Only Four Exercises? A Confession to Make
I've got a confession to make. But first, I need to briefly touch on something..... You know the 80-20 rule, aka, the Pareto Principle? You know, the phrase which states that, for many events, 80% of the effects stem from 20% of the causes? I've referenced the 80-20 rule in my writings before to hit on the point that, within the sphere of physical training, 80% of your results are going to stem from 20% of the exercises/modalities you choose.
For example, let's say we have Person A and Person B. Both A and B possess identical genes, have the same training history, etc. etc. etc., and we have each of them perform the following workouts:
Person A: Squat --> leave gym Person B: Squat --> romanian deadlift --> lunge --> reverse hyper --> lying leg curl --> leave gym
I'm willing to bet that if you were to compare the results of Person A and Person B, the results of A would be pretty darn close to B. In fact, in some cases, the results of A may be even better than B.
Which leads me to my confession: Many times I will give my athletes and clients new exercises solely for the purpose of keeping things "fun" for them, as opposed to doing it because it's intrinsically necessary for their success in the gym.
"Woah, woah, WOAH there Mr. Reed, shouldn't you always do what is best for your hard-working athletes and clients?" you are probably asking me right now.
Well, in a way, I am giving them what is best for them.
You see, there are a couple little facets of human nature pertinent to this discussion. I like to call one of them "boredom." The other characteristic is something I like to refer to as "always looking for the silver bullet" (not as concise as the first one, but I hope you catch my drift). It's the very reason why the popular fitness magazines continue to sell. Because the editors are smart, understand how to prey on human nature, and know that if they place just the right promises on the cover, then their magazines will fly off the shelves like water during Y2K.
And the strength coach walks a fine line between managing these elements of human nature (i.e. continuing to give the athletes enough variety to keep them interested in their training), and giving the athletes what they need for success (which may be just doing 1-3 exercises per day, albeit manipulating the volume/intensity throughout the training cycle).
If the athletes aren't having fun, they aren't going to want to come back to train. If they don't want to come back to train, then when they do show up to train (because their coach/parent tells them to, or because they do it for the same reason they know homework is good to do), they are going to do so begrudgingly and give a half-hearted effort while in the gym. And then everyone loses out anyway.
It's a similar concept to general fitness enthusiasts. If they don't believe their program is going to give them more sculpted arms, or reduce their body fat, then these things probably won't happen! If they DON'T BELIEVE that they won't reach their goals without constantly doing new exercises, and making things as hard as possible (if it's not hard, it can't work, right???), then they'll be lucky to see their desired results anyway.
This actually reminds me of when we prepared Jason for his selection and assessment with the US Special Forces. After his first wave of training, he approached me and, to his credit, was very honest and blunt and expressed to me his concern about a few things in his programming.
In essence, he doubted that what we were giving him was actually going to get him from Point A to Point B.
I looked at him, and responded with, "If you don't believe in the program we are giving you, then it's not going to work regardless. Trust that what we are providing is going to help you succeed, and you will succeed."
Needless to say, he nodded his head and from that moment on grabbed the bull by the horns throughout the remainder of his training. You can discover the end results of his training by reading his testimonial in the link above.
Anyway, my point in all this is that oftentimes we get so lost by majoring in the minors, that we forget the "bread and butter" of what makes our training a success. For me personally, I've found that by focusing on four exercises at a time give me the best results. And every time I try to add more, it causes me to stray off the straight and narrow path toward my goals. For the past 10 weeks, these four exercises have comprised 95% of my training time:
1) Deadlifts 2) Inverted Rows 3) Sled Pushes 4) 1/2 Kneeling Landmine Presses (perhaps the only "press" variation I've found that has yet to irritate my cranky shoulder)
And you know what? I've continued to get stronger, and I've never felt better.
So I guess I'd revise the Pareto Principle to say that, in the realm of physical training, it's more of a 90-10 rule or, heck, even a 95-5 rule. There are of course exceptions to this, and no I wouldn't have a beginner perform only four exercises per training cycle.
I was kind of all over the place in this one, so let me try to best sum up my points:
1) Less is more. A very small percent of the exercises you choose (assuming you choose them wisely) are going to be responsible for the large majority of your results. 2) Even though #1 is true, sometimes the strength coach has to throw the athletes and clients a bone (or three) to keep them interested/having fun. Training should be fun, and even if my programming is partially motivated by helping those under my watch enjoy training for the sake of training, then I see nothing wrong with this. After all, not everyone gets off to doing inverted rows ten weeks in a row. 3) I'm not saying that one never needs to do direct ab or arm work. Don't be silly. 4) If you don't believe in the program you're doing, then it's not going to work, no matter how "perfect" it is.
Q&A: Strength/Power vs Hypertrophy/Size?
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between training for strength/power and for hypertrophy/size? It seems that if one becomes strong enough to squat 400 pounds or bench press 300, they are not going to be small and weak?
J – Thanks for the question. This is actually a great question that I don’t believe many people ever consider. It also touches on some of the fine points of programming and why – in my (not-so-humble) opinion – SAPT really excels at program design and getting our clients to their goals.
Your assumption that if someone is able to squat X and bench Y they will not be small and weak is basically correct. BUT, to get them to those goals you have to begin complementing the heavy compound or main movements with accessory and supplemental work that will effectively support the needed growth to hit those heavier maxes. When I say growth, I am referring to both neural growth/adaptations and actual muscle hypertrophy.
If one were to stick with a strict maximum strength development program they would be missing out on the strength and hypertrophy spectrum. The result would be very little hypertrophy because the volume will be so low… even though the weights will be very heavy. The primary result will be neural adaptations. As a side note, this is the style training I use with my college teams when I only want performance improvements and very little gain in weight or size: maximum strength, strength-speed, speed-strength, and speed methods.
On the other hand, if you begin to carefully combine the maximum strength work with some hypertrophy and strength set/rep ranges then you will be able to simultaneously (and very efficiently) gain the needed muscle to support the improved neural functions.
Hope this answer helps clear things up!
Straight Bar vs. Trap Bar Deadlifts, Part 1
Which bar is more appropriate for your deadlift training goals?
“What’s your thought/preference on straight bar deadlifts vs. trap bar deadlifts?”
I hear this question constantly, but because both lifts closely resemble one another, and because both lifts are used so often, I can understand why it can be a confusing topic.
So, what exactly are the differences? Which of the two bars is easier to learn? Which variation will add more muscle mass? Which option will be place less stress on the low back? Which variation will provide a greater stimulus for the hips? Which bar would Wolverine and Batman choose, respectively? Hang tight, as I’m about to answer those questions and then some.
Continue Reading....
(Note: The above link takes you to my most recent OneResult article)
(Note to guy in above picture: Pack your neck FOR THE LOVE!!!)
Muscle Confusion? Legit or Nonsense Term?
The p90x system has popularized the phrase “muscle confusion” with claims, within the infomercial, referring to the “training science of muscle confusion.” My question is this: Is “muscle confusion” based in “training science?” Oh, and, what the heck is “training science?”
Here is a portion of the p90x pitch:
Alright, muscle confusion… sounds good. Let’s see what a search of scientific research journals pulls up for me:
Only 10 results – hmmmm – that’s not usually a good sign…
- Serotonin Syndrome – Muscle Rigidity and Confusion in the Older Adult.
- Renal failure in a patient with…
- Confusion between physicians & dentists about muscle-type pain…
- Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals.
Nothing related so, I’ll stop there and spare you the rest of the list.
Sadly, “muscle confusion” doesn’t seem to be based anywhere in science.
Well, let’s go ahead and see what kind of research supports “training science:”
- Basic science research and education: a priority for training…
- Training and career development in clinical and translational science: an opportunity for rehabilitation scientists.
- Science in Mental Health Training and Practice…
- Eating for Performance: Bringing Science to the Training Table.
Not quite what I was looking for, but the list goes on and on.
Perhaps most perplexing is that a comprehensive research journal search with the phrases “muscle confusion” and “training science” yield absolutely no results! Tony Horton, have you lied to us all?!?
In fact, there are only two papers that come up relating to p90x – one is from Men’s Fitness (let’s throw that one out). And the other is from FireRescue Magazine, more detailed than Men’s Fitness, yes, but a far cry from the “training science” research I was hoping to find!
Okay, let’s give Tony Horton one more chance and find out what papers he has authored:
Another head-scratcher, neither “Tony Horton” nor “Anthony Horton” returned any results.
Oh well, I guess I’ll have to answer my own question from the top of this post.
So, what does “the training science of muscle confusion” mean?
My take is that it is essentially a nonsense term/phrase used for marketing to laypeople.
“Training science” can probably best be relabeled as exercise science (now this is a real phrase… in fact entire bachelor's degrees are labeled as such). Personally, I think exercise science is as easy to understand as “training science,” so I don’t know why they wouldn’t market it correctly in this way.
“Muscle confusion” seems to be very much a dummy term. From the marketing, it seems like the p90x folks are alluding to their programming and the manipulation of variables (sets, reps, mode, method, etc.). The actual term is “periodization” and this can take on a variety of shapes and sizes to elicit the result you’re looking for.
Perhaps the marketing magic-makers think the layperson is not capable of learning new words like “periodization?”
The bottom line?
- I’ve watched the p90x DVDs and I think the creativity of exercises and simple exercise progressions are quite good.
- Personally, I know at least 50 people (all happen to be current or former high-level athletes) who have tried p90x. None of them have completed the program.
- I think it is shameful the way the fitness industry allows itself to market to people’s egos, fears, and insecurities. This product is no different.
If you want to try it, go for it! It’s way better than sitting on the couch and a gigantic step-up from Jane Fonda tapes or going to a commercial gym to mindlessly wander around. But, I must say it is an extremely aggressive way to start a training program and, much like CrossFit, you may be best served to begin a training program that is moderately paced and conservatively planned to get you prepared for the full regimen.
Remember, in the world of strength, conditioning, and fitness, it is NEVER an all or none proposition. Any system that makes you feel that way, guarantees results, or sets a time limit on your progress should likely be avoided.
A Tip on Programming
If you truly want to become stronger it’s very important that you take careful consideration when planning your training program. One of the biggest factors that comes into play when doing this is understanding your strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately when this task is undertaken solo the former rather than the latter becomes the focus of the program. Usually what happens when you write your own training program is that unbeknownst to you, you have programmed everything your good at and absolutely nothing you’re bad at. Congratulations, you’re going to spend the next 12 weeks not getting any stronger! So the question becomes, how do we avoid wasting 12 weeks of our life? Simple, DON’T do your own programming. The best thing to do is to sit down with someone who is qualified and experienced when it comes to programming (do not ask your training partner, chances are they probably have the same problems you have and are just as biased). Talk to them about your goals, strengths, and problem areas. Based on the information you give them and the programming knowledge they have, they will write you a program that you will absolutely hate! Why will you hate it? Because, it’s going to be filled with a bunch of stuff you’re not good at and honestly who wants to work 4-5 days a week on things they are terrible at? Nobody! But, I promise that you WILL come out 12 weeks later a STRONGER person than when you went in. Trust me I’m just as guilty of this as anyone else;I would much rather feel like Wolverine in the weight room instead of Howard the Duck.
Don’t believe me? I’ll show you. Below you will find two training days from two different programs. The first was written for me by current strength coach, powerlifter, and friend Gabe Naspinski. The basis of which can be found by reading Gabe’s article for EliteFTS. The second is a day that I wrote for myself a while ago.
|
Gabe’s |
Mine |
||||
| A1) | Conventional DL from Deficit | 9X2/60% | A1) | DE Sumo DL with Chains | 8X3 50%+50lbs of Chains |
| B1) | SSB Low Box Squat w/ pause | 4X6 | B1) | Low Box Squat | 4X8 |
| B2) | Pullups throughout session | 40 total | C1) | Barbell Rollouts | 3XAMAP |
| C1) | Band Pull Throughs | 3x15 | C2) | Reverse Hyper | 4X10 |
| C2) | Static/Dynamic Ab Movement of my choice | ||||
I know they don’t seem completely different but let me explain why the day Gabe planned is better for me than the one that I programmed. First let me give you a little background on myself. I have been pulling sumo for the last two years because I’m better at it and that’s how I compete. I am terrible off the floor when deadlifting but pretty good when it comes to locking out at the top. I am also weak out of the hole of my squat but again, pretty good at locking them out. Lastly, I have weak glutes, hamstrings and upper back. Just with that little bit of information it’s easy to see why Gabe’s training day is superior to the one I programmed.
Let’s look at A1; he has me pulling conventional AND from a deficit (this guy has it out for me). This allows me to work on almost all of my weaknesses. Pulling conventional and from a deficit will allow me to get better out of the bottom due to the increased range of motion and it will work on my hamstring and glute weakness as well as my upper back. Now is what I programmed bad? No, but it’s not exposing nor is it helping me work on my weaknesses nearly as much as what Gabe gave me.
We’ll end with talking about the B series. With this series we have two squat variations, again nothing to different. The main difference is the type of barbell used and the utilization of the pause. He has me using a SSB (safety squat bar) which positions the bar higher on my back causing a greater emphasis on back strength as opposed to a straight bar, thus allowing me to work on my upper back weakness. Again, I’m weak out of the bottom of my squat and my glute strength is sorely lacking so naturally we are going to incorporate a low box, which Gabe and I both did. There is one glaring difference though between his and mine….the dreaded PAUSE in the bottom. Now the pause I’m using is only a second long but that one second pause is a dagger (I’m not joking, go try it). This pause is going to allow me to get stronger out of the bottom while also putting much more emphasis on my glutes. Lastly in the B series, you’ll notice the 40 pullups throughout session that are in Gabe’s program and not in mine. Remember that whole weak upper back thing? Interestingly enough Gabe decided to give me upper back work EVERYDAY of my program (I told you this guy has it out for me). But again, my back weakness has been my downfall and he’s making me face it every day forcing me to get stronger.
As I said at the beginning, it’s important for everyone to know their strengths and weaknesses (especially their weaknesses). One weakness that we all share when it comes to training is thinking that we are unbiased when it comes to writing our own program. You might work on SOME of your problem areas if you write your own program but I guarantee it’s not going to be the same as someone else writing it. Don’t spend weeks on end not getting any better, it’s a waste.
Remember, friends don’t let friends write their own programs.
Breaking in a New Bench Shirt
This post is definitely a departure from SAPTstrength's usual fare (and essentially the antithesis to Stevo's Monday post). Not only are we diving headfirst into powerlifting preparation, but I'm talking about GEARED powerlifting!
For the uninitiated, geared powerlifting involves using very snug fitting "shirts" and "suits" (think the tightest compression shorts or shirts you can possibly imagine and multiply that by 100) to aide in the power lifts: squat, bench, and deadlift.
So, what's the point of these aides? You can move more weight. Plain and simple. There is a huge cool-factor involved (read: ego-factor).
Up until this past summer, I had ONLY competed in geared events and I freaking loved it!
It is worth noting - and this cannot be UNDERstated - the training for geared powerlifting varies significantly from raw powerlifting. As you'll see in Sean's videos below, he has to work to simply get the bar down to his chest. He is literally having to PULL the bar down - hence why back work becomes so critical for the geared bencher. This can be very tough to imagine for someone who has never experienced a shirted bench.
Anyhow, my point here is not to convince you to be pro-gear. What I'd like to do is simply show an excellent progression to help learn the "groove" in a new bench shirt:
Sean starts his first set by touching a 3-board, the next set is to a 2-board, and the third set he is just able to touch his chest. This is a very intelligent way to learn to handle a new shirt. Some people get in them and simply pile on more and more weight until it finally touches their chest. Unfortunately, during this process they may never learn solid, safe, and effective form.
It is worth noting how well Sean is able to stay under control - you see very little, if any, breakdown in form: elbows stays tucked, chest stays up, and he is clearly actively pulling the bar down.
By the way, if you want to go to the true experts in powerlifting, you need to make your way over to EliteFTS.com and check out their training logs, the Q&A, and articles.
