Q & A: Training for Mass vs. Power
Q: My first question is a classic one: how do the training programs of a body-builder and a "strongest man" competitor differ? In short--mass vs power. And why does the body-builder appear stronger than, for instance, the **German who clean and jerked 565lbs for his deceased wife? Ive heard so many different theories on this stuff...
A. First of all, for those of you reading who haven't seen the video referenced in the question, please see below. Doing so will automatically raise your testosterone levels by 150% (don't worry ladies, you can still benefit as there's a romantic side to the story).
It's important to note that:
A) Powerlifters and Olympic Lifters ("O-lifters") each care about one thing: the maximal amount of weight they can move for the FEW key lifts in their respective competitions (squat/bench/dead for powerlifters, and clean+jerk/snatch for O-lifters). Their end goal is to find the most efficient way to move the weight through the desired range. For example, powerlifters often create a huge arch in their back during a bench press so they don't have to move the bar as far up and down, and O-lifters learn to keep the bar as close to their body as possible so it doesn't "arc" out in front of them.
B) Bodybuilders, on the other hand, also only care about one thing, but it's entirely different: Aesthetics. Put another way, hypertrophy (hy-PUR-truh-fee), which simply means increasing the size of the muscle fibers.
(Note: Pardon me as the above points may seem very obvious, but it's important to note nonetheless.)
Training Differences
One could argue that the primary difference in training for these two respective goals (power vs. mass) comes down to the development of the nervous system. The German who clean+jerked 565lbs for his deceased wife trained his nervous system to "drive" the muscles to be able to contract+produce power as quickly and efficiently as possible. In an Olympic lifting context, this is typically done by moving sub-maximal weights at maximal speeds using low reps. An example of this would be executing power cleans for 5 sets of 2 reps at a weight than can be moved quickly and smoothly by the lifter. You can use this same principle with deadlifts, squats, and bench presses, too. In fact (as you may be well aware), many powerlifters use a high set/low rep at a low % to work on pure speed/power development. They are teaching their nervous systems to produce maximal force in as little time as possible. The faster one can do this, the more weight they can typically lift, or throw overhead.
Basically: you can become extremely "neurally efficient" without necessarily becoming big.
Heck, look at Tom Martin (180lbs) who set the world record for the deadlift in his weight class. He pulled 771lbs, yet appears wayyy less muscular than your average bodybuilder!
Let's briefly discuss training programs. If you take the program of a powerlifter and compare it to that of a bodybuilder, you'll immediately notice how much "simpler" the powerlifting program is compared to that of the bodybuilding program. Let's take a look at a sample "Leg Day:"
Powerlifting
Bodybuilding
1) Deadlift 5x2
2) Glute-Ham Raise 3x8
*3) Split Squat 3x10/side
4) Weighted Plank 3x :20
*Maybe
1) Squat 4x10
2) Deadlift 5x5
3) Leg Press 4x15
4a) Walking Lunges 4x10/side
4b) Seated Leg Extensions 3-4x10
5a) Lying Leg Curls 3-4x10
5b) Seated Calf Raise 3xInfinity
Elite-level powerlifters and Olympic lifters know how to "trim the fat" in order to do enough so that their main lift improves, but NOT so much to the point where their body has to recover from a bazillion supplementary exercises. This will depend on the lifter of course (some powerlifters find that their body responds to slightly more assistance work than others), but the common theme is that they do the minimum required to see their competition lifts improve.
Bodybuilders, on the other hand, are known for their extremely voluminous training sessions, often spending 90-120 minutes in a single workout. They'll also do whatever it takes in their training to maximize how large their muscles grow, examples including (but not limited to):
-manipulating their form to maximize tension on a particular muscle
-using a slow tempo (during both the lowering AND lifting portion)
-using machines to isolate a muscle (taking that muscle's "helpers" out of the equation....ex. in a squat the hamstrings+glutes are still going to help the primary mover - the quads - do the lift....but in a leg extension machine you can isolate the quads to a much greater degree).
-"supersetting" exercises for the same muscle group (ex. walking lunges paired with seated leg extensions) to "exhaust" a particular muscle
-choosing lifts that take the muscle through a greater range of motion (ex. doing a dumbbell bench press instead of a barbell bench press)
-etc. etc. etc.
It's also shown that the higher rep/volume style of bodybuilding leads to development of what's called sarcoplastic hypertrophy, or, in laymen's terms, increasing the size of the non-contractile portions of the muscle cell (muscle cells have both contractile and non-contractile tissue within them). This is another method through which they can look very very big but not necessarily possess the strength of powerlifters.
An Important Caveat
The immediate conclusion most people draw from this is that if their goals strictly lie in the sphere of aesthetics, then they should train like bodybuilders with a very high volume, high repetition approach. Which leads me to this:
The two training methodologies aren't necessarily mutually exclusive of each other, ESPECIALLY when it comes to training for aesthetics.
For example, my wife, Kelsey, earned her Pro Card in bodybuilding by primarily using a powerlifting-style approach in her training!
In fact, this is sometimes the biggest setback I see in people training solely for the goal of lookin' good: they aren't strong enough. I strongly feel that most people - even those with bodybuilding aspirations - should begin with (and continue to cycle in) "powerlifting'esque" training tools as many will be surprised at how much they grow simply by getting stronger on the compound lifts (squats, overhead presses, deadlifts, bench presses, chinups, etc.).
The "Illusion" of Bodybuilding
Alright, this is Q & A is already significantly more prolix than I was anticipating, so just one more point: Diet and creating an "illusion" are HUGE factors in making bodybuilders look bigger. Bodybuilders will diet down to insanely low bodyfat levels, and strategically manipulate their nutrition, to make themselves appear more "full" right before a competition. Not to mention, the spend hours practicing their poses in order to make their muscles appear larger than they actually are.
Going back to the example of my wife, many girls may look at the picture of her above and think "No way would I ever want to look manly and bulky like that!".
Guess what? Do you think that's how she looks walking around the street? Nope. Despite the fact that she has set American records in powerlifting (hint: she is very strong), she actually, *gasp,* looks very feminine, and sexy to boot, walking around day to day. The picture from her bodybuilding show is the result of very meticulous nutrient partitioning and hours of hard work practicing her poses and routines.
Here's a picture I found, via a quick desktop search, of us at a Lord of the Rings showing with a live orchestra. Which goes to say: bodybuilders don't look like they do on stage year-round.
And yes, the show was as cool as it sounds.
I bet if Matthias Steiner (the German O-lifter from the beginning) were to diet down to a very low bodyfat and manipulate his carbohydrate/water intake, he would look very, VERY muscular, too.
Another example: see the before/after photos of Dave Tate, a powerlifter who went on a "bodybuilding kick" and got his nutrition in order. I hope this helps prove my point.
Whew, anyway, I hoped this help elucidate some of the differences between training for mass vs. power. It was far from comprehensive (the topic can literally be discussed for days), but hopefully at least gets you started on the right track.
**On a side note: Matthias steiner should technically be considered one of the most powerful men in the world, as opposed to strongest - because he moves weight at a higher velocity - when compared to powerlifters who are some of the strongest people in the world. Kinda ironic how powerlifting actually involves moving heavy weights at a slow velocity, whereas Olympic lifting is all about moving it fast......
SAPT Blog Gems of 2011
With it being the Friday before the New Year, I thought this would make a good time to share some of the most popular blog posts I wrote during 2011. I thought it would make a great way for some of our newer readership to catch some things they may have missed, give our "veteran" followers some reminders of things they may have read a while ago, and hey, not gonna lie, it makes for an easy day of blog content on my end! 2011 saw substantial growth for SAPTstrength, and I honestly cannot thank you all enough for your support. This was also the first year I made a effort to write consistently, totaling roughly 150 blog posts (along with a few additional articles for websites).
It amazes me to see the readership of this site growing weekly, and it really does humble me to know that many of you out there enjoy the coaches+writers of this site (Sarah, Chris, and myself), and think that we, to put it scientifically: don't suck.
That being said, let's get to the list. Happy New Year everyone, and we look forward to 2012 with you all!
Warrior, The Resistance, Mobility, and Happy Birthday Baggins
You know, it's so funny, sometimes the posts I put together last-minute, on a whim, and in a "holycrapIcan'tthinkofanythingtowritesoletmediscussLordoftheRings" mindset, are the ones that receive the most traffic. This one topped the list, and it wasn't even really about training! Geeze people, comon'! Stop being so hard to please.
I don't know if it's because I talked about Lord of the Rings or discussed the epicness of Tom Hardy's traps, but apparently this one hit home with you all.
26 Things I've Learned: Training Edition
Okay, now for some that are actually training related. Here I recap - via 26 short bullet points - several "ah ha" moments I've had since entering the strength and conditioning industry. This one trimmed the fat and gave the "quick and dirty" for anything ranging from improving one's results in the gym to program design.
A Few Things I've Learned: "Life" Edition
It honestly surprised me how much traffic this one received, as I wasn't anticipating this post being that big of a hit. Here I put on my sage hat (at least as much as possible for me to do so) and give some quick bullet points on anything from behavior economics to yellow traffic lights.
You know what they say about discussions with in-laws at the dinner table: Avoid the topics of politics, religion, and......CrossFit. Just kidding (kinda), but it does seem that people tend to fall on vastly different ends of the spectrum when it comes to CrossFit. It's as if it's an either-or topic...black and white, if you will: Either it's so evil worse than Satan himself, or it's so good it has saved you from congestive heart failure.
In this post, I do my best to look at it from an objective point of view. Is it for elite athletes? General fitness enthusiasts? Are ALL affiliates awful facilities that (quote) "do nothing but injure people?" Click the link to see for yourself.
To Overhead Press or Not to Overhead Press
The overhead press is a hot topic of debate among doctors and strength coaches alike. See this Q & A for a quick run down on if the overhead press is the right exercise for you.
And now, here are two great ones from Sarah and Chris:
A Little Bit About Knee Injuries - Sarah Walls
Here Sarah does a great job breaking down the what, why, and how-to-prevent of knee injuries. Notice that one of her main points is to "get those glutes firing!" I can't tell you how many times I'm working with a female with a knee injury/pain and have her doing glute work when she looks at me, and (*cue sassy voice*):
"Um, I don't want my BUTT to get any bigger...."
Well, do you want your knee pain to increase in magnitude, too?? Get those glutes workin' girl! Your butt circumference won't increase in an unfavorable way, I promise.
Our Take on "Sport Specific" - Chris Romanow
Last, but certainly not least, is an excellent short blurb by Chris on sport specific training. I can't tell you how many times I'm asked by a well-intentioned parent on why I'm not having their child perform X exercise since it is "sport specific." Should you do band-resisted running if you're a sprinter? Is it really necessary to have a soccer player squat, since it doesn't look like a very "sport specific" drill? See his points on the link above.
**That's all for now. Feel free to chime in below for any topics you'd like to see covered in 2012!**
To Overhead Press or Not to Overhead Press
I received this question from a friend of mine who is currently in physical therapy school and thought I'd share my response here. Q. Had a question. I know that at [X clinic he worked at] some of the therapists told me that overhead press was bad to do due to some impingement of the supraspinatus. This is also something we've learned in school but im not sure if this is specifically for those who just aren't strong enough or those recovering from injuries and such. Do you do overhead shoulder press w/ dumbells or BB and what is your take on the subject?
A. As usual, this is a question of contraindicated exercises versus contraindicated people. To make a blanket statement such as "no one should overhead press" would be both remiss and short-sighted. For example, if this is the case, should I avoid taking down and putting up my 5lb container of protein powder on top of my kitchen cabinet each morning? But I digress.
Getting to your the center of your question: Is the overhead press a fantastic exercise? Absolutely! Can the majority of the population perform it safely? Eh, not so much. In fact, this is a very similar subject matter to the back squat. The squat is arguably the greatest exercise to add lean body mass and increase athletic prowess, but may not be the wisest exercise selection depending on the person/situation. Chris actually addressed this very question in THIS post as to why he doesn't back squat the Division 1 baseball players he works with over at George Mason.
First things first: Look, I LOVE the overhead press. In fact, nothing makes me feel more viking-like than pressing something heavy overhead.In my personal opinion, the barbell military press is one of the BEST exercises to develop the deltoids, traps, serratus, and triceps, along with (if performing it correctly) the abdominals, glutes, low back, and upper thighs. HOWEVER, a lot of "stuff" needs to be working correctly in order to safely overhead press:
- Soft Tissue Quality
- Thoracic Mobility (specifically in extension)
- A Strong (and Stable) Rotator Cuff
- Upward Rotation of the Shoulder Blades
- General Ninja-like Status
Improved thoracic extension will positively alter your shoulder kinematics as you press overhead, a strong and stable cuff will help keep the humeral head centered in the glenoid (the shoulder socket) in order to free up that subacromial space (decreasing risk of impingement) , upward rotators will keep the scapulae in proper positioning, and I don't think I need explain how obtaining ninja status will help you overhead press like a champ.
If you can get all the things above up to snuff (via specific drills/exercises), then you're in pretty darn good shape. In reality, this comes down to ensuring you lay down a sound foundation of movement before loading up that very pattern. If the movement patterns and necessary kinematics are there, then chances are you get the green light to overhead press.
However, it doesn't stop there. A few other things need to be taken in to consideration:
1. Training Economy. If you only have X number of hours in the gym and Y capacity to recover, then you need to choose the Z exercises that will give you the most bang for your buck without exceeding your (or your athlete's) capacity to recover. Considering that the "shoulders" already receive tons of work from horizontal pressing movements (on top of horizontal and vertical pulling exercises), I really don't feel that most trainees - especially those that are contraindicated - need to overhead press if the primary goal is to further hypertrophy the deltoids and/or elicit some sort of athletic performance improvement.
2. Injury History. Partial thickness cuff tear? Labral fraying? Congenital factors? All these (and more) will come into play with deciding if overhead pressing will set you up for longevity in the realm of shoulder health.
3. Population. Are you dealing with overhead athletes? They're at much greater risk for the traumas listed in #2, and, not to mention, they already spend a large majority of their day with their arms overhead so you need to consider how mechanically stable (or unstable) their shoulder is, along any symptomatic AND asymptomatic conditions they may possess. Conversely, if you're dealing with a competitive olympic lifter, or an average joe who moves marvelously, then the overhead press may be a fantastic (or even necessary) choice to elicit a desired outcome.
4. Type of Injury. Ex. Those with AC joint issues may actually be able to overhead press pain free due to the lack of humeral extension involved (whereas the extreme humeral extension you'd find in dips or even bench pressing could easily exacerbate AC joint symptoms). Using myself as example, I can actually military press pain free, whereas bench pressing quickly irritates my bum shoulder. I don't have an AC joint issue (as far as I know...), but I've still found that my pain flares up when my humerus goes into deep extension (past neutral) in any press such as a pushup, barbell press, dumbbell press, etc. so the military press actually feels pretty good for me PERSONALLY. With regards to pushups and dumbbell pressing, I can usually do it fine as long as I'm cognizant to avoid anterior humeral glide.
As for pressing overhead with dumbbells vs. barbells, I find that, frequently, it's best to start someone with dumbbell pressing with a NEUTRAL grip (palms facing each other) as this will give your shoulder more room to "breathe" by externally rotating the humerus and lowering risk of subacromial impingement. From there, you can progress to the barbell as long as the items listed in the beginning are in check.
In the end, this comes down to how well you move, your posture, and your individual situation. With technology currently PWNING our society's movement patterns via increased time in cars, sitting in front of our computers, gaming, and overall sedentary lifestyle, we have to fight much harder than our ancestors to turn that "red light" to a "green light" in the sphere of overhead pressing.
Note: to conclude, feel free to watch the video below by Martin Rooney. Hopefully, you can read the central message portrayed:
CrossFit: Friend or Foe?
Due to the number of questions I've received - both in person and via email - regarding my thoughts on CrossFit, I thought it'd be best to briefly touch on this in a blog post. CrossFit has been rapidly growing in popularity among athletes and general fitness enthusiasts alike, and there's no doubt the training philosophy/method of CrossFit is a hot topic on the internet, largely due to the fact of how controversial it is. Before I continue, it's important I make a couple clarifying statements:
- I do not personally "do CrossFit," but the purpose of this post is not to bash another approach to training. I think it's about time we cease getting our underwear up in a bunch because someone has a different way of training than we do (this goes for CrossFitters and non-CrossFitters alike). Also, I feel quite strongly against putting someone (or, I guess in this case, something else) down in order to build myself up. If you're so insecure about your beliefs, values, methods, etc. that your first instinct is to berate someone else in order to make yourself look good, then you have many other problems to worry about other than the fact that someone else believes something different than you do. Let's save the bad-mouthing and finger pointing for the politicians, shall we?
- The concerns I'm going to address are exclusively related to the CrossFit main site, NOT every CrossFit coach/gym/affiliate out there. I am well aware that there are some VERY qualified coaches running CrossFit gyms, and more power to them. For instance, Kelly Starrett of the Mobility Project is preaching a fantastic message by encouraging everyone improve their movement quality via specific mobility drills. John McBrien advocates the prioritization of technique over volume, which is something that CrossFitters are often accused of ignoring. Similarly, there are countless other instructors out there that ensure safe and effective programming/teaching of their clients.
Moving on, I'll do my best to answer the question as succinctly as possible. Understand that my thoughts are largely based off the population I work with (primarily high school and college athletes), and, again, I'm addressing concerns specifically related to what is publicly posted on the main site, not at everyone who works under the CrossFit umbrella.
Were I to coach within a CrossFit affiliate, here are a few "tweaks" I would make in my own programming, compared to the main site "WOD:"
1. Individualize the Programs
Taken directly from the website, everyone performing the WOD (or "Workout of the Day") does the exact same thing, albeit with different loads/intensities:
Our program delivers a fitness that is, by design, broad, general, and inclusive. Our specialty is not specializing. Combat, survival, many sports, and life reward this kind of fitness and, on average, punish the specialist.
The CrossFit program is designed for universal scalability making it the perfect application for any committed individual regardless of experience. We’ve used our same routines for elderly individuals with heart disease and cage fighters one month out from televised bouts. We scale load and intensity; we don’t change programs.
The needs of Olympic athletes and our grandparents differ by degree not kind. Our terrorist hunters, skiers, mountain bike riders and housewives have found their best fitness from the same regimen.
This, right here, is the largest red flag. Maybe it's because I worked as a physical therapist aid, completed rotations in cardiac rehab clinics, and now work as a performance coach, but I can confidently say that I would train an elite athlete far differently than I would train an elderly individual whose heart is on the brink of failing. To do otherwise would be inconsiderate and downright dangerous.
Should most people squat? Yes. Should most people learn to pick heavy things off the ground? Yes. I can see where they're coming from there. However, I don't think there's any denying that each and every person has a unique training history, medical history, training goals, etc. that warrant an individual program written for that specific person.
Using just one example, throughout this Summer we (SAPT) have been working with a Division 1, national-level sprinter who is pretty darn close to his genetic potential. During his particular hour of training, we also work with a 41-year old man who sits at a desk 40+ hours per week. To give these individuals the exact same program (even with different loads/intensities), would be ignoring the fact that safe and effective programming is a precise course of action centered around the unique needs, deficiencies, and goals of each person under our watch.
Furthermore, many of the routines place tremendous stress on the shoulder girdle (ex. high volume of overhead pressing, muscle-ups, ring dips, etc.). Not that this is always unwarranted (remember: there's no such thing as contraindicated exercises, just contraindicated lifters), but - for the overhead athletes I work with - these routines could quickly lead down the road of surgery and PT rather than championship titles.
Again, I realize that many CrossFit instructors don't operate under the exact wording of the quote on the website, and I'm not sure how literal the authors intended their statement to be, so I can't completely judge. I would just personally choose to take a different approach to programming.
2. Incorporate Unilateral Work
Every main site WOD I've looked at is composed of bilateral lifts, exclusively. While there's no denying that squats and deadlifts should be a staple of most programs, there is still a training effect that can only be attained by working one limb at a time.
Given that the majority of athletics involve planting one foot on ground at a time (read: running), unilateral work can be a fantastic tool for physical preparation of sport. Single-leg (and single-arm) exercises simply address asymmetries, injury risk reduction, and key muscular stabilizers in a manner that bilateral movements do not. Not to mention, single-leg variations can also be extremely practical for someone who is not meant to squat (due to injury or biomechanical make-up).
3. Form Should Never Be Compromised In Training. Ever.
My number one goal as a strength coach is to keep my athletes and general fitness clients free of injury. As Dan John recently wrote:
It is "almost" okay to get injured in competition, but it's insane to get hurt in preparation
Due to the incredibly high volume, and low/zero rest periods, in most of the main site WODs, I would feel very uncomfortable programming those workouts for the majority of the clientele at SAPT. It would be near impossible to maintain good form, and thus reduce risk of injury, while performing heavy compound lifts during a high state of fatigue.
4. Limit the Volume of the Olympic Lifts, as well as the Squats and Deadlifts (most of the time).
Scrolling through the website, I found multiple workouts prescribing power cleans, snatches, overhead squats, etc. for upwards of fifteen reps in a row. Again, I understand many CrossFit coaches don't approve of this, but still, why even have them up there?
The O-lifts require a TREMENDOUS amount of skill and practice to perform safely and effectively, and are intended to be used in a manner that develop power/rate of force development, not aerobic capacity.
I'm not saying to avoid thinking outside the box, but at the same time I believe there should be a certain reverence held for the big lifts (squats/deads) and the olympic lifts. When utilizing these lifts for reps of 10+, you're no longer working on power augmentation but aerobic adaptations. I would personally prefer to choose one of the countless other means of improving aerobic capacity over the olympic lifts, due to the risk of ingraining poor technique (or even worse, injury) involved.
5. Develop a Progressive Plan for Each Individual, Rather than Focus on Constant Variance.
One of the site's pride and joy seems to center around the fact that each workout is "constantly varied." While I can imagine the creators of the site can back this up with an argument (which is great, and I respect that), I'd personally avoid variance just for the sake of having variance.
If working with a general fitness population that only wants the gym to be an outlet to experience fun, learn new things, and be around like-minded people, this is great! However, when preparing an athlete for a competitive season or a particular competition day, it's necessary to put together a progressive and thought-out plan, and this requires more than just throwing a bunch of play dough at the wall to see what sticks.
Summary
Again, the purpose of this post isn't to point out "flaws" in another training system.In reality, any coach could walk into a gym or performance center (mine included) and point at happenings they don't agree with and/or feel are "wrong." It doesn't really take an intelligent person to do this. That's one of the beauties of the training industry, and I personally think this can make for many thought-provoking and healthy debates.
Also, realize that CrossFit is a sport! The CrossFit games now take place each year. As such, if you're training to compete in the CrossFit games, then it'd probably be best to utilize this system. But, for the athletes I work with who compete in multiple other sports, it's prudent for me to take a different approach to help them with their sport.
I once had a friend who told me that CrossFit was the best thing that gets him into the gym everyday. If this is the case for you, and you're having fun and remaining injury-free, then by all means continue to go. I'd hope I'm not to arrogant and tunnel-visioned not to acknowledge when someone else in the industry is providing a positive experience for someone. I also believe CrossFit is doing some solid things through the following:
- Encouraging people to learn the basic movements (squat, push, pull, carry)
- To train in an environment that provides camaraderie and accountability. I've heard awesome tales about the general CrossFit training environment/atmosphere, and given this is a key element lacking in many gyms I encourage everyone to find a place (CrossFit or elsewhere) that can "pick you up when you're down."
- CrossFit tends to be insanely popular amongst the female population. Considering that many of us in the training industry have to fight tooth and nail to smite the myriad damaging myths the media puts out to women regarding their bodies and roles in the gym, I think this is fantastic.
While this topic could be debated for hours on end, I hope I didn't lose most of you and/or cause you to begin your first draft of hate mail.
Here's to lifting heavy things. *holds glass up*
Q & A: Finding a Place to Train
Q: Stevo,
I've fallen off the wagon and struggled with staying on track in any sort of workout over the past few years. Now that I'm working and have some discretionary income I was thinking that going to work out at a place like SAPT might help me get back on track.
1. I would be much less likely to miss an appointment than to skip going to workout on my own.2. Its better to have someone else create a program for me.3. Hopefully, it would be a welcoming environment and I might feel like part of a group or team.4. It would offer a more complete gym than the one available for free at work.
Anyways, what should I look for to make sure a place is legit? And what is a fair rate?
A. First, EXCELLENT points regarding the benefits of finding a solid training environment. I couldn't agree with you more, and, in fact, you saved me the trouble of listing them myself! All of your points are spot on and there's no doubt you'll find your training/results to be dramatically improved if you find a solid facility with good coaches.
Anyway, I hope I can answer your questions:
1. Look for Semi-Private Training. What this means is that there's a small group-to-coach ratio as opposed to 1-on-1 personal training. This way, you'll have the freedom to roam around and interact with the other people training without having a trainer breathing down your neck the entire time.
It also keeps the cost per session down, due to the fact that the facility owner doesn't need to charge as much per person for that hour of training. This is one of the reasons personal training is so expensive; since the trainer can only work with one person during that hour, it's often necessary to charge an arm and a leg to make that hour "worth it" from a business perspective.
This (semi-private training) is how SAPT sets it up, and it's fantastic because it creates more of a group environment, while at the same time keeping the prices down. And, even though one coach oversees 3-6 people, all of the programs are individualized, which brings me to my next point.
2. The Programs Should Be Individualized. If you walk in and everyone training is following a program written up on a whiteboard or chalkboard, it's probably best that you walk right back out the door.
I think it goes without saying that each person is, well, their own person. Everybody has their own unique strengths, weaknesses, goals, medical history, training history, etc. that demands a training plan fit for them specifically. As such, I highly recommend you find a facility in which the coach designs a program fit for each and every person in the room. This is the best way to ensure safe and effective training, not to mention the fact that your progress can be constantly monitored and fine-tuned throughout the process.
3. Private Facility. Chances are that you're not going to find what you're looking for in a commercial gym. A private facility will be less crowded, and you can count on the fact that each person in there is paying for that session. In general, this creates a more focused training environment. In many commercial facilities (where you pay a monthly fee to workout as many times as you want), it's not uncommon to see people walking aimlessly around, checking themselves out in the mirror multiple times, talking on their cell phone, reading a magazine as they bike, etc. because there isn't as much value placed on that time their spending in the gym.
You also won't need to pay any of the start-up fees, monthly fees, etc. that are typically associated with commercial gyms.
4. Avoid Trainers Who Swear by One Piece of Equipment. A good coach will will use a total system approach.
For example: Are kettlebells useful? Yes. However, should they be the only piece of equipment one should use? Of course not.
Sandbags, sleds, kettlebells, chains, etc. can all be useful in their appropriate context but never is one necessary to produce a solid training effect.
5. Don't Be Fooled By Appearances. Just because Mr. ScottySleevelessShirt has placed in a bodybuilding contest or two, doesn't mean he knows to train other people.Along a similar line, if you're seeking athletic performance enhancement, don't necessarily look for the ol' NFL "veteran" that opened up his own "Spike's Speed Camp."
Although you may have been given good genetics by your parents, or (to still give credit) may have done well for yourself in an athletic sport or bodybuilding, doesn't mean you know how to deliver results for others. To know what works well for you is one thing, but to have the expertise and experience to know how to coach a 10-year old girl who can hardly walk and chew gum at the same time, or to work with a 55-year old man who is twelve weeks post-rehab, is another.
6. If you walk in and see one of these, leave. Immediately.
7. Investigate the Coach/Trainer. How much experience do they actually have? Can they give you five referrals of people that they've worked for that can vouch for them?
You can also walk around and ask their clients what they think. Is the coach reliable? Genuine? Sincere? Does the coach love what he/she does? If they don't immediately know an answer to a client's question, do they do what they can to find out?
8. Cost. This is a tough one to answer. Personal training will typically cost you upwards of $80-$120 per session, so you'll obviously be paying less than this. I would I say anywhere from $35-$65/session would be a reasonable rate, depending on where you are.
If you're receiving a true quality service, then I wouldn't expect to go bargain shopping. Quality coaching, service, and support isn't going to be the cheapest price in town, but you can trust it will be more than worth it.
*9.* Do They Actually Deliver Results??? This should really be #1 on the list.
In today's technology/internet era, it's extremely easy to pass yourself off as a macho-trainer who knows everything, trained Olympians, can bench 500lbs, strips 40lbs of fat off of every overweight client, can shoot laser beams out of your eyes, etc.
However, is this really the case?
Take your time in scrutinizing whether or not the facility you're looking into produces - consistently - actual results! After all, is this not why you're going there in the first place?
For the people seeking added lean body mass, did this occur after working with said training center? Fat loss? Athletic performance enhancement? Improved movement quality? Contest prep?
A quality facility should be able to produce MULTIPLE accounts of real people, achieving real results (and allow you to speak with each person to prove it). And, not only be able to give many success stories, but also have a favorable success:failure ratio. Almost any dvd guru can give some testimonials of people who did well under their training, but what about the failure stories? I think many would be surprised if they knew the success:failure ratio of many well-known training "plans."
10. Consider Distance Coaching. Sometimes a quality training facility can be hard to come by, depending on where you're located. If there isn't one within a reasonable driving distance, then you could look into a distance coaching option.
This is why SAPT opened up distance coaching, as we quickly saw that there were people that wanted to train with us but simply couldn't due to location. With a good program, you'll receive an individualized training program, email and video support, and access to an online video database of the exercises (complete with coaching cues).
It may not be as good as training in the facility itself, but it will still be an enormous step in the direction you desire to go.
Bodypart Split Q & A
I received this question via email from a friend I had been helping out with some programming. I realized it would be best turned into a blog post, as his question can be quite a hot topic of debate. I do apologize in advance, as this blog post is a bit more geeky and *circumlocutious than other posts. So, for those of you interested in the video-based and picture-based entries, you may need to skip through a bunch of science to get to such things. My apologies.
*Yes, I used that word. It means "wordy." I learned it in a C.S. Lewis book club in college. Did I mention I'm cool? Anyway, moving on....
Question: I wanted to ask you if you could point me in the direction of any studies showing that training as you have shown [to me] is more effective in training strength, size, endurance...anything...when compared to bodypart split routines. I have some friends who insist that the only way to achieve mass/strength gains in your chest (for example) is to do 3x10 incline, 3x10 decline, 3x10 flat, 3x10 flies, etc. all one day a week (or the whole inverted pyramid with five sets where you start with 10 reps and end with 2-3).
I want to disprove them and convert them to this marvelous new system...it's like a burning fire within me, but me saying things like "it makes more sense based on how you move on a daily basis or during sports", or "if you train your whole body three days a week it's ostensibly the same as doing 3-4 exercises per muscle group per day" doesn't cut it for them.
…coming from neuroscience/psychology I have very little understanding of general terminology for pubmed searches in exercise physiology and other such related fields which could be useful in disproving my friends. Just kind of looking for some 'pointing in the right direction', is all.
Answer: First things first, I don't necessarily think that bodypart splits are good for nothing. Most training methodologies can produce results given they are within the proper context and executed appropriately. My particular training philosophy is heavily influenced by the nature of my job, on top of the consistent results I've seen in my work. I don't necessarily think there is a 100% superior way of training, but I will share what I've found to work for the majority of people, the majority of the time.
Moving on, yes, I can point you to a few studies. However, I wouldn’t allow research to solely dictate your stance on this topic (or any other, for that matter), but more on that later. Here are two studies:
1. McLester et al., “Comparison of 1 Day and 3 Days Per Week of Equal-Volume Resistance Training in Experienced Subjects” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research; 2000, 14(3), 273-281
This study compared the SAME volume of training per muscle per week (ex. 3 sets performed once per week, as you see in a typical split routine…Vs. 1 set performed three times per week.
Results: the one day per week group achieved only 62% of the strength improvements of the 3 day group and a lesser increase in muscle.
Take home point: This study showed that training a muscle three times per week resulted in significantly more lean body mass and strength gains compared to doing the same volume once per week (in other words, three sets, three times per week is a superior stimulus to nine sets performed once per week). Also, note that the subjects in this study were experienced lifters, which is an important point (with beginners, almost anything will elicit strength gains).
2. Wernbom et al., "The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans." Sports Medicine 2007; 37(3): 225-64. Review.
As you can see, this one is a review. What they did was looked at several studies on strength training and hypertrophy (increasing muscle size) across a bunch of populations.
Take home point: Their conclusion was that, for increasing muscle size, it’s better to train each muscle group three times per week, as opposed to once per week.
As for the rest of my answer, I’ll go ahead and make a list, as it will be a bit easier to follow:
A. Note that what these studies are basically saying is that FREQUENCY IS KING. When looking at a number of exercises to perform in a given week to reach your goal (mass gains, fat loss, sport performance, etc.) it is better to space out a given number of exercises throughout the week, as opposed to clumping the same number of exercises in one session.
When you look at other areas of life, the same rule usually applies. When the doctor hands you prescription medicine, is it better to take the entire bottle at once, or take a couple pills each day, spread throughout the course of the week? Clearly, you’ll reap the benefits better if you space out the doses, instead of taking them all at once.
Look at the leg development of sprinters. Most of these men/women have legs that the majority of the population would kill to have, and these sprinters train every single day.
Heck, take bodybuilders, too. Most bodybuilders that wish to “bring up” a lagging bodypart will increase the frequency they train that bodypart. So, why not increase the frequency to begin with?
B. Even though I gave you some studies that supported my particular training philosophy, I must make an important point. While studies can definitely be useful, they are far from foolproof, and are nearly always performed in a “closed-loop” setting, aka a predictable scenario in which nearly all the variables are controlled in some fashion.
So, instead of using the labs of researchers, in which nearly everything is controlled, I prefer to use the data based off the results of our own “lab,” or the results of people that have trained under our watch at SAPT. This is an “open-loop” setting, in which hundreds of real people walk through our doors on a weekly basis; all of whom have their own eating habits (good and bad), sleep habits, activities and stressors outside SAPT, all of which we have no control over. In my personal opinion, this is a much more appropriate scenario in which one can determine if a particular method “works” or not.
C. Bodypart splits are simply not a practical choice for the majority of trainees, athletes and non-athletes alike. Most bodypart split routines require four, and even up to six, days a week of training about 90-120 minutes each session. Why spend this much time training, when you can usually accomplish the same results by training just three times a week, at 75-minutes a session?
Besides, most trainees simply don't have the time to train six days per week and stay in the gym for 90 minutes. Sure, if you're in college, and/or single, this may be possible. But what about if you have a wife, kids, and a full-time job? Not to mention, many adults' jobs create a very unpredictable schedule in which it would be illogical to train with bodypart splits.
Case in point: Ron (from The Ron Reed Project) was frequently called by his work, spur-of-the-moment, to travel across the United States on a business trip. Many times, these trips would come up at barely 24-hours notice. If I was writing him a bodypart split, and trained only his chest on Monday, then what would he do when he was called out of town and had to miss his "back" day, or his "arm" day? It was obviously much more practical to work his entire body using compound lifts. Then, if he was spontaneously called away, we wouldn't have to worry as much about "missing" a particular body part.
So, yes, a bodypart split - on paper - may be a decent way of doing things for a while, but it would be foolish for me to program this type of training for people who may only have three to four total hours in a week to get in the gym.
D. Speaking of compound lifts, I really don't get why people waste valuable time on bicep curling when they can't do a single chinup. And, if you can do chinups, then I still dare you to drop bicep curling for a month and focus on a healthy dose of weighted chinups and 1-minute chinups, THEN tell me if you absolutely need to bicep curl to experience arm growth!
E. Bodypart splits often ignore the "movement" side of things. I don't know about you, but I prefer to at least have a little bit of "Go" with the "Show." I remember, after a semester of using bodypart splits in college, I returned home to play some backyard football with a group of guys. I was astounded at how clumsy I felt. It was if I could barely change directions without falling over.
I recommend the majority of people include at least some movement training in their routine, as it has benefits for athletes and non-athletes alike.
F. Remember that bodybuilding is a SPORT. Their lifting style is specific to their sport at hand. If you were a tennis player, would you utilize a lifting program written for a wrestler? Absolutely not....it would be asinine, right?
Now, I can't help but admire top bodybuilders. What they accomplish really is a phenomenon (drugs or no drugs), and you can't help but at least respect the dedication and meticulous attention to detail it requires to successfully step out on that stage. Just remember that it often makes little sense to take their program and try to make it your own. More times than not it will be like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
G. It is beyond the scope of this post to delve into, but something worth noting is that that bodypart splits became popular along with the rise in use of pharmaceutical drugs in bodybuilding. Up until the spike in drug use, the majority of bodybuilders used full-body routines. Most people wouldn't be able to actually tolerate, and experience success from, the voluminous bodypart split training days without drug assistance. The volume increases came after the drugs, not the other way around.
H. Compound lifts excite a hormonal release in the body that doesn't occur with most single-joint lifts. It's still up for debate if these hormonal changes have a lasting affect, but no one will deny that the changes happen, even if it's just a response to the exercise. For example, a military press or weighted pushup will cause a greater spike of testosterone, growth hormone, etc. in the blood stream than a tricep pressdown will.
I. Something I'd generally suggest is to avoid taking training advice from people unless they’ve had to train people for a living. With a quick glance at my “SAPT Program” folder on my computer, I tallied up over 700 programs I’ve written over the past year alone at SAPT. And this is just one year’s worth of programs. If Chris and Sarah (who founded SAPT) counted up their programs, they’d be well into the thousands. If you ask me, this is a lot of data. We have quite a few “test subjects,” and have very easily been able to see the methods that work, and the methods that fail. Not to mention, if we fail to deliver results to our clients (increased sport performance, looking and/or moving better, etc.), then we go out of business.
I would ask your friends: Where did they receive the advice to follow a “one bodypart per day” split routine? Was it from someone who trains people day in and day out, and has to deliver results in order to put food on the table? OR, was it from a random bodybuilding magazine (most of those routines are quite humorous and belong in a fairytale land, I might add), or from a random guy at their local gym who told them that in order to achieve massive pecs they’d have to blast them into oblivion one day per week?
J. I think it's a bit amusing that your friends suggest "3x10 incline, 3x10 decline, 3x10 flat, 3x10 flies, etc." as it reminds me of my gym routine in high school. I think almost every male has been there, but let me ask you something: Is doing twelve sets of a chest-dominant exercise in a single session really four times superior to doing three sets? (Hint: Start with researching the law of diminishing returns :) ).
K. Don't worry, there is no K, and I'm not going to go all the way to Z!
To conclude: I am NOT saying that a bodypart split is impractical for everyone. And I am admittedly biased because of my work and the population I work with. However, it's just a shame that most teenage guys look at successful bodybuilders and decide that the routine of a professional at a very specific stage in training must be the routine they should do, too.
Yes, the majority of successful bodybuilders use a split routine. However, the majority of unsuccessful bodybuilders also use a split routine! We must look at the entire spectrum to arrive at an objective conclusion. I personally feel that, for the majority of trainees, a movement-based (ex. upper/lower) or full-body routine is best.
Based off the data we've collected through training people, I've seen that it works time and time again. Coming from my personal experience, I think it would be tomfoolery to neglect providing a tried and true system to the people I work with.
