Theory to Practice

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

- Theodore Roosevelt

Athlete and Strength & Conditioning coach extraordinaire, Bill Starr, penned this insightful article about a year ago or so back (or at least it was brought to my attention about that time; it may actually be older), and it comes to mind whenever I hear arguments crop up concerning “perfect” exercise form.  As Bill Starr has forgotten more than most Strength & Conditioning aficionados will ever even come to know (and I include myself in that group), I tend to give him a listen when he speaks; especially so, when he opines on the weight game.  And I’ll admit that it’s comforting (in a self-congratulatory kind of a way) when his sentiments happen to harmonize with my own, thus giving me that warm-fuzzy feeling that I might actually have a bit of a clue about this whole S & C business after all.

Now, I’ve always been of the mindset that “perfect” form, whether it’s in a power clean, chucking a football, throwing a punch, or swinging a baseball bat, is a relative thing.  Each one of us is put together differently, and we each have our our biomechanical advantages, disadvantages, and idiosyncrasies to contend with.  But just as lacking perfect throwing mechanics didn’t stop Brett Favre from reaching greatness,  just because I can’t pull-off a text book power clean does not mean that I still don’t derive a hellacious benefit from working the movement.  Sure, I don’t allow myself to get sloppy, nor would I allow anyone I train to do so; within a certain “flaw window”, though, I’ll let things slide.  How wide is that “window”?  Well, like just about everything else in the Strength & Conditioning world, it depends.

I can definitely say that this demonstration of the power clean, though, is somewhere waaaaaay beyond that window.  The sad part of this is that the guy in the foreground actually has better form than the guy in the back, which, as you’ll see, ain’t sayin’ much.

I have all the respect in the world for coach “Dos”, and for what he has done out at College of the Canyons, but for the life of me, I can’t figure what his reasoning is for allowing this kind of atrocious form to be exhibited in his weight room.

Now, contrast that technique with this:

A few very subtle flaws here and there (feet too wide, an early pull from the arms), but all-in-all, a pretty damn good lift.  Wind this kid up and let him rip.  A good enough lift to derive some serious benefit?  You bet.  And then some.

By the way, that first clip was featured in this, Carl Valle written, Elite Track post.  Carl is spot-on, in my opinion, in his assessment here.  Again, this gets back to adjusting the catch portion of the exercise to the athlete’s frame, muscle distribution, and limitations.  Using myself as an example, I tend to be one of those who (as Bill Starr alluded to in the piece cited above) tend to bend (pull with) my arms way too much and way too early when performing any Oly (or Oly derivative) lift.  The thing is, if I were an S & C coach observing an athlete of my build, I could predict this flaw in the lift before the athlete even touched the bar.  Why?  Long arms that are relatively much more muscular than the traps — ergo, more reliance upon the arms (at the expense of traps) in the pull.  Now, here’s the $64k dollar question: which came first, the trap/arm muscular “imbalance” or the flaw in the lift?  My money is riding squarely on the genetic side; I’ve simply learned to perform the movement in a way that’s best suited to my natural strengths and weaknesses.  Now, take a no-neck athlete with scrawny little T-Rex arms of my same bodyweight and lower body biomechanics and you’ve got someone who could potentially double me up in the Power Clean; you might even have found yourself someone who could realistically go on to contend on the Oly platform.  And what’s more, this guy will more than likely exhibit “perfect” form in the pull portion lift; it’s natural for him to do so.  He’ll unconsciously (and quite naturally) keep those big traps engaged in the lift as long as possible.

Now, let’s take a look at the catch portion of the lift.  In assessing my build we find this: big, sweeping quads and a big (protruding, not wide) ass.  Translation: this athlete is good (and quite naturally comfortable), low in the hole, in the front squat position.  If he’s fast (which I am, relatively), this will reduce the peak height at which he’ll have to pull the bar in the first place, because he’ll be comfortable swooping in and catching a heavy weight low in the hole.  By the way, look how low the kid in the second clip makes his catch.  Talk about comfortable in the hole.

*A quick aside: again the traps are cut a break in this scenario, this time due to the reduced need for bar height in the pull.  Further reliance upon — and reinforcement of — natural strengths.*

Now, I know nothing about the two kids in the first clip — and let me say that there’s a lot more going on that’s wrong (and just plain ugly) here than just the catch — but I’d bet that even if the weight were radically reduced for these two we’d still have plenty of work to do to get even close to a decent catch.  Just focusing on the lower body, take a look at the exaggerated leg splay.  This suggests to me tight hips, tight ankles and a sub-par posterior chain.  Even with a much reduced weight, I bet these two are uncomfortable catching in anything resembling a proper stance, and deep in the hole.  Now, let’s walk around back and have a look; I bet we find this: lacking glutes, no junk in the truck; a.k.a., the dreaded accountant’s ass.  The thing is this: these two may not ever, due to their inherent limitations, be good in the hole — or good in the pull, for that matter — they can, though, be a hell of a lot better.  And in the process, they can milk even more benefit from the exercise, even if they never perfect the movement.  And that’s the point.  Because, in performing the exercise in the fashion these two are, they’re missing out on 50% of the movement’s benefits (the catch/force absorption component).  And, of course, we’ve got the safety issue to contend with.  So where is the point where the plug ought to be pulled?  Ask yourself a few questions: (1) is there real and measurable benefit being derived?  (2) is the movement still relatively safe? and, (3) what is my goal with the movement?  There’s a hell of a lot of difference between utilizing a lift for athletic development and in training the lift for competition.  So if you’re an athlete looking for all-around betterment, and the answer to the first two questions  is yes, then by all means continue on.  I don’t mean to suggest that you should allow yourself to become lax in striving for perfect form in the lift, just don’t obsess about perfection to the point of having that obsession limit your athletic progress.

The CrossFit Argument

CrossFit and the promotion of poor form.  Ah, this is one argument that never dies.  Alex, over at Journey to Health, spoke to this in a recent post.   And here’s the post, (and all the comments) from The Art of Manliness,  that she was commenting on.  Here’s my take on the issue: If I were waiting for perfect form in the snatch and clean & jerk to come along, I’d still be “polishing my form” with 135 pounds.  Gimme a break.  There’s perfect, there’s good enough, and there’s time to call it quits.  Strive for perfection, work your ass off with good enough, and pull the plug when your form deteriorates into (1) unsafe and/or (2) non-productive.

In health,

Keith

“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.”

- Helen Keller

U.S. News and World Report ran this story today in the on-line version of the magazine.  Not sure if this story is to go to press in the print version or not; I’d like to see the story in print, if for no other reason than to simply gauge John Q. Public’s reaction.

All in all, I guess you can chalk this up as a favorable review of the Paleo lifestyle; as favorable, at least, as we’re likely to find in any mainstream publication.  As excerpted from the article:

On its merits. History aside, the paleo diet has health merit. Except for the dairy and grain issues, it’s pretty close to the tenets of the traditional eating patterns like the Mediterranean and Asian diets and other dietary patterns that focus on plants, fish, lean protein, “good” fats, and whole grains. (Cordain says Stone Age eating is closest to a Japanese-style diet.) It also fits into the small but growing movement turning away from factory-farmed meat and toward eating animals fed what they’ve evolved to eat, like grass rather than grain.

Now, if we could just shake this damn energy balance notion once and for all.  Hell, even the mention that an “alternative” viewpoint (a.k.a., Taube’s, a calorie is not a calorie) would give me reason to cheer.  And then, of course, we’ve got the whole “proper exercise” issue to contend with.  Again, as excerpted from the article:

Ungar and Leonard don’t blame our modern diet-related health problems on any specific food group. Rather, they’re convinced that our major problems these days are the lack of that diversity in our diet—and a positive energy balance. In other words, unlike our Paleolithic forebears, we are taking in more calories than we burn off. “The difference is not simply in what we’re eating but in what we’re doing,” says Leonard.

The greater availability of cheap, high-calorie, high-fat foods is contributing to high rates of obesity, he says, but so is the fact that we aren’t moving anymore. “If you add even an extra 30 minutes to an hour of moderate exercise a day, it’s going to get you to a point where it will make a difference in your long-term energy balance,” he says. “Slow and steady is the mantra. You didn’t see people in farming and herding societies sprinting around. They moved at a low to moderate level of intensity over the course of an entire day.” (emphasis mine)

Uh-huh.  Well, Just a thought — I’d like to know what part of hunter-gatherer is consistent with farming and herding?  I guess that’s an idea, though, that’s lost on both Ungar and Leonard.

Progress in fits and starts, I suppose, is better than no progress at all.

In health,

Keith

*A late edit:  Here were my thoughts as posted on the US News and World Report article comment section –

Right Idea…mostly

A hearty thanks to Katherine Hobson for spelling out the basic tenants of the Paleo lifestyle. Between her article, and Richard’s (of Free the Animal) comment, readers new to the “Paleolithic lifestyle” will gain much valuable insight. I hope this sparks a curiosity that will culminate in the conversion of many new “Paleo disciples”. To be critical, though, I have to say that both Unger and Leonard have missed the boat when it comes to exercise prescription and energy balance.

Our paleo ancestors lived an explosive and sprint/power-dominant lifestyle that was anything but what is depicted here as the “slow and steady” farmer/herder lifestyle. This is exactly the point of the Paleo lifestyle – to consume what the body was engineered via eons of evolution to thrive upon, and to push the body physically in such a way as is best suited to encourage development of a powerful, explosive phenotype (i.e., infrequent bouts of short duration, high intensity exercise).

On the point of energy balance, one must remember (1) that the human body is anything but a closed energy system, therefore rendering the “energy balance theory of weight control” the fool’s chase that it is, and (2) the overriding contribution that insulin plays in the partitioning of ingested nutrients, and insulin’s response to the inordinate (and totally alien to our genome, I might add), ingestion of carbohydrates – especially simple carbohydrates, and those derived from grains. This, in effect (and to cop a phrase from Garry Taubes), renders one ingested calorie not necessarily equal to another ingested calorie.

“We are not satisfied to be right, unless we can prove others to be quite wrong.”

- William Hazlitt

Sunday, April 19th…the Playground

I started the week off right with some serious fun and games at the playground. I began with a quantifiable superset of power cleans and (pull-up bar) muscle-ups that looked something like this:

1. Power Cleans x 5, 3, 2, then 5 sets of heavy singles
2. Muscle-ups x 3 sets of 3’s, 3 sets of 2’s and 2 sets of singles

I followed that up with a few sets of ring flyes and ring reverse flyes, then I finished up with some overhead caber tosses with a 21-pound stone, and some hurdle hops; more in a play fashion than anything quantifiable. There’s just something about lifting outside in the warm sunshine. My own little Gold’s at Venice Beach, perhaps?

Arnold, Venice Beach, circa 1975

Well, not quite.  But this little set-up does provide the opportunity to toss some iron around (among other cool exercise options) out in the sunshine.

The "Not Quite Venice Beach" Playground

By the way, I hope to have some exercise demo clips up sometime this week of a few of the hybrids that I like to do from time to time, that Meesus TTP taped for me (and of me) out at the playground.  We’ll see how they edit-out, and if they’re worth posting.

Tuesday morning, YMCA

An exercise pairing like Clean Grip Low Pulls with Weighted Dips leaves “no muscle left behind” or under worked; everything gets hit, and hit hard – and in a very primal, functional way to boot. Nothing fancy here; just strapping up, strapping in, and gettin’ ‘er done.

1. Clean Grip Low Pull x 3’s

2. Weighted Dips x 3’s

4 rounds of moving weight in this manner never seemed so difficult; nor as satisfying.  Here, I attempted to move the weight, on every rep of each exercise, as fast and explosively as possible.  The load was chosen such that a 4th rep would have degenerated into a slow, “grind it out” rep.  This is where a good workout log comes in handy, as it minimizes wasted time and wasted sets spent trying to zero-in on the appropriate weight.  Misjudging the working weight by a few percentages either way isn’t that big of a deal, though, as rep speed can make up for the stimulus slack.

Thursday morning, YMCA

Still emphasizing the strength portion of the strength-speed modality here. My short-term plans are to hit speed-strength and sprints over the weekends (weather permitting). No superset here due to available equipment setup and time constraints. Just straight-up, straight sets.

1. Box Squats, 4 sets of 3, followed by
2. Behind the Neck Push-Presses, 4 sets of 2

On the concentric portion of the lift, the attempt was made to move the weight as fast as possible, though, in actuality, the movement was constant and consistent, but not all that fast. The attempt was there, though, and that’s what matters for this modality. Same idea here as on Tuesday. The eccentric portion of the lift was resisted and controlled, resulting in an approximate 3-count tempo.

Saturday, at the Playground

Wow, we jumped right from a chilly spring, and into full-blown summer today in eastern NC.  I had to wear gloves (which I hate to do) on some exercises because the bars were just too hot to handle.  Nothing today was quantifiable, as I pulled out just about every imaginable odd hybrid in my little bag of tricks for the purposes of capturing some demo clips and some still shots.  This “a little bit of everything” format though was actually quite taxing.  We filmed for quite a long time, and hit all sorts of variations, though I’m sure when I go back to edit the clips that I’ll remember a bunch of exercises that I should have captured.  I’ve got plans as well, to capture a stadium sprint session on tape.

Ok, so bring on summer, bring on the heat!  I’m more than ready to make the shift towards much more outdoor activity.  Have a wonderful, healthy and Paleo week.

In health,

Keith

“Tact in audacity consists in knowing how far we may go too far.”

- Jean Cocteau

TTP and Conditioning Research reader Noel sent this erudite email recently to both Chris (of Conditioning Research) and me, in response to the ongoing and hotly debated SS/HIT vs. (among a plethora of other related issues) “functional training” discussions.  If you’re arriving late to the game, you can get a feel for what’s being said here and here.  Anyway, I wanted to pass along Noel’s comments, as they are intelligent, informed, and lend much to the overall discussion on this topic.  Also included is my short reply.

Fellas,

The recent posts about the BBS/super slow movement have irked me to
the extent that I am compelled to write this email. While on the macro
level I don’t really care what they espouse, I don’t think their
claims are getting the critical examination they deserve.

Let me crudely characterise the debate as consisting of two sides:
machine based, super slow, one set of failure based on published
research (Dr McGuff) versus free weights, 5 reps or less, multiple
sets based on coaching experience (Rip). I’m not suggesting Dr McGuff
and Rip are in direct opposition (I don’t know if they even know of
one another), but I want to use two exemplars to discuss this issue. I
hope we can all agree these guys are experts, and they hold viewpoints
that are contradictory. No one has the time to be knowledgeable in all
fields, so normally we defer to experts. When the experts disagree it
is time to examine the primary evidence more closely. The key thing
here is our standard of proof: how strong must the evidence be before
we accept it as true?

Now the BBS guys lean on the published literature. I went to PubMed,
did a search for “resistance training one set failure” and the first
relevant hit I found was:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17369792?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

METHODS: Twenty-one women were divided randomly into 2 groups: Group 1
(n=10) performed a single set of the leg press exercise once per week,
while Group 2 (n=11) performed a single set of the leg press exercise
twice per week for a period of 8 weeks. Throughout the duration of the
study, an amount of resistance was utilized that allowed for a single
set of 6 to 10 repetitions to muscular failure.

This seems to back up their claims — but it is extremely weak
evidence! 21 people is tiny, and 8 weeks is very short. Consider this:
would you use a drug that had been tested on 21 people? I did a search
for drug trial sizes (and perhaps Keith can say more here) and it
seems a small trial is of the order of 300 people. Technically the
statistical power of this study — that is, its ability to show an
effect if there is one — is very low.

To see the problems this study might have, imagine you had two groups
of people, both of whom can lift 100kg on some exercise, with a
standard deviation of 5kg. Imagine one group trains with protocol A,
and the other with protocal B. After a year the group on A can lift
250kg +/- 12.5kg and the group on B can lift 200kg +/- 10kg (so group
A gained 1.5x the strength and group B gained 1x the strength). The
difference in average strength is well outside 3 standard deviations,
so this should be a very significant result.

Now what do you see after 8 weeks, assuming linear gains?

Group A: Mean = 100kg + [100kg * (8/52) * 1.5] = 123kg
Std. Dev. =  5kg + [5kg * 8/52 * 1.5] = 6.2kg
Group B: Mean = 100kg + [100kg * (8/52) * 1] = 115kg
Std. Dev. =  5.8kg

The difference in means is well within two standard deviations — not
a significant result. So see how the short duration of the study has
made a significant result seem insignificant.

(This is fairly informal. If someone wants to calculate the actual
p-values assuming, say, a population of infinite size [and therefore
the t-distribution becomes the normal] that would be informative and
more persuasive than my argument.)

Also, see this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971985?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an
initial short training period in untrained individuals result in
similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as
progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs
are more effective.

I’m not a researcher in the field of exercise science (or kinesology
or whatever you want to call it) but a lot of the published research I
have seen is of this type. This does not meet my standards of proof.

Now consider the evidence Rip has. It would be rejected by the BBS
guys as it doesn’t meet the criteria for publication: it doesn’t
control for variability, it isn’t statistically analysed and so on.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence though. From his writing Rip
strikes me as a very methodical and very experienced guy. I must admit
I am more inclined to believe him, based on his experience training
hundreds of people over long periods, than I am to believe claims
based on what I perceive as very weak published literature.

Finally, I want to address Chris’ interview with Luke Carlson.

“Q: What do you make of Crossfit?…

A: It is entertaining to me that the three movements that all humans
allegedly engage in just happen to be historically popular Olympic and
Power lifts!”

Two things. First my understanding is that the term “functional
movement” is used by Crossfit to mean a movement that carries over to
other activities. It doesn’t mean that movement mimics other
activities.

I would think anyone could see that deadlifting and squatting are core
movements. I guess Luke has never picked anything off the floor, or
taken a dump.

“The vast majority, if not every HIT advocate that I know utilizes
twisting/rotational movements. We use the MedX Core Torso Rotation
machine – a $7,000 machine that targets the muscles involved in
rotation of the trunk. This exercise is included in the working
scripts for all of our clients.”

The Crossfit orthodoxy here is that training midline stabilisation –
the ability to resist twisting — is key. I did a little test with
myself, throwing punches. It seems that I flex my obliques to avoid
twisting so as to better transfer power from my hips to my upper body.
I’m not trained at punching, but this way felt much better than
deliberately twisting my midsection out of line with my hips.

This response is also highlights an issue that I haven’t seen anyone
address yet — these guys are not impartial. I don’t need a $7000
machine to train my obliques, but the equipment manufacturers and the
gym owners that have invested in them would like me to believe I do.
In fact this is one of the primary reasons I dislike the BBS movement
– they want to make the trainee dependent on the gym to workout. In
contrast a barbell set is dead cheap, and free weights, be they iron,
a rock, or a baby, can be used anywhere. I’d rather be self sufficient
and teach people to be the same.

Finally, let me address safety:

First, there is lack of evidence to support machines being safer than
free weights:

http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Safety.html

Let’s also look at the injury rate, from the same site: 0.0035
injuries per 100 hours. Imagine I’m a real gym rat and hit the gym 5
days a week for an hour. That’s 5 hours a week, or 260 hours a year,
or 13000 hours over 50 years. With that injury rate I would expect
0.455 injuries over my lifetime of training. Worried?

Well, I’d better do some real work.

Regards,
Noel

A nice bit of thought here, to say the least.  And what follows was my emailed response to Noel:

Noel,

Thanks for your intelligent email.

My approach to all things physical culture (and to life in general) has always been to give well-conducted scientific studies serious consideration for real-world implementation, but I always defer to empirical evidence when choosing what modalities/protocols to utilize when “in the field”.  And herein lay the age-old disconnect between what “works in the lab and in theory” and what produces “results in the field”.  An athlete in the real world bears little resemblance to “case studies” (be they human or theoretical) in the lab.  And, too, within any pro-con argument, the “purists” on either side will cede little ground to the “opposing” view/theory.  Live in general, and training in specific, is rarely black or white; it’s more analogous to yin and yang.  My take is that for each specified weakness, there is a good-better-best continuum of options related to how to “fix” that weakness.  This holds true for diet as well as exercise.

Well, there you are folks; weigh-in, comment and kick this one around a bit.  I’m anticipating some good discussion out of this bit of informed criticism.  And thanks again to Noel for allowing me to use his thoughts here on TTP.

Note: I’m sure that Chris will soon have a separate discussion running relative to Noel’s comments over at Conditioning Research, and I’ll link directly to that post as soon as it’s available.  Noel’s put out a good bit of opinion here, and I’m quite sure the discussion will splinter into many directions on each site.

Late entry: Here’s the link to the Conditioning Research post.

In health,

Keith

“Just as those who practice the same profession recognize each other instinctively, so do those who practice the same vice.”

- Marcel Proust

Note 1: This subject may seem over and above what any “normal trainee” need worry himself with, and to some extent, that’s true enough.  However, the take away message here — Know thyself, know thy goal, and train appropriately — applies to any trainee (or potential trainee, even) at any skill level.

Note 2: For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, SS/HIT in the Strength & Conditioning community parlance, simply refers to Super Slow (as in rep speed)/High Intensity (as in one set to failure) Training.  For all intents and purposes, and at its roots, this is essentially the same protocol as that espoused by Dr. Doug McGuff in his book, Body By Science.

Chris, of the fabulous Conditioning Research blog, alerted me to this Sports Illustrated article which apparently hit the Net last month.  I don’t know how this one got past (what I though was, at least) a pretty thorough article screen, but alas,  it did.  Anyhow, much thanks again to Chris for sending it my way.

I “Twittered” about Ross Tucker’s SI article at the time Chis alerted me to it (I make Twitter updates frequently with little finds like this), however, in light of the discussion having ensued as a result of the Body By Science Part 3 review, (and the Conditioning Research post cited below), I’d like to re-visit the article now, as it somewhat verifies – even amongst the most highly trained and resilient of athletes – a notion that Dr. McGuff has pointed out in his book. Namely, the point of injury (and especially cumulative trauma injury) incurred directly as a result of questionable training practices. As Dr. McGuff (and Nassim Taleb) are fond of saying, one really ought to “survey the graveyard” as part of any complete study on the efficacy of any purportedly “successful” training program. The fact of the matter is that  survivors of certain questionable training practices (or hell, any training practice for that matter) are just that — survivors — and there’s a big difference between merely surviving a protocol and actually having been made a better athlete by that training protocol. And this difference is very, very hard to discern. 

One victim of this Strength and Conditioning coach carnage, as described in the article above, was Houston Texans S & C coach, Dan Riley (link here).  Some discussion of Dan’s methods (SS/HIT intensive, for the most part) vis-a-vis his firing were discussed recently over at this Conditioning Research post dealing with the idea (or lack thereof?) of functional training in relation to SS/HIT.  Additionally, you can glean some insight into Dan’s training philosophy here, at the achieve of the “Fitness Corner” articles he did for HoustonTexans.com.  Be warned, though, that the preceding link may not be around too much longer, for obvious reasons.  The point of this post, though, is not to attempt to discredit the SS/HIT methodology — I happen to think that SS/HIT, properly applied/dosed, can be a productive methodology if employed under certain circumstances — but to emphasize the need for individually customized training protocols.  And this, is my mind, would be a dictate for every trainee, regardless of skill level or specificity of goal.  Follow any “canned” workout protocol (including my own) without adjusting for your own goals and needs, and you’ll end up with, at best (and only if you’re lucky) lackluster results.  The worst that can happen is that you’ll either get hurt, or suffer some other form of a setback; physical, psychological, or otherwise.

Grasping the Contextualized Content; or, Digging for the Underlying Meaning, as Opposed to the Gathering of Specifics

In the spirit of intellectual juxtaposition, I didn’t want to let this blog post from Vern Gambetta, of Elite Track, go by unnoticed. Vern is voicing a sentiment here you’re unlikely to hear very often, especially from such a high-profile coach, as sentiments like this serve to severely undermine the potential profit margins of the few big players in the S & C community. So what does Vern’s post have to do with the Sports Illustrated article cited above?  Well, everything that is Strength and Conditioning, if you ask me.  And here, too, can be found edification of that valuable nugget of wisdom that any trainee, regardless of ability, goal, or “training age” (i.e., experience) can put to use immediately — namely that, to be effective, ant chosen training methodology must be matched to the specific trainee, and to that trainee’s specific needs at the particular time in question.  Identify the need, and pick the methodology best suited to address that need; that is to say, train the specified weakness, in the context of current circumstance, via the most appropriate methodology suitable in the pursuit of trainee’s defined goal . Unfortunately, for NFL (and for the collegiate level, even more so) S & C coaches, this is a theory that’s next to impossible to put into practice.  As Ross Tucker states in the aforementioned SI article:

…There is another well-known strength coach whose program is the same for every position on the team. Now the actual weights the players lift may be different, but the specific exercises that every player is asked to complete are identical, which makes absolutely no sense to me. How can he possibly think offensive linemen and cornerbacks are the same type of athletes and need the same workouts? That’s like training a bear and a cheetah to hunt the same way. They’re different animals.

Interior linemen and perimeter skill guys are barely even playing the same sport if you ask me. Offensive linemen need to focus on power, short-area quickness and lateral movement. Cover corners need to concentrate on speed, flexibility and fluidity in and out of their breaks…

This pretty much sums-up my sentiment on the subject as well.  Now, I wouldn’t say that I agree totally with Dan Riley’s application of SS/HIT, but I certainly don’t think that his over-reliance (my opinion) on SS/HIT was the whole reason behind the Houston Texans lackluster, on the field performance the last few seasons.  There are many, many factors to consider — some of which may have been under Dan’s control, most of which, though, assuredly were not.  Back to the point of the previous article excerpt, though, and, as Vern Gambetta puts it:

…I realize it is so easy to get caught up in the trap of the new great exercise or the next great machine, but as I have said many times in this blog, there is so much more to it than that. First of all, do you have a plan, a plan for that session, for the mesocyle, for the block and for the year. What are your goals? Are those goals measurable? How will you measure them? When you get down to selecting the actual exercises in some ways that is the easy part, does each exercise have a specific context? Where and how does it fit into the bigger picture?

and then:

…Frankly that is why when I write or speak I am very reticent to show or print workouts, because people want to copy them and apply them, without any thought to the considerations I previously mentioned. I will put up a couple of workouts this weekend and the audience will try furiously to copy them. My intent will be to show context, but I am sure the audience will be looking for the magic bullet, it is the same everywhere. Coaching is a creative and a scientific process…

Training has always been thus, and thus it will remain; a unique mix of properly applied science, creativity, art, psychology and feel.  Cookie-cutter programs and across-the-board delineations are not, and will never be the answer.  Just as each individual is unique, so is each individual’s training needs at each unique point in time.

In Health,

Keith

“Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.”

- Bernard Berenson

Strap on the seatbelts, here we go for another week’s worth:

Sunday afternoon, home

Ahh, Easter Sunday, and no better time to squeeze in a good workout. The weather took a turn for the better, and that gave me all the nudge I needed to jump outside and into this impromptu, Easter Sunday mash-up:

1. 50 kettlebell swings, alternating arms every 10 swings, then every 5 after 40
2. Fixie intervals to Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium: approximately 3 hard miles or so
3. Various and sundry stadium sprints, hops and jumps, coupled with an interspersed 8 sets or so of ballistic, decline push-ups (7 to 10 reps/set).
4. Fixie intervals sprints back to the house, another 3 miles worth
5. 50 kettlebell swings, alternating arms every 10 swings, then every 5 after 40

So this is another example of a “workout” that’s properly better qualified, I suppose, as “play”.  It’s difficult to quantify this kind of a “workout” — kinda like trying to quantify x-number of hours rock climbing, or kayaking, say — so just use the example here as a “type model”, and nothing more.

Hey, how'd that fixie find it's way to the upper deck?

Tuesday morning, YMCA

Notice the shift in my in-house “gym” workouts as of late — a definite move toward the strength-speed/raw strength modality.  The reason behind this shift is that due to my circumstances: I’m able to work on both sprinting and speed-strength modalities over the weekends, outdoors, and at home.  As the weather continues to warm and the spring rains dissipate, more and more I’ll be able to get in speed/power workouts at my “playground” (see the pics below).  For now, though, let’s look at what I did this Tuesday morning.

1. Front Push-Press (barbell) x 3’s
2. Glute-Ham Raise (added weight held at chest, then shifted to forehead level for a little added eccentric force) x 3’s
3. Reverse-Grip Pull-Ups x 3’s

4 rounds of this complex.  As is my usual, this workout was preceded by an approximate 10-minute, dynamic warm-up, then 2 “bridge sets” of the actual complex, (at a lighter, then semi-heavy weight), the purpose of which are to serve as a step-up to the actual working weight.

Thursday morning, YMCA

For more early morning, caffeine-fueled fun, try this one on for size!

Drop Squats (aka, snatch catch), 3 sets of 3; followed by:

Box Squats, 5 sets of 3

I couldn’t locate a decent snatch catch demo video.  The exercise, however, is performed thusly: rack the barbell across your shoulders as if you were to perform a high-bar, Oly-style back squat.  From this starting position, immediately transition into the snatch catch position — think overhead squat, done blindingly fast.  “Jump” the bar off of your shoulders and into the fully-extended, overhead snatch catch position, while at the same time transitioning your lower half into the catch position.  This basically amounts to a full snatch without the pull portion, if you will, and is meant to more efficiently practice the low catch portion of the exercise.  This has always been my weak-link in the exercise, as I’m a much better “puller” than I am a “transitioner” or “catcher”.   If I had to guess, this probably has to do with a lifetime of overall, posterior chain emphasis.  As I’m not a competitive Oly-lifter, though, and only use the exercises and their variants as a means to better overall athleticism, I’ll take the hit.

*Quick editorial note.  I have made arrangements to shoot some video clips of some of my more “off-beat” exercises.  I realize that seeing an exercise being performed makes all the difference in the world in understanding and modeling.*

Here’s a good article, written by Dave Tate (for T-Nation), that spells out the advantages of — and the proper performance of — the box squat.  Note that I am as far from a power lifter as one can be; however, this doesn’t prevent me from copping good ideas from the sport.  All athletes, regardless of discipline, require excellent glute, ham and hip strength and the box squat is one of the best ways I know to improve those.

An additional word about box squats: as this is primarily intended as a hamstring/glute/hip strength exercise, the knees must not travel in front of the ankles on the decent into the hole (or, on the concentric portion of the movement, for that matter).  This position/motion will limit the contribution of the quads.  Sound easy?  Try it; it’s not by any means.  But if you take the time (and suffer the humility of having to used reduced weights until the hams/glutes/hips catch up in strength) to lean to perform the exercise properly, you’ll be rewarded with a set of very strong (and shapely, if that’s your game) hams and glutes.  The box squat and the glute-ham raise are unsurpassed, imho, for effectively building posterior chain strength.  Couple these exercises with the deadlift/low and high pull variations and (in the power realm) the clean and snatch variations and you’ve got your base, posterior chain work covered.  Then, take that newfound strength and power to the field and sprint, or, if you like, chunk heavy stuff for distance.  Want to blow-off some serious steam?  Pretend you’re performing an overhead caber toss with your bosses head.  Hehe, juuuuuust kidding — seeing if you’re paying attention

Saturday — Fun at “the playground”

Another one of those workout/play combos today.  I put an emphasis on muscle-ups (performed on a pull-up bar) and what I call the “Werner Clean & Press”; check out the second exercise shown in the opening seconds of this video clip of hammer thrower Koji Murofushi.  Koji emphasizes the pull portion of the exercise (i.e., the weight is thrown higher, almost a power snatch motion) more so than does Werner in his execution of the same, basic movement; each athlete is looking for a slightly different effect from the movement — more shoulder/chest/triceps explosion contribution for Werner (a shot-putter); more hip explosion for Koji.  Subtle, though important differences in exercise execution, and good examples, in each case, of morphing a basic exercise to fit specific needs.

1. “Werner” Clean & Press x 5’s
2. Muscle-ups x 3’s

I did 4 rounds of that superset.  Then I played around with a few sets of hurdle hops and overhead caber tosses for distance.

All-in-all, a very satisfying workout week.  So glad to see the warmer weather return!

In health,

Keith

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

- Mohandas Gandhi

Keith,
Thank you so much for your blog. I am an avid reader for the past 5 months, and using your techniques in conjunction with a Paleo style diet has helped me to lose over 50 pounds and regain much vitality.
When I lose motivation, I find it again with your writing. I wish you the best.
Sincerely,
Jeremy

This is really what it’s all about.  Somebody sheds over 50 pounds, and, in the process, finds a vitality that was once thought forever lost.  I would imagine that so many new doors have been opened for this individual. 

50 pounds! Just contemplate, for a moment, the magnitude of that amount of weight.  I know we all hear wild weight-loss numbers tossed around in the media so often that we become numb — jaded even — to what that loss represents in the way of improved health and quality of life for the person having lost the weight.  In Jeremy’s case though, this weight loss (and even more to come) will be permanent, because he’s made a lifestyle change.  No mind-numbing (and unsustainable) measuring, weighing, timing, consumption logging, or counting calories, points or trading friggin’ pokemon cards/tokens for edible (or not so) morsels.  No misery, no depression; no rebound weight gain.  No, Jeremy is living real life, and beginning to realize the phenotype that he was truly destined to express.

And note, too, that this is not my program that Jeremy is following — no more so than he’s following my program for opposable thumb function or bipedalism.  No, Jeremy is simply eating (and moving?) in the way that the evolution of his ancestors dictated.  The success of this program was written in his genes long before I ever came on the scene.

You can follow Jeremy on Twitter, here.  Give him a follow, and some encouragement every now and again.  And if you haven’t yet caught the Twitter fever, sign up and check it out.  The benefits of Twitter can’t be explained, really — they just have to be experienced.  Believe me, you’ll enjoy it.  And this endorsement comes from someone who was adamently against the whole “micro-blog” phenomena until I was mercilessly shamed into jumping in.  In short, I’m sure glad I did.

And hey, keep up the good work, Jeremy!

In health,

Keith

“I don’t want to get too comfortable; I’d rather stay hungry.”

~ Arnold Schwarzenegger

If you haven’t already, you can catch up on Part 1 and Part 2 of the Body By Science reviews.  Interesting comments and discussion followed each installment.

Arnold, back in the day

Back when I was a kid, about the time that I became completely enamored with the phenomena of physical culture, and fell in with the heady realization that I could affect — and, in fact, dramatically improve — my inherent athletic ability via weight training, my goals were twofold: (1) to look every bit like Arnold Schwarenegger, and (2) to play my (American) football position with the all skill, intensity and ferocity of my football heroes at the time — Ronnie Lott and Jack Tatum.

At that time, and with no one around to tell me otherwise (remember, this was the age of the Weider Empire’s, information “totalitarianism”), I set out to achieve my goals.  And I think if you’d ask anyone who knew me during that period of my life, they’d tell you that I was a young man who couldn’t be told “you can’t” or “it’s not possible”.

Come to think of it, though, not much has changed with me in that respect.  But I digress…

In any event, by the time I was ready to pack my bags and head off for collegiate sporting “fame and fortune”, I had figured a couple of things out via simple trial and error.  The first was that sheer size and raw strength had little to do with athletic success in disciplines that required speed and finesse, and the second was that training slow (as in rep speed) in the weight room — either in pursuit of hypertrophy or raw strength –  had the effect of making one slow(er) on the field of play.  At the time, I had neither the knowledge nor the vocabulary to express what it was that I saw lacking in this model; what I’d realized, of course, is that without the ability to express power — and more precisely, instantaneous power, coupled with a high power-to-bodyweight ratio — all is for naught, in the sporting world at least.

Well, thanks so much for the funky little trip down memory lane, you say, but just what the hell does this have to do with Dr. McGuff’s book, Body By Science?

Hmm, well, first up we’ve got the issue of goal setting.  Then, as a subset of that, we’ve got the issue of matching effective training protocols to one’s stated goals.  Now, you can re-make all of the mistakes that I made in my youthful exuberance (and complete and utter ignorance) by attempting to serve two “masters”, or you can choose to listen to the older, and I hope, somewhat wiser me.  What the older, wiser me would have told the younger, ignorant and headstrong me (not that I would have listened — but that’s another story), is that what I was attempting was, in the most simple of terms, a damned fool’s errand.  My two goals were, quite simply, physiological, polar opposites.

But before we travel any further down this road, though, and even prior to delving into the issue of goal setting, we need to first define a term that, on the outset, might not sound like it even needs defining.  “Fitness”, it seems — within the general populace, at least — is akin to the term “love” in that the two terms transcend definition; they just are.  Like art, we know it when we see it.  Well, maybe so for love; fitness, though, must be properly defined so that we can then speak using a common language.

I’d like to compare and contrast a couple of definitions for fitness from a pair of guys whose knowledge of the issue I respect.  First up is Dr. Doug McGuff, as stated in Body By Science:

Fitness: The bodily state of being physiologically capable of handling challenges above a resting threshold of activity.

Next up is Greg Glassman (of CrossFit), and his definition of the term (as paraphrased by yours truly):

Fitness: Work capacity expressed over broad times and modal domains.

Now, both of these definitions essentially cover the same ground, though I tend to use Glassman’s definition because it seems to lend itself more towards fitness in an athletic realm or expression. But that’s my personal preference. What each and every trainee really needs to do is to first define a goal within the realm of the definition of “fitness” (which ever definition you’re most comfortable with), with the realization held firmly in mind that goals — and therefore the proper path toward those goals — is a totally individual matter.  For instance, my personal, overriding goal, since the time I had my pre-collegiate “ah-hah” moment, has been to become more athletic — more powerful, and with a higher power-to-bodyweight ratio — and worry less about physical aesthetics.  As I get older, I’m quite sure I’ll modify this goal more toward aesthetics and overall health.  But for now, I’m all about chasing a higher power-to-bodyweight ratio (and to be more specific, power as expressed in the anaerobic realm), at the expense of, say, joint health.  This is not to say that I ignore joint health, but that I don’t mind pushing the envelop via the Olympic lifts, plyometrics, sprinting and such.   Of course, the downside of this is that I expose myself to an increased possibility of both acute and chronic (via repetitive trauma) injury.  This is the kind of give-and-take, the Yin-and-Yang, if you will, of settling on a goal; it’s absolutely imperative, though, that each trainee do so (along with constant re-assessment) to prevent the dreaded “spinning wheels” syndrome all too frequently witnessed in gyms throughout the world.  And don’t even get me going on goals vis-a-vis diet 

In my mind, goal-setting is of the utmost importance vis-a-vis the Body By Science protocol, precisely because your stated goal will determine where, when, and how often you might employ the protocol.  And let me state here that I unequivocally agree with Dr. McGuff’s premise as revealed throughout his work in Body By Science.   Where Dr. McGuff and I may not see eye-to-eye is in the application of that protocol.  And that has everything to do with goals.  Let me explain.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, examine two trainees with very different goals.  Let’s say trainee #1 is a middle-aged office worker (male or female, doesn’t matter) who is a few pounds, or even good bit, overweight (“over fat”, I feel, is a better term), and who would like to get “in shape”.  Note that trainee #1 describes about 95% of all potential trainees.  Let’s say trainee #2 is a competitive rugby player.  The level of competition, for the purposes of this discussion, is irrelevant.  Two trainees, two totally different goals.  Now, will the Body By Science protocol work for both?  Yes, no doubt it will.  And for trainee #1, I’d dare say it’s probably all he (or she) will ever need.  Buy the book, read, heed, and apply the concepts and, coupled with an all-around Paleo lifestyle, this “95-percentile” trainee will be well on his or her way to a long, disease-free and productive life.  All of trainee #1’s goals can realistically be achieved by following this protocol (with, of course, some added “play” thrown in), and with the added bonus of having invested very little time in the acquisition of those goals.  For trainee #2, however, it’s a much different story.

Both Dr. McGuff and I agree that specific skills must be practiced at game speed and with game-weight implements.  In other words (and for instance), practicing a batting swing, or golf swing, say, with some sort of weighted resistance is not only useless, it’s detrimental.  Practicing these same movements with a lighter implement, however, (overspeed training) does have useful applications, though that protocol is not particularly germane to this discussion (though I do now have an idea for a new post).   Where Dr. McGuff and I might not see eye to eye is this: Dr. McGuff believes (from what I gather from reading BBS), that strength gains made via the BBS protocol can then be directly translated to measurable “on the field” performance increases by way of specific skills practice.  My thinking is that any strength increase realized (no matter the protocol) must first be “bridged” via appropriate strength-speed and speed-strength (power) work in order to produce a more effective (and, to a much greater degree of) “on the field” improvement.  At first glace, this might not seem such a wide gulf of opinion — and depending upon the stated goal of the trainee, it’s not.  However, the more one’s goals shift toward the “application” or “athletic” realms, the gulf widens, as I would contend that the BBS protocol(s), if used at all within an overall training scheme of this nature, would become only a marginalized addition to the overall scheme; relegated, you might say, to the outside fringes of the overall training maco-cycle.  Still a useful application, no doubt; another valuable tool in the trainee’s (and smart trainer’s) toolbox.  In keeping with this analogy, though, one must remember that the handle of a crecsent wrench makes for a poor hammer substitute.  It’s the skilled mechanic who utilizes the correct tool for the job at hand.

Hypertrophy is another matter entire, a matter into which I’ll delve in the next installment of this series.

In health,

Keith

“Drop the question what tomorrow may bring, and count as profit every day that Fate allows you.”

- Horace

Well, I hate to be a pessimist, but after listening to the two podcasts I heard today, I’d have to say nope, not a chance.  Not anytime soon, anyway.

First up, an NPR Science Friday discussion about the Texas School Board’s attempt to sacrifice real science at the altar of Intelligent Design.  Is there any wonder why an appeal to scientific reason and evolutionary fact as the basis behind the efficacy of the Paleo lifestyle is such a tough sell to the general public?   What about trying to explain why one calorie does not necessary effect the body in the same manner as another calorie of differing macro-nutrient content?  It’s enough to make this native Texan hang his head in shame.

Then we have another dose of the right answer to a different question phenomena, as brought to us courtesy of The People’s Pharmacy.  Dump all the added sugar in our diets?  Right on, I couldn’t agree more.  Followed, unfortunately, by the same old energy balance madness.  This generation of obesity researchers really do need to be put to pasture already.

The diet industry, and hucksters in general, must be smiling ear-to-ear.

Of note: It is not without the realization of utter irony that I’ve listed this post under the categories of “Good Listening”, and “Science”.

In health,

Keith

“Most of one’s life is one prolonged effort to prevent oneself thinking.”

– Aldous Huxley

Ah, another “normal” week of catch-where-catch-can, and impromptu workout sessions.   If you want to stay in the game though, and maintain a thriving career, and an active family life to boot, this is the way it has to be done.  Unless, of course, you follow the Body By Science protocol.  But more on that in my next post.  For now , though, the past week’s worth of “gettin’ it done“.

Tuesday morning, YMCA

After reading that great “The Cred” article on Monday, how could I not do some variation of the exercise on Tuesday? I worked my way up to doing 14 total near-max DB single split-snatches (split creds?) + DB Split-Jerks with alternating arms – a single with the left arm, pause, a single with the right arm, etc. I worked my way up to the singles by performing one set of 5’s with each arm, then one set of 3’s, then one set of doubles. I really felt this by later that same afternoon; truly, I felt taxed to the max.

Thursday morning, YMCA

My original intent on this morning was to hit some front squats, power cleans and push-jerks. The best laid plans of mice and men though, sometimes get frigged-up, or so the quote (paraphrased) goes. I got on the road late, and even with a long list of early AM traffic violations left in my wake, still managed to get to the gym about 15 minutes later that I’d like. Well, now, what to do? Hmmmm, well, how about something easy to set up, but very taxing and that can be pumped-out in a very short period of time. How about something in the strength-speed modality? That, to me, sounds like some form of deadlift/pull and/or overhead work. This is what I wound up performing:

1. Clean Grip Low Pulls from the floor x 3
2. BTN Push-Press x 3 (x 2 on the last 2 sets)

Superset fashion, for 4 rounds after a less than stellar, abbreviated warm-up.

Friday afternoon, home

Where does one draw the line between “workout” and “play”? For my purposes, there is no distinct line drawn; all activity (even non-physical stress) induces some amount of fatigue that must be accounted for.  But for the purposes of what is worthy of a blog post, well, that’s another matter. Friday afternoon’s activity consisted mostly of what I’d consider “play”, but it did wind-up inducing a good bit of fatigue. I did about and hour’s worth of fixie intervals – some (due to the wind) at a pretty high intensity level.  As well, and throughout the day, I noodled around with various kettlebell exercises (swings, snatches, presses – some single-arm, some dual) and some of these “mirco workouts” were pretty intense. I have absolutely no way to quantify the sets, reps and tempo here, and this is why I usually don’t report this kind of a thing; it’s just too damn nebulous to quantify. The only reason I report it now is to let you know that I do quite a bit of this kind of stuff throughout the week that, for the purposes of blogging, I’d categorize as intense “play”, and leave it at that. I’d highly suggest you incorporate scattering the same manner of “play” throughout your week as well. Not everything workout-wise ought to be of a manner that can be tabulated and quantified.

Saturday morning, home: an impromptu Tabata session

A few things precipitated this impromptu workout, namely, (1) the anticipation of a mini road trip later that day, including dinner at the Magnolia Grill, in Durham, NC  *and a big thank you, by the way, goes out to Alex, of A Paleo Journey to Health, for the fine-dining recommendation*  (2) lack of time, and (3) drenched fields due to an overnight series of storms. Now, since I get “itchy” and difficult to be around (or so I’m told) in situations where I’m confined for a long period of time (as in a road trip) without having first taxed my body somewhat (to the point where I can at least justify the confinement as “recovery” and actually relax), I knew I needed to bust-out some kind of a workout (hard play?) so as to get that pent-up energy out of my system. Normally in a situation like this, I’d just dash on over to the ECU sporting complex and knockout some sprints, stadium step runs or some such. Then the idea of an at-home Tabata session hit me. Perfect! Short, to the point, and, as anyone who has done a full-out Tabata session knows, taxing, to say the least. I wound up performing a double Tabata session (1 “Tabata session” being equal to 8 total 20 sec on/10 sec off “sets”, or 4 total minutes). Think you can’t get a total, gut-check workout in in under 10 minutes? Think again, my friend. Here’s what ensued:

1. Sprints (on neighborhood streets, complete with taken-aback neighbors, and WTF?? looks) x 6 rounds

2. Bodyweight dips x 4 rounds

3. Kettlebell swings x 6 rounds

Each “round” of the above was done in the Tabata protocol of 20 seconds “on” (i.e., a 20 second sprint), followed by a 10 second rest; immediately followed, of course, by another 20 second “on” period. Believe me, 10 seconds will never seem so short a period until you attempt a full intensity Tabata session.

In health,

Keith