previous two days worth of effort, I went even more conservative (damn, am I actually learning something in my old age?) than I would have otherwise opted, pulling the plug a round early on the push-presses and front squats on the first hint of a decrease in rep speed.  I definitely think I had one more round in the tank (being this was a strength-speed workout), but in this case I let discretion be the better part of valor.

Again, no sprints or sprint starts today (leaving the option open for some possible run-intensive work over the holidays.  Warm-up consisted of ballistics and ballistic stretching  foreshadowing  the movement patterns to come in the weighted portion of the workout.  CNS prime via bw jump squats, elevated-foot push-ups and muscle-up combos.

• *bodyweight Jump squat, out of the hole x 3 (each round)
• front squat: 135 x 5, 5; 185 x 3; 195 x 3, 3, 2
• feet-elevated ballistic push-up x 3 (each round)
• BTN push-press: 135 x 5, 5; 185 x 3, 195 x 3, 2, 2
• *under-grip/over-grip muscle-up combo x 2 (each round)
• reverse-grip pull-ups: 45 x 5, 5; 70 x 3; 80 x 3, 3, 3, 3

*Jump squats out of the hole: mimic a full clean/out-of-the-hole front squat movement here, exploding up from the bottom-out position, heel-centric, with a last minute toe-off.  The muscle-up combo is the old under (reverse) grip power pull-up with a mid-air transition to a regular grip catch, immediately followed by a regular grip muscle-up.  I need to film this at some point, as it’s easier demonstrated than explained verbally.

This workout begs the obvious question, though: why not just perform clean & jerks instead of front squats and BTN presses?  The short answer – it’s a play between my personal goals and exercise execution technique issues.  This was a tough, strength-speed emphasis workout, and I didn’t want to sacrifice muscular fatigue/inroading due to technical precision.  And you’ll notice that I don’t do a whole lot of full Oly lifts within any of my protocols.  Not because I don’t believe in them – I do – I just think that I get more bang for the buck (as viewed through the prism of my particular goal set) by doing the various Oly derivative moves, and not having to be concerned with technique breakdown of a full-on Oly lift as fatigue sets in.  I’m not particularly well built for the full Olys, so in order to pull off a technically good lift, I have to lighten the weight to a point where the weak-link (for me, the parallel point in the front squat) is not over burdened.  This usually leaves the other portions of the movement – especially the pull portions, for me – under taxed.         

    Technorati Tags: BTN push-press, front squat, reverse grip pull-ups

If You Only Read One T-Muscle Article This Year…

“A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all the other virtues.”
- Cicero

…read The Perfect Rep, by T-Muscle contributing writer, Christian Thibaudeau.  Of course I’m biased here (because this is precisely how I train the vast majority of my time in the gym), but this is, bar none, the best explanation of how each rep of a workout ought to be executed that I have ever come across.  Thibs tends to frame the process in terms of “force” and “acceleration”, whereas I choose to use the term “power” but, in essence, we’re both talking about the same phenomenon.  Speed of execution and cns stimulation reigns; the actual weight used takes a back seat – a mere means to an end.  The number of reps and sets in a particular movement are used only as a gross quantification of more specific auto-regulation.  And truth be told, I’m quite sure that the most well-known (notice I said “well-known”, not “the best”) strength and conditioning coaches realize that this training method is, in  fact, the bedrock methodology required in the building of an efficient athlete (or a bodybuilder, for that matter).  It’s not the only method, of course – but I would go so far as to say that it ought to comprise the backbone of all weightroom methodologies.  Are raw strength and RFD important?  No doubt, they are.  But only insofar as their correlative contribution to peak power production, and the rapid recovery and repeatability of that power production.  It’s a cyclic, yin-yang natured thing, improving a trainee’s athleticism.  And for those interested primarily in bodybuilding, or just “lookin’ good nekkid”?  Yep, this is a bedrock methodology for those folks, too.  The only difference here is that I’d revert away from this methodology at a little greater frequency so as to pursue other more “TUL-heavy” protocols.  Like any methodology, you can only wring so much out of it before you’ll have to shift to something different.  When to shift and for how long becomes just another variable to learn to master.

But back to the point I was establishing before I slipped into the bodybuilding thought: why is Thibs’ “Anaconda” methodology not more generally recognized?  Because it can’t be readily quantified, that’s why.  It’s a touchy-feely, nebulous and dare I say, vague idea to try to get across.  You can’t put a hard number on effort, speed, acceleration, intensity…feel.  How do you package something like that? (other than to tie it to a pricey supplement )  It’s the same with auto-regulation; akin to the Paleo diet, in that the devil resides squarely within the individual implementation of the theory.  Concepts that are repeat with subtleties, ambiguities, and yes, sometimes out-and-out contradictions.  Concepts that only transfer fractionally, at best, via the written word.  Has anyone ever learned a martial art from a book?  Volumes could (and have) been written about the martial arts; how, though, is a craft that must be passed on in the presence of the teacher.  To a lesser extent, the same is true with this manner of training.  Not “getting it” doesn’t mean it’s ineffective, or not applicable to you, it simply means you probably require hands-on instruction, continual guidance – at least until you reach that point where you can fly on your own.

The short clip at the end of the article is good as well.  Notice the difference in execution speed between Kevin (the bodybuilder) and Nate (the athlete).  It would be interesting to film this using Dartfish technology so as to be able to figure the total power output difference between these two guys, and then compare that output to perceived effort.  Over time, one could then set up a bio-feedback loop where maximum power is generated at some known (kinetically) speed and correlated perceived effort.

Enjoy the article, and let me know what you think.

In health,
Keith

Technorati Tags: Nate green, christian thibaudeau, power, speed, anaconda, muscle, hypertrophy, weight lifting, paleo

12/21/09, Speed-Strength Emphasis

Before I delve into today’s workout, I’d like to share what I saw last night at my local Barnes and Nobel store.  I enjoy, from time to time, perusing the diet and fitness section of B&N just to get a feel for what the rest of the world is fixated on.  Hey, some people get their kicks from horror/slash-and-gore flicks. Me?  I trip on a stiff red-eye, and the latest version of the “grapefruit diet” or “vegetarian panacea”; to each his own, I suppose.  Anyhow, what I saw (or didn’t see, more appropriately) was one of a dozen or more copies of Susanne Summers’ latest book, Knockout completely hiding from view the single copy of Gary Taubes’ Good Calories, Bad Calories.  This is not a “knock” on Ms. Summers’ latest offering – Knockout may very well be a fine bit of investigative and informative journalism, backed by sound scientific interpretation – wholly on par with Taubes’ tour de force.  I have not read her work and therefore will withhold judgment.  But does this not encapsulate our society’s overall perception of diet, though?  To be sure, GCBC is not an easy read, but from a diet prospective, would you even really ever need another book?  Interesting notion.  Also observed: a single copy of Cordain’s The Paleo Diet and a single copy of Eades’ Protein Power.  A myriad of various Zone-esk type works gracing the shelves; more on Barry Sears’ Zone theory (vis-a-vis, Paleo) forthcoming. 

On to the the day’s workout.  I should preface this by saying that I had a pretty tough fixie ride and stadium sprint session on Sunday (I also reeled-off approximately 100 elevated-feet ballistic push-ups, 10 at a time, in between stair sprints/hops/bound variations).  The obvious question would then be, “why on earth do a pull/push workout following that?”   The short answer is that Sunday’s workout was largely quad dominant (biking, stadium runs) and upper-chest/shoulder-dominant (highly elevated feet during the ballistic push-ups).  Also, I closely auto-regulated myself during this morning’s bout to ensure that I hadn’t misjudged anything.  The warm-up consisted of jumps, ballistics and light plyos (no sprints), about 10 minute’s worth.  I’d also classify the first two sets here as “transition” sets.

• vertical jump x 3
• *SLDL low pull with jump (feet completely clear of the floor each rep):135 x 5, 5; 225 x 5; 255 x 4; 275 x 3, 3
• ballistic dips x 3
• weighted dips: 45 x 5, 7; 80 x 4; 90 x 3; 100 x 3, 3

Verts and ballistic dips prior to each “weighted” exercise as a cns prime.

*SLDL = straight leg deadlift.  Actually, for me, the positioning here is somewhere between an RDL and a full, knees-locked, SLDL.  Why this position?  An attempt at minimizing, as much as practicable, quadriceps engagement in the lift (especially out of the hole) – and conversely, maximizing glute/ham engagement from the bottom-out to bar-at-the-knees position.  Now you have to be careful here – when I use the term “explosive”, I don’t mean “out of control”.  The SLDL position is an awkward start for the explosive low pull, and necessitates a quick, but controlled lift from the floor until the bar clears the knees.  From there on it’s full speed ahead.  As always, initiate the jump from the heels, transferring to toe-off at the last moment.  Too early a shift to the balls of the foot/toes engages the quads and chokes off the posterior chain involvement.  And remember, the PC is the body’s power house; don’t cut it short.

Chris, at Conditioning Research, recently posted about the “relaxed knees SLDL”; “relaxed”, of course, being a relative term.  All I’ve done is add a low pull and toe-off to what is being demonstrated here.  And, by necessity, I shifted gears and redlined once the bar cleared my knees vs. maintaining a consistent speed as is being demonstrated in Chris’ clip – which is an example of this movement done as a strength emphasis modality.    

   

Marv Marinovich – Off His Friggin’ Rocker…or Genius?

“Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.”

- Albert Einstein

A while back, I wrote about Todd Marinovich – Marv Marinovich’s son (and a psychological case-study in sports parenting); I certainly wouldn’t nominate Marv for Father of the Year, but good parenting is not what this post is about.  If you want an astute child-rearing role model, look into the genius of Mr. Rogers; coaching someone to become a better athlete, however, requires an entirely different skill set.

My good friend Dragos, from Bucharest, Romania, alerted me to this short clip of Marv Marinovich working with Troy Polamalu (strong safety for the Pittsburgh Steelers).  Wow, small world, huh?  Anyway, I’ve long been a big fan of Troy Polamalu – I appreciate not only his intense drive and athleticism, but his humble character as well – and I’ve always known that Marv was “on to something” in his contention that the body’s central nervous system ought to be the focus of athletic training.  I don’t believe that any aspect of training should be pursued at the exclusion of – or, more precisely, to the detriment of – any other aspect of training – but I think that trainers (and trainees) have not given central nervous system training its due.  And remember, class, what does an efficient central nervous system translate to?   That’s right kiddos, maximal power output for the given movement and over the specified duration.  And combined with proper skills, this makes for a better athlete.

Here’s another short clip; Troy discussing Marv’s methods -
 

Troy Polamalu Sportslab Video

Is RFD training the “magic bullet”?  Well, I don’t know about that.  One thing that I am sure of, though, is that training any single modality at the exclusion of all others is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.  But to be sure, an efficient central nervous system is of paramount importance to power production and, ultimately, enhanced athleticism.   Let’s backtrack for just a moment to recall, from this post, just where on the speed-to-raw strength continuum RFD-type training is located.
The ability to rapidly develop force in a particular movement’s agonist muscle(s), combined with both the ability of that movement’s antagonists to relax, and the frequency at which this occurs is, of course, very high in the best of athletes.  Some would call this “fluidity”, and I think it’s a pretty good approximation of what’s going on.  Check out this old training clip of British (by way of Jamaica) sprinter Linford Christie, one of the most fluid sprinters I can recall.  The clip is of poor quality because it’s a digitization of old analog film, but still – the grace and power exhibited here is amazing:

Linford Christie, Plyometric Training – from speedendurance.com

By the way, take notice of where (on the foot) LC lands and initiates push-off in the hurdle hops.  This heel-centric positioning engages the posterior chain, vice utilizing a toe/ball of the foot initial push-off, which is quad-centric in nature.  A subtle, but important point.  The efficient transition from heel initiation to toe-off is an often overlooked aspect to ultimate power production in this (and related) movement pattern(s).  And by the way, let me know how those single-leg hurdle-hops work out for you   Amazing, to say the least. 

Bruce Lee, of course, is a fine example of cns efficiency and RFD mastery.  Remember the power equation, and the speed/time variable:

Enter The Dragon – Fight With O’Hara

Yeah, it’s Hollywood – but there is no denying the power and athleticism here.  The interesting question one might ask is, could Bruce Lee have weight trained, without suffering a reduction in RFD/speed production, and ultimately enhanced his power production?  This is the flip side of what Marv and his group are attempting to prove – take a power athlete (for example, Troy), and by improving that athlete’s cns efficiency and RFD efficiency, increase that athlete’s ultimate power production.  My gut feeling is, yes, absolutely.

The problem is identifying the most efficient training method (exercises, duration, work/rest ratio, recovery, etc.) by which to do so.  Have Marv and his group identified that method?  Maybe so.  I’d say they’re at least barking up the right tree; and light years ahead of pure strength oriented methods.

In health,
Keith  

Technorati Tags: bruce lee, troy polamalu, marinovich, rfd, training, power, weight lifting, linford christie, speed

An Interview with John Makey of Whole Foods

“He that leaveth nothing to chance will do few things ill, but he will do very few things.”
- George Savile Halifax

I realize I’m a bit late to the game with this, but it is intentional, as I like to let things of this nature stew for a bit – my take being that jumping to conclusions is the hallmark of intellectual immaturity.  That being said, Here’s an hour-long interview with John Mackey of Whole Foods that I came across via the CrossFit site.  Brent (the wise-beyond-his-years proprietor of heathcare epistemocrat, and @epistemocrat) twittered about this recently as well.  Also included is a 5-minute short featuring the protestor’s (Progressive) side of things contrasted with a representative employee point of view – favorable, of course, to Whole Foods’ take.  Biased, yes – toward the Libertarian point-of-view – but interesting none the less.
I posted my thoughts about John Mackey’s infamous WSJ Op-Ed piece shortly after it appeared, causing, as it did, such uproar and indignation among Progressives – especially among those who considered Whole Foods to be a symbol of Progressivism.  Anyone who’s ever walked the aisles of a Whole Foods can feel, in a visceral way, the Progressive vibe of the enterprise.  My like of Whole Foods goes beyond my Libertarian embrace of social liberalism, though – I’ve always appreciated John Mackey’s Jeffersonian/Libertarian distrust/dislike of government.  It is precisely along these lines, however, that the happy Libertarian-Progressive, Whole Foods-inspired marriage (civil union?) breaks down.  And that’s really too bad. 

Every health care reform option has to be viewed through the prism of the current state of affairs.  Wiping the slate completely clean – as much as I would love to see happen – is not a realistic political option and, therefore, any “fix” must be seen as only a stepping stone toward a more favorable type of reform.  In other words, reform will be an on-going process, not a one-trick pony.

That being said – and, in light of the current socio-political-economic landscape – I believe that what John Mackey and Whole Foods has done with their health care benefit structure is to be commended.  He is spot-on in his assertion that we’re in the health care hole that we’re in now due largely in part to the populaces’ abject disregard for their own well-being.  I’ve said before that no health care reform option can be created that will not ultimately implode beneath the weight of a diseased citizenry.  The sad fact is that the vast majority place more value on economic standing than on their own health/well-being.  The only way to force a change in attitudes, then (or for a nation to survive economically), is to place a personal, economic consequence upon poor personal health decisions.

As a correlate to this debate, Skyler Tanner posted, via Facebook, a link to this recent Zomblog offering (Why America Hates Universal Health Care: The Real Reason).  A bit crass and crude at points, but the gist is spot-on, and Jeffersonian/Libertarian at its core – that one should not be held accountable for another’s faulty decision making.  To wit: as much as I appreciate John Mackey’s business savvy, my opinion is that his favorable view of vegetarianism is deeply flawed, and hence, I choose not to support, in economic terms, his lifestyle choice.  And though John by all estimations is an intelligent cookie, I’m sure he’d not choose to support my wanton carnivory (check the science a bit more closely, John    ).  And that’s all well and fine; to each his own.  I do feel an obligation, though, as a citizen of this fine country (and of the world) to help John out in catastrophic instances.  The tricky part, of course, is figuring out just where to draw that line.  Is type II diabetes an instance of a “catastrophic” occurrence?  Of course, we in the Paleo/Primal community  know that it is not – but you can see what a slippery slope this becomes – and one of the reasons why “reform” will be an on-going, step by baby-step issue.

In the meantime, John – please, please oh pretty please do not quit carrying the full fat version of Fage yogurt at Whole Foods – you’re my only resource in North Carolina, it seems!

In health,
Keith         

 

12/18/09, Strength-Speed Emphasis

This workout was, simply put, a thrasher.  Which is cool because this coming weekend is supposed to usher in some crappy weather here in the southeast, so I’ll be well primed for hibernation/recovery mode; free (at least I hope) of that “need to do something physically demanding” itchiness.  But then I pulled out my trusty workout logbook and began to piece together this post, and saw that, “on paper” at least, this workout looked like child’s play.  My first reaction was “damn, boy – put some dang weight on the bar”.  Take notice, though, of how one exercise flows into the next.  The sprint starts/RFESS/GHR and the “push” portion of the BTN Push press can be looked at as one extended lower body blast.  My legs were pummeled by the end of this workout and even now as I write this, they’re still good and quivery.  Anyway, don’t let the light loading here deceive you – this was one of those “once a month”, peak performance workouts.  Following a 10 minute, sprint/ballistic stretching warm-up, I performed the following:

• sprint starts for max acceleration: 20 meters/20 meters/40 meters/20 meters (each round)
• GHR:50 x 5, 5; 60 x 5, 4, 4, 3
• RFESS (rear foot elevated split squat): 135 x 5 (each leg), x 5; 165 x 5; 175 x 3, 2, 2
• feet elevated ballistic push-ups x 5 (each round)
• BTN Push press: 135 x 5, 5; 175 x 5; 185 x 5, 4, 4 (maintained between a 3 – 5 count negative on each rep)

The GHRs, RFESS and BTN push-presses were auto-regulated.  No grind-out reps.  A little heavier on the external loading at the expense of some speed (thus the strength-speed designation).  Realize, though, that there are no distinct lines, only shades.

Technorati Tags: RFESS, GHR, strength-speed, BTN push-press

Workout Critique

“Keep thy hook always baited, for a fish lurks even in the most unlikely swim.”

- Ovid

Al was kind enough to offer up one of his recent workouts for me to critique.  Remember though, as you read through this, what my preconceived biases are: that power, speed and body control trump conventional endurance (i.e., “long and slow”) and raw strength.  If you’re an endurance athlete or a power lifter/strong man competitor, you’ll see things through a completely different prism.  Not wrong, mind you – just different.

So without further ado, here’s Al; my comments will be in italics - 

So following your advice, I went to the gym yesterday, and did this (mainly upper body oriented) workout:

Warm up: “The Cred”: 33 lbs x 5, 44 lbs x 5, 55 lbs x 3

It was the first time for me to do the Cred, and I noticed that I was using my arms on a few reps rather than hips only. Any tips about making sure the hips do all the work?

This is something that takes a bit of practice.  The tendency for most people who are not used to the movement is to utilize the arms too much – it’s a normal response.  While performing this exercise (or any O-lift or O-lift derivative), employ this visualization: picture a 10lb. weight dangling at one end of a rope, the other end of which is held in your hand.  So the weight is just hanging there, motionless, the rope is taught.  Now, give the rope a jerk with a short, quick, and explosive “pop”.  As the weight is projected upward, the rope goes slack (analogous to the initial pull) and, at a certain point (and for a fraction of a second), the weight remains motionless at the apex or rise/fall transition point (analogous to the “drop under”/catch portion of the lift).  That initial “pop” is delivered by your posterior chain.  Again, it takes practice to perfect this movement, and your cns has to be trained to fire/relax at a high frequency – a little more on that in an upcoming post.

Then I moved on the the bench press (I know, bad, but I want to reach a token 220 lbs max before quitting!) with hierarchical sets ala DeVany:
154 lbs x 7, 160 x 5, 165 x 3, 170 x 1

Nothing at all wrong with hierarchical training – and at certain points along one’s lifting career (and dependent upon goals), it is totally justified – just realize that this type training affects hypertrophy to a greater degree than strength or power.  Power and/or RFD work is probably more so called for here.  I doubt your cns is optimized (otherwise “arming-up” the Cred wouldn’t be an issue – the movement would’ve been more “automatic” for you), so I’d suggest some plyo work in the form of ballistic push-ups variations, etc., and some power-oriented pressing movements.

This was the first time I cranked a 1xbw (170 lbs) on the bench press so patted myself on the back for that . Will try to keep progressing as I did for the past weeks (+5/6 lbs every week) until I reach 220 lbs, then drop the bench press for ballistic push-ups and other niceties.

This depends on whether you think that you’re being held back by the size of your engine (hypertrophy), or that engine’s tuning (cns activation/power production ability).  If I had to guess from what I’m seeing here, I’d say the latter.

Then I went for standing shoulder press negatives (jerk on the concentric part, then slow negative). Did 2 sets with 110 lbs, first with 6 reps, second with 4 reps (fried by then).

I like this combo for shoulder work as well.

Then I did 2 cycles of weighted chin-ups (26 lbs)/dips (40 lbs), only doing the negative part and pulling myself up with the legs. Managed to do 3 chin-ups and 6 dips on the first cycle, then 3 and 4 on the second one before I was fried.

I’d suggest supersetting the jerks/presses with pull-ups in this scenario.  High pulls or barbell muscle-ups are a good pairing for dips.  Just my preference, though. 

I finished by trying the GHR machine for the first time. However, since it was lacking the plate on which the feet are supposed to rest, my shins would slide, making me unable to pull myself up properly (I feel that I could do at least 2-3 reps if held properly). So I could only pull a little bit (maybe 20 or 30 degrees) after being parallel to the floor (going down from a vertical position was impossible with this setting). I did a few attempts at it and called it a day.

It sounds like you’re on a “Roman Chair” versus a true GHR deck.  You need to find some kind of set-up that will allow the locking down of your feet. 

I was pretty happy with the workout, if it wasn’t for the GHR experience. Just a bit disappointed that I get fried so quickly doing negatives.

My questions for you:

- Do you have tips on making sure that the arms are not used during oly lifts (the Cred, clean etc)?

- Since I really want to do GHRs (seems like a fantastic exercise), I was thinking of finding a way to bind my feet to the machine we have to simulate a resting plate. Any tips on how that could be done? (Bands? Glue?? )

I’ve never really found a viable option for the real deal.  I have known guys who’ve used extra heavy-duty kneepads (kinda like what carpet layers wear) along with the buddy system or an extra-heavy sandbag to keep their feet in place.  The problem then becomes loosing that wonderful bottom stretch that the GHR affords.

- Any opinions about this workout as for upper-body mass building (i.e. am I going in the right direction)?

We need to define whether the goal here is mass (i.e., a bigger engine) or strength (i.e., a 220lb bench max) because, unless you are a relative beginner, these two goals will not (necessarily) coincide.  At the very least, they’re not directly correlated. 

Thanks in advance!

Al

Got any advice for Al?  Let him hear your thoughts. 

In health,

Keith

Technorati Tags: the cred, db snatch, ghr, dips, pull-ups, jerk, press, hypertrophy, strength, power, rdf