The human body has an amazing capacity to move. It is a great shame then, that I see so many people in gyms, train one dimensionaly, and I don’t just mean spatially, but ideologically too.
Back when I was completing my personal training certification, my lecturer said something that forever stuck with me:
When in doubt, train the planes.
So simple, yet so brilliant.
When I design a training program, I want to ensure that there is as much variety in movement as possible. One of the easiest ways to ensure this variety is to make sure I cover the main movements (squat, hinge, single leg, push, pull, core and gait) in as many planes as possible.
In case you haven’t studied anatomy, the planes I’m talking about refer to the 3 anatomical planes:
- Sagittal (divides the body into left and right halves)
- Frontal (divides the body into back and front halves)
- Transverse (divides the body into top and bottom halves)
Well designed training programs, are multi-planar, meaning that movement in all 3 planes is addressed, oftentimes in the one exercise.
Whilst the majority of traditional exercises are sagittal plane movements, their potential for loading and strength development must not be overlooked, therefore, in the context of multi-planar training the whole training program must be considered.
Benefits of Multi-Planar Training
- Injury prevention – there is less likelihood of developing pattern overload syndromes, or overuse injuries if there is more variety in exercise selection.
- Increased strength – whilst the law of specificity still rules (you get better at what you practice), based on I experience, I’d say this is less true for those who aren’t structurally suited to certain exercises. For example, I have long arms and a thin torso, making me a less than optimal bench presser. I gain more on my bench press by including a wide variety of pressing exercises.
- Brain health – this is something that not a lot of people consider when programming, but each exercise challenges your brain and nervous system differently. Complex, multi-joint exercises are much more challenging for the sensiro-motor system than seated single joint exercises. This is an important variable to consider, because decreases in sensiro-motor qualities as we age are linked to increased falls (Lord et al, 1996).
- Musculoskeletal health – Wolf’s law states that bone adapts and becomes stronger in response to stress place on it. This is directional specific, so a wide variety of movements under load is beneficial for bone health. Similarly, based on Davis’ law, which is like Wolf’s law applied to soft tissues, a wide variety of movements is more beneficial (hit the muscle from every angle, as bodybuilders say).
How To Make Your Training Multi-Planar
Use Free Weights
This is the simplest way to make your training multi-planar. If your training is primarily machine based, you are missing out on the benefits that free weights deliver due to the stabilisation demands they impose.
However, it is very easy to perform a program consisting solely of free weight exercises, and still be very uni-planar in movement, with the only multi-planar training effects coming from stabilisation demands. The following tips can help address this.
Change your grip
A chin up (palms facing you) is a sagittal plane movement, though when you change your grip width and hand position so that you are performing a wide gripped pull up (palms facing away), the movement takes place in the frontal plane. This is the case across many upper body movements.
Change your base of support
A push up requires movement in the frontal plane, with concurrent stabilisation in the sagittal plane as you are required to use your abdominal muscles to resist hyper-extending your lower back. If you lift one foot up, so you are performing one-legged push ups, you are now required to stabilise in the transverse plane, as you fight to resist the rotary force.
Use offset loading
A traditional split squat, using two dumbbells held at arm’s length involves movement in the sagittal plane, whilst stabilising in the frontal plane.
If you take the combined weight of the dumbbells and hold a single dumbbell in the hand opposite to the forward leg, you have now created a force that will cause your front leg to fall into adduction and internal rotation, thus changing stabilisation demands to now include the transverse plane.
Use unstable surfaces
Whilst unstable surfaces are not great for maximal strength development (Cressey et al, 2007), they are a great way to increase neuromuscular activation, which is a fancy way of saying they are good at “turning on” muscles.
Used as part of a warm-up, or for rehabilitative or prehabilitative purposes, they are a great way of including some multi-planar activation work.
Include Suspension Training
Suspension training is not a recent phenomenon (I’m pretty sure gymnastics rings have existed for a while), but thanks to companies like TRX, its popularity has exploded in recent years.
It is little wonder why – there is a lot to be gained from this style of training. Most exercises involve movement in at least one plane, with concurrent stabilisation demands in the other two, but many involve multi-planar movement.
How Much Is Enough?
Having given you a variety of different ways to make your training multi-planar, it might be tempting to want to include all of them, all the time.
This is not the case, often a program is good, not because of what it includes, but what it omits.
Your individual needs will always determine how much of anything you need, but a good general guide is this: the more variety you have in your everyday life and activities, the less variety you need in the gym.
Put another way, if you play mixed netball, indoor soccer and go rockclimbing on the weekends, then you would need less movement variety in the gym than someone whose sole form of exercise is working out three times a week and walking to their office job.
Wrapping Up
Training should be enjoyable, but not at the expense of results. Adding in planar variety is one way to ensure you get the best of both worlds, and as I alluded to in the opening paragraph, open your mind to different ways of training. Who knows, you might even surprise yourself and like it?
References
Cressey, E.M., West, C.A., Tiberio, D.P., Kraemer, W.J., Maresh, C.M., The Effects of 10 Weeks of Lower Body Unstable Surface Training On Markers of Athletic Performance, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2007;21(2):561-567
Lord, S.R., Lloyd, D.G., Sek Keung Li, Sensiro-motor Function, Gait Patterns and Falls in Community Dwelling Women, Age and Ageing 1996;25:292-299
In the latest issue of The Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, there was an excellent article by Dr. Craig Liebenson, a Los Angeles based chiropractor titled “Musculoskeletal Myths”.
It was an excellent article overall, dealing with 10 common myths that prevail amongst manual/physical therapists and other associated health practitioners. I admit I was guilty of perpetuating some, as I’m sure many practitioners are, but that is what made the article so good.
There was one myth, however, which really got my attention (and I’m pleased to say I was already thinking along the right lines with this one): “Myth 8: we should breathe out with exertion – right?”.
This was discussed in the context of both high and low-load training. During high load training (maximal lifting or exertion, such as a clean and jerk or a hammer throw), a person is taught to inhale before the attempt in order to increase intra-abdominal pressure via the Valsalva manouvre, which helps to stabilise the spine. Any breathing is only to take ‘sips’ of air so as to maintain the intra-abdominal pressure and the spinal stability it provides. This is the correct way to perform high-load training.
However, as Dr. Liebenson describes below, it is erroneous to apply this type of breathing to low-load training:
During low-load training should we entrain exertion with exhalation? If so how will this enhance stability when joints are fatiguing during a sport such as basketball, or an activity such as snow shoveling? When “winded” what is sacrificed – breathing or stability? McGill et al. (1995)** show that when a spinal stabilization and respiratory challenge is simultaneously encountered, the nervous system will naturally select maintenance of respiration over spinal stability. An example of this occurs when during repetitive bending or lifting activities the back becomes vulnerable due to poor aerobic fitness, even if the motor control system is well trained.
The article goes on to say that it is possible to improve co-ordination between the abdominals and the diaphragm (which would allow better spinal stabilisation whilst under respiratory challenge) with training.
Upon reading this, I immediately thought of kettlebell training.
Whilst there are some people out there that see the kettlebell as nothing more than a uniquely shaped free weight, and use it as such, they are, in my opinion, missing the point.
I’ve already discussed what happens when you treat a kettlebell like a normal weight, with a standard set/rep prescription (hint: the benefits don’t stack up when compared to “regular” weightlifting).
However, use kettlebells for what they are best designed – high rep ballistic lifts – and we start seeing some impressive benefits.
When you are lifting for minutes at a time, there is no way you can hold your breath. Even if you do so for short bursts, your heart rate sky rockets to compensate for the momentary hypoxia (which is why you gasp for air after a heavy set of squats).
Any sudden rise in heart rate will impede performance, as it means the faster onset of fatigue, and because, with kettlebells, we train for performance, measuring weight, time and repetitions, this is something we want to mitigate.
So, over the years (way before I even knew what a kettlebell was), savvy lifters realised that the best way to breathe, was to match their breathing to what the body was doing at the time.
This is called anatomical breathing.
What it does, by working with the body, is allow a much lower heart rate for a longer period of time, which facilitates a greater total workload.
In kettlebell lifting, a general rule, we breathe in as the bell is rising, and out as the bell is falling.
If we take the humble swing as an example, when the bell is coming up, we inhale and as it goes back through our legs, we exhale.
Witness the video below, in which Valery Federonko, head of the WKC and one of the greatest kettlebell lifters ever, swings a 40 kg kettlebell for one minute each hand.
Whilst 40 kg may seem heavy (especially when swinging it around), relatively speaking, it is a sub-maximal weight for someone so strong – otherwise he couldn’t manage so many reps with it.
By training hip and knee extension, against resistance, in an endurance manner, the spinal stabilisers and respiratory muscles are all being conditioned, simultaneously.
This will allow you to maintain a stable spine for longer, under increased respiratory distress – as occurs in sports and hard physical work over extended periods of time – and is why kettlebell training is such a great option for both athletes and weekend warriors alike, they truly can save your back from injury.
References
Liebenson, C., Musculoskeletal Myths, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 2012 Apr;16(2):165-182
**S.M. McGill, M.T. Sharratt, J.P. Seguin, Loads on the spinal tissues during simultaneous lifting and ventilatory challenge, Ergonomics, 38 (1995), pp. 1772–1792
In almost every fitness magazine, website, blog or book, you’ll likely find countless references to ‘the basics’. Heck, I’ve referred to these mythical basics many a time.
Usually the recommendation goes something like this:
“Stick to the basics” or “The basics have always worked and always will”.
Often, you will hear professional athletes and sporting teams talking about “going back to basics” – usually when reflecting upon a run of success or discussing how they will get out of a rut.
But in reality, are the basics really that basic?
What Are The Basics?
The basics, as I’m referring to, are a group of exercises, that are what you would call primary exercises. They aren’t gimmicky, and don’t rely on fancy equipment or being novel.
They are complete exercises, that, when performed correctly, in a sensible program, offer all the benefits of training (well almost all).
In terms of exercises, you have basic barbell exercises: the squat, deadlift, bench press, (overhead) press and power clean. You could also add barbell rows and curls to this list.
Then you have your basic bodyweight exercises: chin ups or pull ups, push ups, dips.
Then you have you basic conditioning exercises: running, jumping rope.
Of course, one’s definition of the basics will depend on their point of view, but in general, most personal trainers and strength coaches would agree with my list, whilst possibly adding a couple of other exercises.
The Basic Barbell Lifts
The basic barbell lifts are probably what most people are referring to when they say basic.
A large reason for this is (at least amongst the current generation of emerging trainers/ees) is the excellent book titled Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training by Mark Rippetoe and Lon Kilgore, which is now in its 3rd edition.
This book goes into detail (a chapter each) on the set up and execution of the primary 5 barbell lifts, as well as useful assistance exercises, and the discusses basic programming for the novice trainee.
It is an excellent reference, and for someone new to strength training, with no history of injury, no movement deficiencies and relatively good co-ordination, I would say you could do far worse than following this program.
However, I would say the pre-requisites I’ve listed above eliminate a large percentage of people, particularly those above 30 who haven’t exercised before/in years (I chose 30, not because it is old, but usually someone who has graduated from uni in their early twenties has accumulated almost a decade of repetitive work leading to imbalances – these are generally more pronounced in those that went straight from high school into work).
If we look at the demand of the deadlift and squat – we see that we need good hip flexbility (usually lacking in non-active people), good thoracic mobility (again, how many hunched young people are around these days?), stability through the trunk (not a strength for most inactive people) and good kinesthetic awareness.
The overhead press requires adequate shoulder mobility in addition to the aforementioned thoracic mobility, as does the bench press.
Regarding the power clean, many athletic individuals have a hard time learning this, let alone someone who forgets which side is left and which is right.
The Basic Bodyweight Lifts
These are great when performed correctly, but the problem here, is many (particularly beginners, but also older trainees) have low muscle mass to body weight ratios which make these prohibitively difficult.
Dips can aggravate shoulders, do to the decreased sub-acromial space the bottom position creates – leading to impingement symptoms/syndromes.
Push ups can hurt backs if someone doesn’t have adequate core strength to maintain a neutral spine.
And chin ups are just hard, not to mention problematic for some with wrist, elbow or shoulder issues.
Should You Start With The Basics?
There is a notion that you should start with the basics, but is this necessarily right?
There is no formal research (as far as I know) that describes which exercises a healthy individual should start with and progress to. This progression depends entirely on the experience of the person writing the training program.
As I alluded to earlier in the post, I have found, in my experience, is that the vast majority of people presenting to a gym today, with no recent history of exercise, aren’t ready for ‘the basics’.
So to minimise risk, maximise trainee success (both physically and psychologically) and ensure faster long term progress, I often deviate from ‘the basics’ as earlier defined.
Redefining Basic
If we take a step back, and instead of considering the basics as a group of exercises, but rather a group of movements or categories of exercise, we can make training at any stage, but particularly the beginner or novice stage, safer and more effective – which usually means it’s more enjoyable as well.
So instead of bench press and military press we have push.
Instead of barbell squat, we have general squat category (I believe everybody should be able to squat, though loading this movement is an entirely different proposition).
We replace deadlifts and power cleans with a hip hinge and pull categories (the awesomeness of these two exercies mean they work the back and the hip extensors, but the whole point of this article is that some people aren’t ready for that awesomeness straight off the bat).
So we have push, pull, squat and hip hinge. Nothing groundbreaking, but what it does do is free us from the dogmatic approach of trying to fit to a certain exercise – the exercise should fit you.
Throwing The Baby Out With The Bathwater
I’m pretty sure someone who reads this will be thinking, this guy is an idiot, these exercises should make up the basis of any sound training program.
Rest assured, for those that can do the aforementioned exercises, and if they fit in with their goals, I use them, but in reality, most of my clients don’t want to get jacked, don’t want a huge powerlifting total and have movement issues and a history of injury.
If I can get them to the point where they can perform these exercises, that’s awesome, but I still might not program them.
I love the basics as much as the next meathead, but I think they tend to get romanticised a little, which clouds rational thinking.
Writing about what someone else has said is quite easy, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing. I mean, that’s how critics make a living isn’t it?
I’m not critic, in fact I generally post quotes from fitness professionals that I agree with, not disagree (not to say critics only disagree/criticise, but they do a fair bit of it). In this game, there really isn’t much new, so people constantly have to find a way to put a spin on things.
I have chosen a different, some may say lazier, I say, well I can’t think of a good term to describe what I want to say, but it’s not lazy.
This time around, I’m quoting Steve Cotter. Steve is known as a kettlebell and martial arts guy. You can read his bio here.
Steve Cotter demonstrates the rack position with two kettlebells.
Thiswas a quote from an interview with Steve that was on Marianne Kane’s website (which is a pretty cool site, particularly for those of you that are interested in working out from home).
What grabbed me, was this quote:
A little every day will pay more dividends than going gong ho once or twice a week over the long term.
Now I’ve actually heard/read many variations of this quote over the years. The one that most notable resonated with me was from Dan John, who is fond of saying “little and often in the long run”.
However, Dan could sustain the whole That’s What They Said series on his own, he has that many gems in his writing, so I thought I’d use someone else who isn’t as widely published, and save a different Dan John quote for another post.
When you look at this quote initially, it seems so simple it’s obvious. But that is common with almost all great insight.
Steve is known for his holistic approach to exercise, and is very big on happiness and positivity. With that in mind, you can see why he would say something like this: he wants to encourage as many people as possible to experience the joys that physical activity can bring.
Many of you may be turned off from going to the gym, because you visualise Rocky Balbo-esque sessions, which feel like war, going to the brink of exhaustion and then digging deep for even more.
These sessions are not only physically draining, but really hard psychologically.
For example, I’ve found, although the WKC methods for kettlebell sport are highly effective, they are also highly taxing, especially from a psychological point of view.
Knowing I have to do a 7 minute set of jerks and a 6-8 minute set of snatches is not something to look forward to doing at the end of 12 hour day in clinic, as I anticipate the discomfort as much as the satisfaction of completing it.
Instead of not doing something, and then trying to make up for it with an even bigger session another time, I intuitively followed Steve’s advice.
So what I have done, is on the days I’m in clinic, I do a light(er) single ‘bell session and follow it up with some rowing on the Concept 2, just going by feel.
The days when I’m not in clinic, I do traditional kettlebell sport training, which is much harder, both physically and mentally.
This approach is much easier psychologically, and I’m still making progress. Although it is slower than going all out 5 days a week (or maybe it isn’t, the easy days theoretically allow more recovery), it is still progress, and that is what counts in the long term.
I’m not on a particular time frame. I have a lot of things going on in my life besides training, so aside from doing what has to be done, I can’t force the results.
This is what I think Steve is getting at.
Do a little bit every day.
Before long, that little bit will have become easy. Then you can make it harder. Do a little bit more. Go heavier, longer or faster. But only by a little bit.
Again, that little bit more will become easier.
Before you know it, you’ll look back and be amazed at what you are capable of compared to when you started.
And you know what? It will have seemed easy. Not easy whilst you are doing it. But easy overall.
Get better slowly, don’t push it, let the gains come.
A little every day will pay more dividends than going gong ho once or twice a week over the long term.
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
I first came across the concept of flow in Daniel Pink’s book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, which touches on some concepts that you may intuitively know, as I did, but couldn’t quite articulate.
You can get a good summary of the book by watching the video below:
Pink talks about autonomy (self-directed work), mastery (getting better at stuff), and purpose (serving a greater vision) being the primary components of what motivates us. This applies when there is some creative element to our work.
Harnessing this intrinsic motivation is crucial for managers seeking the best of their staff, and, more pertinently to you, for those seeking results from training.
One concept that really struck a chord with me, was, as you can probably guess by now, that of flow.
Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity. – Wikipedia
I was reminded of flow last weekend, when, whilst at a nightclub, a friend asked me how I could maintain interest for so long. I thought about it, and the answer was, I didn’t actually realise the timespan.
I was so immersed in what was going on musically, that time became irrelevant.
That is flow.
One thing that I now aim for, is complete focus on whatever I’m doing. In the past, when discussing why I liked kettlebells so much, part of my explanation was that they were like “weighted meditation”.
I know now that what I was experiencing, was flow. My thoughts turn inward, focusing on my breathing, by movement and staying relaxed. So much so, that I have no concept of what is happening around me. Time feels slower in this case, but that is just because of the extreme discomfort that accumulates after minutes of continuous lifting.
You can’t actively seek out flow. You just find it.
What you can do, is focus solely and completely on what you are doing. Be present and mindful.
Feel your breath. Feel the tension in your body. Remove it or redistribute it as appropriate. Focus on what you are going to do now.
You can’t not think about something. If I tell you “Don’t think of sex.” I can guarrantee you that right now sex is on your mind.
With that in mind, finding flow isn’t as hard as you think; we’ll try right now.
Think about an activity that you really like doing.
Now you have that in mind, create a vivid image in your head of exactly what it is like to be doing it.
Describe the smallest details.
I’m thinking of lifting.
I’m imagining what I’m wearing – my Rogue weightlifting shoes, worn adidas socks, 2XU tights and an old bodybuilding.com t-shirt that is a little too big.
The room is overly chilled thanks to the aircon and the hum of a treadmill is competing with the sounds of house music over the PA system.
It’s light, but not bright. I can feel the anticipation spreading down my limbs as I shake them, trying to relax.
The handles of the weights are chalked, the stark white a contrast to the bright green of the ‘bell.
They are angled diagonally towards me and I grip them, overhand.
Now I can feel my heart rate rising slightly, knowing what is about to come. The clock ticks past 12, and with a big breath I clean the ‘bells to the rack position.
There is some adjustment as I get the handles comfortable.
I could go on, but instead, I want you to. Describe the whole process, as vividly as possible, as though you were painting a picture someone. Don’t neglect the other senses.
If you can attain flow whilst sitting at your desk, imagine how powerful it can be when you are actually performing the task.
Now you know flow. Go and find it.
I haven’t mentioned it much in the past, but I’m a huge fan of dance music. I have been since my early years at high school, when compilations usually came as double CDs and cost $40+ (a huge amount to a school kid with no real income) and raves were the norm (though I was too young to go).
Now, dance music has matured, but it has also become very commercial. You download mixes hours after they have been recorded, snippets of sets are all over YouTube the day after and commercial radio stations sponsor ‘festivals’.
It’s not all bad, as there is increased exposure for artists, however, as is usually the case when money gets involved, a few big players threaten to squeeze the smaller ones out, leaving fans with the option of intimate niche nights (my pick) or large scale events without much middle ground.
This coming weekend sees one of those big players roll out their flagship event, Future Music Festival, into Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (on the Monday) after already visiting Perth and Brisbane.
It seems a fitting time to write about something I’ve been pondering for a while; two of my biggest passions (strength training and dance music) share a lot of parallels.
The Beginning
Both dance music and strength training had similar roots – a dedicated few discovering new things, pushing the envelope and finding what worked well and what didn’t.
This was trial and error at work, and the results still stand the test of time in both fields.
Whilst some things change, the basic principles of both stay the same : old school strength trainers focused on whole body lifting, progresive overload and adequate recovery whilst dance music, has, and always will be about entertaining the crowd.
Equipment
They say necessity is the mother of all invention.
I don’t know how necessary it is to have more than a couple of decks and a mixer to play a good set, but you can’t argue that improvements in technology have resulted in DJs and producers being able to extend the boundaries of what was thought possible.
This has resulted in new sounds and paradigms, whilst the emergence of the live dance act has forged new frontiers.
However, what hasn’t changed, is the importance of the DJ’s ability to read and react to the crowd. I recall reading a quote from the legendary English DJ Sasha that went along the lines of “If you gave two DJs an identical record box, they would play completely different sets.”
Equipment changes, but artistry is timeless.
In the strength training world, there has been an equipment revolution over the years: pin-loaded machines, cables, pulleys, bands, wheels, sticks, balls, ‘bells, clubs, straps, rings and God knwos what else. You name it, it has been sold in the name of fitness.
However, the basic principles of progressive overload and adaptation have not changed, and as long as the programming is sound and doesn’t increase the risk of injruy beyond normal realms, then it can work.
I have my preferences (the barbell will always be king), yet two strength coaches can use very different methods and equipment, and both get equally amazing results.
Warm Ups
A club night will start with one or two warm up DJs, that set the tone for the evening. They start slowly and build up to a point that the main act(s) can then take even higher.
If they go too slow, they risk not building enough momentum leading the main act a little disappointed. Too fast and the crowd is spent before the night has started.
In the gym, the warm up is of paramount importance. The same principles apply: not enough. the rest of the session falls short, too much, and you have nothing left for the workout.
Main Acts
This is what you pay big money to see. Promoters sell tickets off the back of these acts, which are more like brands once they reach this stage. Think Carl Cox, Tiesto, and Armin van Buuren.
These have to be good as people won’t pay to see something that is subpar – now because in music, good is a subjective term, I’ll say that whilst most of the time my tastes don’t extend your typical headline act, there is a reason they got where they are: usually a combination of timing, genre and quality.
The big acts don’t play early in the piece when nobody is there, they get the prime slots, when everybody is pumped, but not too tired.
The big acts don't play to no one.
Many people leave straight after the main act, and they still experience a pretty good night (usually).
There isn’t much difference between the main act, and the main lift(s) of a training program:
- They are placed at the start of the workout, when you are fresh, but warmed up.
- They deliver the most (you hope the main act delivers the most) benefit.
- You could just do them, and you’d still make progress, although the session is better with other exercises.
I’ve talked before making sure your priorities are in order.
The main lift is where most of your effort goes, the rest of the training is complementary. Just like the warm up and closing DJs.
Sometimes though, you get a surprise – a side room that takes off, or a closing set that just won’t end because everyone is having such a good time.
In the gym, this is what happens when after your squats, you really nail the lunges and other accessory movements and feel great afterwards.
Those are the kind of sessions where you feel invincible, and like those really good nights out, they don’t come around often. That’s what makes them special.
Winding Down
The closing DJ has a fun but tough job. He has to keep the party going after the main act, but gradually wind things down.
Finishing up a training program is a bit easier. After the last exercise, you simply do something that will help calm you down and stimulate your parasympathetic nervous system, so you can start recovering. I like static stretching, which can be done at the end of the session, or a few hours later.
Whilst I might have been drawing some long bows in this post, I thought it would be nice to have a bit of fun, instead of getting into the research, which can be quite tedious at times.
Dance music, and strength training have both evolved, you might have to wade through a little more crap to get to the good stuff but the underlying spirit of both is still the same.
This installment of That’s What They Said draws inspiration from a trainer that has really influenced the way I think about designing training programs.
Chad Waterbury is a hugely popular trainer, who got his break on t-nation over a decade ago. He has a MSc in neuroscience from Arizona University, and much of his writings centre on getting the most out of training by using techniques to maximise motor unit recruitment and minimise Central Nervous System (CNS) fatigue to allow for more frequent training.
Chad rose to prominence in the early to mid 2000s, a period when there was a mini-backlash against traditional bodybuilding in fitness writings. Chad championed full body workouts, minimal to no isolation work and multiple sets of few reps, all which flew in the face of traditional training lore.
However, the results where there, and Chad now trains a large number of professional mixed martial artists. He has continually been refining his methods in order to produce stronger, more powerful athletes whilst minimally impacting their actual sport training.
Waterbury has also published 2 books, Muscle Revolution and Men’s Health Huge In a Hurry. The latter is the culmination of years of Chad writing about the importance of lifting speed as it pertains to strength, power and size developments, based on the size principle (a physiological theory about the order of motor unit recruitment).
Chad Waterbury
Whilst I could probably find dozens of gems in the articles he has written over the years, I think the following, from his 2004 article Lift Fast, Get Big published over at t-nation, sums up his philosophy best:
If you want strength and size, you better learn to start lifting fast. How fast? As fast as humanly possible without compromising form!
It’s so simple, yet I see so few people doing it.
Why? For years, popular media has presented the notion that lifting weights ‘slow and under control gives you more benefits.
Well if your goal is to not get bigger or stronger or faster or leaner then sure, you get more benefit.
Notice the leaner part. That is not a typo. Fast lifting is more metabolically demanding than slow lifting, and considering resting metabolic rate is the biggest determinent of how many calories you burn each day, I’d say that lifting fast has just got a whole lot more attractive.
In sports, speed is king. How often do you see a young player burst onto the scene and make a huge impact because he has a great burst of speed? Speed allows players to get away with more, which is invaluable, particularly as the game wears on a fatigue sets in, leading to more mistakes.
Getting strong is important for getting fast, but if you lift fast, you are training your nervous system to produce high levels of force quickly,which is paramount for athletic performance.
Lifting as fast as possible also creates more muscular tension, which, when combined with enough volume, leads to a powerful growth stimulus. So for hypertrophy, fast lifting is also beneficial.
Remember, the muscles do what the nervous system tells them to do, so if you concentrate on lifting fast, the nervous system will be forced to activate the high threshold motor units – those which are the biggest and most powerful. These have the biggest growth potential, and demand a lot of energy.
This seemingly golden combination is what makes fast lifting such a powerful body transformation tool.
How do you put this into practice?
Chad has a novel approach: instead of designing workouts by sets and reps, he will designate a total number of repetitions to be performed for a certain exercise, for example, 25.
He will then say pick a weight that you can lift 4-6 times and perform as many sets as possible to get to 25 total reps. The sets are terminated when lifting speed slows down.
Whilst Chad’s approach definitely has merit, in my experience, lifting fast works better with certain exercises, namely pushing exercises: squats, deadlifts (you push the floor away) and presses work really well in this regard.
Perhaps it is because they are compressive in nature – that is, the joints are being approximated by the load, which makes them more stable?
Whatever it is, I’m not sure, but compared with rows, chins and posterior chain work like RDLs and hamstring curls, pushing movements respond well to fast lifting. With the aforementioned ‘pulling’ exercises, a more constant tension approach seems to work better.
Again, perhaps this is by design, we are used to carrying things in front of us, so the back muscles are doing a lot of supporting and isometric, constant tension work? This is just my personal anecdote, Chad demonstrates fast lifting with pulling exercises as well, so like always, you have to find the approach which works best for you.
Of course, every rule needs an exception, and the spanner in the works here are the Olympic lifts (and their variations), which are classified as pulling. These have to be done fast to be done at all.
Regardless of whether you utilise Chad’s approach, elastic resistance, or a more traditional set and rep scheme, the message is clear: lift fast for better results.
Effects of Weightlifting vs. Kettlebell Training on Vertical Jump, Strength, and Body Composition
A review of:
Otto WH, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA, Effects of Weightlifting vs. Kettlebell Training on Vertical Jump, Strength, and Body Composition, J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Feb 15. [Epub ahead of print] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22344061]
This is a study that has been reviewed extensively across the fitness blogosphere already. Industry heavyweights Charles Poliquin and Bret Contreras have both had their say.
Not surprisngly, each reached similar conclusions, but with emphasis on slightly different things based on their own experiences and biases.
I was quite interested to post about this because I feel I can approach this from a slightly different angle: that of a (low level it must be said) kettlebell sport athlete as well as a trainer versed in the World Kettlebell Club (WKC) methods.
What The Study Is About
The title pretty much says it all for this one.
The researchers observed (rightly so) that there is scant evidence (at least on this side of the Iron Curtain) on the effects of kettlebell training.
So they set out to quantify the effects of kettlebell training in comparison to that of traditional weightlifting methodology.
What Was Tested
The following were tested both pre-intervention and after 6 weeks of twice weekly training sessions using either kettlebells or barbells:
- Body mass
- Vertical jump
- Back Squat
- Power clean
- % Body fat
There is potentially a problem here, which the authors inadvertently noted. Weightlifting has been shown to have a positive effect on vertical jump, which makes sense when you look at the direction force is being applied – vertically.
One of the purported benefits of kettlebell training, is the fact that you can swing it between your legs. This means the forces are primarily horizontal. There wasn’t really any testing of horizontally applied strength and power – important because it is becoming increasingly recognised that power productin is vector (or directionally) specific.
A good (and simple to administer) test to include would have been the broad jump, this would have at least given a little more balance to the testing procedure.
What Was Done
A group of young men (19-26 years old), with at least a year of resistance training experience were randomised into two groups: kettlebell and weightlifting (it was noted that none had any extensive experience with kettlebell training or weightlifting).
The weightlifting group performed 3 exercises, using 80% of a pre-determined 1RM:
- High pull
- Power clean
- Back squat
Whilst the kettlebell group also performed 3 exercises, using a 16 kg kettlebell:
- Swing
- Accelerated swing
- Goblet squat
Each group went through the testing procedure before undergoing 2 training sessions per week for 6 weeks, with at least 72 hours between sessions.
The first 3 weeks subjects performed 3×6 (swings/high pulls), 4×4 (accelerated swings/power cleans) and 4×6 (goblet squat/back squat). The next 3 weeks the sets/reps changed to 4×6, 6×4 and 4×6 respectively.
Subjects were told to eat their normal diet throughout.
It’s really interesting that the authors selected the exercises they did. I would have liked to see them include a kettlebell snatch there as a comparison to a power clean, rather than an accelerated swing. I feel this would give a few more benefits, as there is a catch phase, just as there is with the power clean (although the eccentric component is much less).
I would have liked to see the kettlebell snatched included.
The BIG issue, which is pretty obvious, is the loading used. When you are testing strength, and you only allow one group to use a 16 kg kettlebell, whilst the other is using 80% of their 1RM, there is a bit of a problem.
Without having a degree in exercise science, you could probably work out that lifting something heavier will make you stronger.
The other issue, which is where I feel having experience with the WKC will help is in the programming.
Kettlebells aren’t really designed for low rep training. Sure, you can do it, just as you can swing a dumbbell and do high rep Olympic lifts, but you will be short changing yourself by using the tool inappropriately.
There is a reason powerlifting uses the barbell bench, and not the dumbbell bench. It isn’t practical to keep using bigger and bigger dumbbells.
The same applies with kettlebells. The Russians worked this out long ago, and realised that for sport, doing as many repetitions as possible was the most appropriate goal.
Now sport training is not necessarily athletic preparation, or general fitness training, but the lessons should filter down.
The power of kettlebells is in their use in high repetition ballistic lifts (swings, cleans, snatches, jerks). Sure they can be used for other applications, but outside their primary purpose, their is always compromise.
It would have been nice if the study had tested something like high repetition swings, snatches and heavier goblet squats, and then seen if there is any maximal power and strength carryover from that.
It could have also tested the effect of low rep weightlifting (as it did) on power and strength endurance carryover.
I feel that it would have given us some more useful information – is one methodology more of an ‘all rounder’ than the other?
What Was Found (Results)
Both the kettlebell and weightlifting groups significantly (P<0.05) improved their vertical jump, power clean and back squat. The weightlifting group improved their back squat significantly more than the kettlebell group. Body mass and body fat did not change.
As it is, it basically told us what we already knew: you need to lift heavy to build strength and power, power is vector specific, using light weights doesn’t build strength as effectively as heavy weights and that without change to diet, exercise alone has minimal impact on body composition.
What This Means To You
As I have talked about in the past, I feel a blend of weightlifting and kettlebell training offers superior all round benefits, and unless you are training for a very specific sport, you would be wise to include them both in your training.
I have talked extensively about how to incorporate kettlebells into your training and the benefits kettlebells can offer athletes, particularly of team sports.
It is good to see a growing body of research on kettlebell training, but until the body of research is more complete, I advise deferring to experienced coaches, after all, empirical evidence should never be completely discounted.
Today I’m channeling a guy who is known largely for his popularisation of EDT, the sayings “seek performance, not pain” and “do more work in less time”, Charles Staley.
Previously I’ve channeled Ryan Zielonka (who has long since gone into internet silence), and Jim Wendler, who has continued to push his method of simple but effective training – he now has 5/3/1 for powerlifting, football and a second edition of the regular version.
Charles Staley
Charles doesn’t seem to write as much outside his own website these days, but he has an impressive archive of articles over at t-nation.
What struck me with Charles, were his insights, which seem to come from a different place to most strength coaches. He used (and I imagine he still does) a very logical approach, and rarely let emotion get in the way of seeking out the best methods.
My absolute favourite article by him is “Why I don’t want to clean 315 lbs“. It is a great insight into goal setting and being honest with yourself about what you want out of training (and by extension, life).
As good as the above quotes are, and as great as the article is, the quote I’ve chosen is another gem altogether. It is typical Charles:
The majority is ALWAYS wrong, therefore do the opposite.
There is nothing like an absolute to get people polarised, but when Charles goes on to explain this further, you can see he is on to something.
He discuses how this applies to goal setting (most people don’t, therefore you should), TV watching (most people do, excessively, therefore you shouldn’t), exercising (most people seek pain from workouts, seek performance; most people do what’s fun, do what’s neeeded), reading (most people don’t, you are, keep it up).
As you can see, it actually makes a lot of sense. Now you don’t have to take everything completely literally, but you should be able to grasp the underlying message:
Think for yourself, logically and critically, instead of following along with general consensus.
A good place to start is to look at what the majority are doing and head in the opposite direction.
That’s not to say that everyone is an idiot, but for whatever reason, when put in groups, people tend to act differently (read: stupidly).
A few more examples that come to mind:
- The majority of people who are unhappy with something don’t accept responsibility, you should.
- The majority of people train with little to no intensity, don’t be that guy.
- The majority of people don’t eat rubbish food, you should plan and prepare your meals in advance.
- The majority of people don’t use manners.
- The majority of people are reactive about their health, be proactive.
Seriously, the list could go on and on, but I’ll leave it there.
One caveat to this quote, is that it applies only when applied across the population. If you took a group of highly successful people from different fields, you would likely find they all have similar habits, and that doing the opposite would lead you in the wrong direction.
However, with a bigger sample size, the mean rate of success drops to pitiful levels, and this is where Charles’ gem comes into play.
As a little experiment, next time you are amongst a large group of people, have a look and see what they are doing.
Commerical gyms are a great example of this, as are shopping centres and sporting events. The trick is, it has to be a mainstream/commercial event. If it takes a bit of seeking out or special interest, your sample size is going to be skewed towards those that actually use their brains.
Let me know what you notice.
Insulin Sensitivity After Maximal And Endurance Resistance Training
A review of:
Hansen E, Landstad BJ, Gundersen KT, Torjesen PA, Svebak S., Insulin Sensitivity After Maximal And Endurance Resistance Training, J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Feb;26(2):327-34. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22240549]
As much as I like to lift weights, watch sport and chase girls, I’m truly a nerd at heart, and for a nerd (at heart), the pinnacle of nerdiness is research.
Actually, wait a minute, the pinnacle of nerdiness is role playing games. Research is the the pinnacle of scientific information. Phew! I’m not a nerd after all – not that there’s anything wrong with that [this is actually the second time I've used that Seinfeld reference in a post, props to anyone who can remember the first].
Whether it’s for nerds or scientists (the two are mutually exclusive), research, for all it’s flaws, is the best tool we have for gaining knowledge, and good trainers (like me), try as much as they can, to read research that both supports and refutes what they are doing.
My masters supervisor sent me this study a few weeks back, but it wasn’t until now that I actually got a chance to look at it. read more…
