Three “Tweaks” That Will Maximize Your Workout

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

Here I present three methods which, when used consistently, will help you spend less time in the gym while getting better results at the same time.

Only applied knowledge is power, so don’t just read, but apply!

Front Loading
Efficient people instinctively try to get the majority of their work done early in the day (this also applies to week or month). The rationale is simple: you have more energy early in the day than you do later on.

Therefore, when I create training programs for my clients, I rarely indicate a standard amount of rest between each set. Instead, I’ll indicate a time-frame for all sets to be completed in (for example, 8 sets of 3 repetitions to be performed in 15 minutes - you might recognize Escalating Density Training parameters in this example!).

In this way, my client will instinctively attempt to get a “head start” by taking shorter rests between the initial sets, which will permit longer rest intervals for later sets.

Since fatigue accumulates over the duration of a workout, front loading is far more efficient than using standard rest intervals between sets, which is how 99% of all people organize their workouts. Interested in joining the one-percent club? Apply this concept to your workouts starting today— the rewards will be significant and immediate.

Use Antagonistic Pairings
Every muscle in your body has a “partner” (called the antagonist) which is capable of opposing it’s contractile forces. For example, when you perform a biceps curl, the biceps muscle would be termed the “agonist” and the tricep would be the “antagonist.” (the easy way to remember these terms is to think that the agonist is the one that is in agony because it’s performing the work).

As you curl the weight, the motor cortex of your brain signals the triceps to relax in order to allow the biceps to contract. This phenomenon is called Sherrington’s Law of Reciprocal Inhibition. Here’s how we can take advantage of this phenomenon in a very practical way:

You first perform a set of barbell curls, and then rest perhaps 1-2 minutes. For set two, you perform a set of lying dumbbell triceps extensions. As you do so, the biceps muscles are “inhibited.”

The triceps contraction actually forces the biceps to de-activate, which simply means they will recover faster as a result of having performed the set of triceps extensions. You then rest, go back to the curls, and back and forth until all sets for both exercises are completed.

There are three additional benefits to the use of antagonistic pairings:

If you perform (for example) 5 sets of biceps curls one after the other using two minutes of rest between each set, you obviously get two minutes of rest between each set. However, if you perform a set of curls, then rest two minutes, then perform a set of triceps extensions, rest two minutes, etc., you now achieve more than four minutes of rest between two sets of the same exercise, even though the total workout duration remains the same.

Training muscles in antagonistic pairs ensures equal (or at least similar) strength development around both sides of the joint. This is very important for overall size and strength gains, because if the strength ratio between agonist and antagonist is significantly disparate, the brain will reduce your strength levels in an effort to protect your joints.

In the preceding example, as you perform your biceps curls, you are keeping the involved joint warm for your next set of triceps extensions. Over time, this can be very meaningful in terms of joint integrity and health.
Here are a few examples of muscle pairings which correspond to the principles
I’ve just discussed:

Lats & Pecs

Biceps & Triceps

Quads & Hamstrings

Abdominals and Low Back Musculature

Lats & Triceps (biceps are usually heavily involved during most lat exercises)

Pecs & Biceps (triceps are usually heavily involved during most pec exercises)

Use Submaximal Accelerative Efforts
If your best bench press for one rep is 300 pounds, then obviously the most amount of tension you can place on the targeted muscles will be just slightly more than 300 pounds.

However, Soviet force-plate research has shown that a load corresponding to 65% of your maximum capability (195 pounds in this example) can also result in 300 pounds worth of tension, provided that the weight is maximally accelerated. You might argue that there is no advantage either way, since both methods produce approximately the same amount of force.

However, there are distinct advantages to using “submaximal accelerative efforts” as opposed to the maximal weights method:

Using the above example, if you use 300 pounds, you can only perform one rep, and then you’re done. If you use 195 pounds for sets of three using maximum acceleration, you can perform multiple sets— usually between 8 and 12 sets can be performed before there is a significant decline in lifting speed. This allows far more total volume within a session.

When using submaximal accelerative efforts as described above, you’ll always have several reps in reserve on any given set, which means you can dramatically reduce the need for a spotter (although using a competent spotter is still a good idea when using unfamiliar exercises).

Our bodies are essentially hard-wired to accelerate whenever performing difficult motor tasks such as running, lifting, or jumping. In fact, people have to be taught to move slowly, since it is far more efficient (and instinctive) to take advantage of momentum when performing motor tasks such as lifting heavy weights.
If these ideas seem unusual to you, let me stress that the most successful people in life are open-minded.

Have you ever adopted a new habit that ended up having a significant positive impact on your life? The three concepts I’ve presented here have had that effect on my own training, and on the results I’ve achieved for my clients. I’m confident they’ll produce similar results for you as well.

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

Truth or Fiction? Bodybuilding Maxims

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

Like all fields of human endeavor, bodybuilding has accumulated a vast collection of maxims— brief encapsulations of truth which are intended to serve as memorable (and often humorous) reminders of the proper way of doing things.

So, I thought I’d take a look at some of these time-worn exonerations and see if these “kernels of truth” are worth their weight, or better left unsaid.

One short disclaimer: I was not able to identify the authors of these statements, in every case, but wanted to give credit whenever possible. In some cases, I have identified the person thought to be author of a given statement. Any oversights and/or inaccuracies are not intentional.

“No pain, no gain”
This is perhaps the most classic, most oft-quoted maxim from the world of bodybuilding. It refers to the fact that you have to venture beyond your comfort level while exercising in order to gain beneficial results.

Unfortunately, taken literally, this maxim could be more harmful than helpful. It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to hurt yourself during a workout. It does, however, take a reasonable measure of smarts plus common sense to get results from your training. I also happen to think that most weight trainingrelated injuries are not acute, but long-term damage that you aren’t aware of until it’s too late. I recently saw a photo of extreme fighter Frank Shamrock performing what he called a “power clean” with a grip that was at least 12 inches too wide. In 10 or 15 years I’m sure he’ll wonder why he’s in too much pain to lift anymore.

“No brain, no gain”
An intelligent counter-point to the above, and I agree: hard training is all but worthless if not conducted intelligently.

“They’ll bury me big”
Translation: “I don’t care if I die in the process, I will do anything to get freaky huge!” It’s unfortunate how so many people will risk their health, career potential, relationships, and pretty much everything else for the one in a bizillian chance that they will ultimately win the Mr/Ms Whatever contest. Self-actualized people, on the other hand, train because of the rewards inherent in the process, not for a result which will probably never come.

“Go heavy or go home”
The idea that heavy weights must always be used irrespective of everything else is a mistaken idea, even for competitive lifters. Few athletes have the discipline to maintain correct technique with truly heavy weights. This may explain why Jimmy “the Iron Bull” Pallechia is so popular.

A much more refined approach, especially for bodybuilders, is to find how to get the most results with the lightest weights. Case in point: when Olympic weightlifter Joel Senate came to me early this year, I increased his front squat by 26 pounds in 4 weeks by using only lunges— and the most additional weight we used was 20 pound dumbbells!

“If the bar ain’t bendin’ you’re just pretendin’”
More of the same. I actually think it takes a lot more discipline and fortitude to lift a moderate weight to exhaustion with optimal technique than it does to lift big weights with sloppy form.

“Refuse to Lose”
Sounds nice as long as you’re winning.

“Tough times don’t last— tough people do”
Ditto.

“Difficulty is relative to your preparation”
I believe the author of this is Dan Millman. I find this to be profound, and illustrative of a methodological approach to training. It isn’t true in the literal sense— some people can never be successful competitive bodybuilders, for instance. But if you’ve identified challenging and realistic goals for yourself, this maxim can serve as inspiration when you have a hard time getting geared up for your next workout.

“Train, don’t strain”
This seems to suggest that you needn’t work hard during exercise. The very definition of training is the regular, planned application of stress for the purpose of causing a desired adaptation. Of course, beginners or de-conditioned people don’t need to push particularly hard at the beginning, so at the most I’ll say that this is wise advice for beginners.

“Stimulate, don’t annihilate”
This one was often used by Lee Haney on his television show. In order to make progress, you must expose the body to slightly higher levels of stress that it is used to experiencing. I think Haney has captured the essence of this truth quite nicely.

“Train for shape, and size will follow” (Sigmund Klein?)
The reverse makes more sense. Nevertheless, your muscle shape is genetically pre-determined. You can’t train for shape, no matter what anyone tells you. However, as a muscle becomes larger, it’s shape does change (because now the girth of the muscle is a greater percentage of its length), but that change is pre-determined. Nevertheless, literally every month, you’ll find an article about “peaking” your biceps in some muscle mag.

“It’s all you!”
Whenever I hear someone yelling this in the gym, I always look over to see someone struggling to pull a bar off of his partner. As my colleague Dr. Sal Arria likes to point out, most people can easily lift a 45 pound bar with two pinkies. So the next time you tell your partner that you hardly helped him at all, think again.

“I don’t want to get too big” (In my best Jerry Sienfeld)
Is this really a problem for people? This statement comes predominately from females who put shoulder pads in their blouses. Go figure. Could you imagine enrolling in a course or beginning some new endeavor saying “I’ll do this as long as I don’t become too successful.”? Don’t use fear of success as an excuse for not training.

“Strength built quickly is lost quickly”
In the strength training community, it is generally accepted that high intensity strength training will increase strength quickly, but this strength tends to be “unstable,” or quickly eroding. High volume strength training increases strength slowly, but strength gained in this manner tends to be more “permanent.”

These two observations support the concept of periodization, where a high intensity “peaking” cycle follows a high volume “foundational” cycle of training in order to exploit both types of adaptations. Incidentally, if you have strength trained for many years, you’ll be able to take a few months off, and be able to maintain your strength and body composition quite well. Beginners can’t afford to do this however.

“Quality before quantity”
This is a beaut of a universal truth. It applies to a workout just as much as it applies to a year or an entire athletic career. Let’s say that you can perform about 6-7 pull-ups, but would love to be able to do 3 sets of 10 someday. Most people simply try to add reps (quantity) every workout, which usually leads nowhere because it doesn’t make you any stronger.

A better approach would be to use lower reps (i.e., higher quality)— say down to 2-3 reps per set (which may require that you use additional weight hooked to a belt), and then gradually, add sets. After 3-4 weeks when you can do in the neighborhood of 10-12 sets of 2-3 reps, try one all-out set for reps and see what happens. I know you’ll be happy with the result!

“First isolate, then integrate” (Paul Chek)
This is an eloquent statement which applies to the periodization of training. First make the individual muscles strong (concentrating on the weakest ones), then use exercises and patterns which require these muscles to work together in primal movement patterns. As a twist on this, it may not be lack of strength which limits your performance, but inadequate flexibility, endurance, or proprioception. The basic idea is that each muscle must have optimal performance parameters before it can bear its share of the load in complex exercise patterns or sport skills.

“There is no joy in victory, no sorrow in defeat”
This simply means that you shouldn’t get too caught up in your successes or your failures. If you win, it’s time to step up to the next level. If you lose, you need to re-group, learn from your mistakes, and make a new plan of action. Most people do just the opposite— when they win (or make progress), they shrine off the training program that got them there, and vow to do nothing else for the rest of their lives. When they lose (or fail to make progress), they just shrug it off, and continue to do the same thing that led to failure, but expecting a different result.

“Train slow, be slow”
I disagree— slow movements will not hurt your speed any more than fast training will hurt your slowness. If anything, movements performed at a slightly lower speed may have an adverse effect on speed. Since no barbell movement can come anywhere near the speed commonly used in most sports, why take the risk? I always smile when I see martial artists and boxers performing fast punches with dumbbells— these “punches” are much slower than unweighted ones, so they don’t make you any faster. And since the weights are so light, they also don’t make you any stronger!

“If it doesn’t kill you, it will make you strong”
Or, it might injure you. This is a totally inappropriate statement when applied to training.

“Pain is weakness leaving the body”
I don’t know where this originated from, but I like it, and it really has a degree of truth, doesn’t it?

“Train big, eat big, sleep big”
A good philosophy for people wishing to gain weight and who aren’t too wrapped up in their current job.

“There’s no such thing as overtraining, only undereating and undersleeping”
Another way to state the previous maxim. However, it is possible to have a training schedule which cannot be recovered from, particularly if there is insufficient variation for long periods of time.

“God made Nautilus machines to keep geeks off barbells” (Mike Burgener).
I’m sorry, but I always slip into a grin whenever I hear this one— a guilty pleasure. However, if we’re willing to be honest, machines can have a place in everyone’s training. The problem is when people use machines as “the path of least resistance,” because that’s what they are when overused or used for the wrong reasons. Many fitness enterpeneurs have taken the machine psychology a few steps further and have made a lot of money doing so— for example, remember “toning tables”?

“Real athletes sit down between their sets; everyone else sits down during their sets”
A slam against bodybuilders from the weightlifting community. Weightlifters, bodybuilders, and powerlifters have more in common than they usually realize, however.

“Real athletes lift standing up”
Another tear-jerker from the weightlifting community. It refers to the fact that the Olympic lifts (snatch and clean & jerk) are performed in a standing position. It’s also a subtle dig against bench pressing, which admittedly has questionable transfer to most athletic and everyday activities.

“Bodybuilders… Big for Nothin!’”
Few bodybuilders have so much mass that it impairs their everyday functioning, so this statement has no relevance in my mind. The vast majority of people would do well with more muscle, not less.

“7 days without a workout makes one weak.”
Convenient play on words, but it only applies to beginners. Otherwise, an occasional week off helps more than it hurts. For example, my Olympic weightlifters normally train between 46 and 48 weeks a year.

“The difficulty of an exercise is proportional to its value” (Eric Burkhardt)
There is enormous truth in this. How rarely I see people squatting, or chinning, or performing step-ups. How common it is to see people making a career out of what they already do best— limber women who concentrate on stretching, thick-chested men who do nothing but bench press.

“If you’re in the gym more than an hour, you’re not training, you’re making friends” (Charles Poliquin).
Charles is dead-on with this statement. If you are genuinely training, it’s hard to spend much more than an hour at the gym. I find it remarkable that people who use the gym for serious training are considered “hard core,” while people who use it for socializing and reading the morning paper are considered much more rational.

“Agonize. Don’t socialize” (Eric Burkhardt)
Another nice way to say the above.

“If in doubt, add more weight”
No logic here, but what else is new? I’d rather say “If in doubt, congratulate yourself because at least you have some inkling that maybe you’re doing it wrong”!

“Do as many as you can, and then three more”
An old coaches maxim to get across the idea of maximal effort. However, I must emphasize that your exercise technique should be the same from your first to your last rep. If any aspect changes— speed, range of motion, posture, etc.— it means you hit failure and then found some way of altering your technique in order to complete more reps. The possible exception to this rule is when using Tellekinetics, which in effect, is a scientific form of cheating.

“You can’t shoot a cannon out of a canoe”
This is from Dr. Fred Hatfield, president of the International Sports Sciences Association. He’s referring to the fact that you must have a superior “base” (read: leg strength) in order to be able to exploit your upper body strength. In fact, many top bodybuilders throughout the years have preached heavy lower body work for both lower and upper body gains.

“Squats are king of all exercises”
No exercise is the King of anything. Squats are a valuable tool for lots of people. However, they cannot be properly performed by others. Over-glorifying one exercise causes others to be ignored. Think of exercises as tools, which have utility when used appropriately in the right situations.

“Just do it”
I see everyone just doing it…improperly. Odd how such a non-descript little saying became so popular.

Conclusion

Weight training is not unique with regards to the kinds of proclamations we’ve looked at in this article. Other fields of endeavor have their own pearls of wisdom as well. The trick is to separate the truth from the fiction; to use what is useful and discard the rest.

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

The Truth About Women Doing Pullups

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

Recently one of our forum members made a casual comment regarding Charles Poliquin’s Pull-up recommendations. The comment was:

“Charles Poliquin said that women should be able to do pullups in as little as 12 weeks and with a counterweight of 33kg (72.6lbs) I still have a long way to go.”

That comment sparked a recollection about Poliquin’s statement, so I did a little digging, and eventually found his statement regarding women and pull-ups, which was printed in his Question Of Strength column at www.Testosterone.net, in April 2008. (Click here to read the article).

His exact statement was:

“I tell people who get certified by me that if they can’t get a female to do 12 chin-ups in 12 weeks, then they don’t know how to train. That’s how you can evaluate a good trainer. If he can get a female to do 12 chins, he’s a good trainer. If he doesn’t know how to do it, then he doesn’t know training. Period.”

Now that’s quite a statement, but before I address it, I’d like to note that his column generated many thousands of views and 80 comments, few of which questioned the veracity of Poliquin’s assertion.

Poliquin Is Wrong
Now let’s critically examine Poliquin’s statement.

On the face of it, he seems to be saying that you don’t know how to train people if you can’t get any women to the 12RM pull-up level in 12 weeks. Meaning, octogenarians, amputees…any woman. But in the interest of fairness, clearly he means that you should be able to train any “average” woman to the 12RM level in 12 weeks. So to be charitable, let’s assume he means a healthy, active 20-30-year old woman. OK?

So with that in mind, let me ask you a question: how many women do you know who can do 12 or more pull-ups? (I’d actually love to have you answer this question by replying to the article- the “discuss” link can be found at the end). I’m guessing none.

Over the past 20+ years, I’ve had the good fortune to have trained, or trained with, or trained by, numerous elite female athletes, including several Olympians, and I can only think of one, or possibly two women who could complete 12 legitimate pull-ups. That’s it. And one of these women was an absolute freak of nature who achieved national-level proficiency in 3 Olympic sports, and World-level talent in 2 of those sports. She could power clean approximately 220 pounds and run a 4.5 40, just to give you a sense of how highly talented she was.

So the idea that you suck as a trainer if you can’t get any & all of your female clients to a 12RM pull-up performance is nonsense.
But what if we decided to be even more charitable and amend Poliquin’s statement to:

“I tell people who get certified by me that if they can’t get a female to do one chin-up in 12 weeks, then they don’t know how to train. That’s how you can evaluate a good trainer. If he can get a female to do one single chin, he’s a good trainer. If he doesn’t know how to do it, then he doesn’t know training. Period.”

Would you still buy that? I’ve given it a lot of thought and I don’t buy it. I would say that a good trainer should be able to get about half of his female clients to one chin in 12 weeks. But all of them? Nope. And all of them to 12 chins in 12 weeks? C’mon. I mean seriously.

A better statement might be:

“If you believe me when I say that if you can’t get a female to do one chin-up in 12 weeks, then you don’t know how to train, then you don’t know how to train.”

Women: Training yourself to get one chin in 12 weeks is a very achievable goal. Some of you might even reach 2-3 in 12 weeks. Remember, well less than 1% of all adult females will ever achieve a chin-up. It’s not a small accomplishment. And because it’s such a great achievement, I hope you’ll think about making it a goal for yourself. And if you do, let me know if you’d like some help!

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

What is Your Protocol?

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

If not, this might be great timing for you…please read on.

If you haven’t been to our discussion forum lately (http://www.TeamStaley.com), you’ll certainly notice some significant changes- we’ve got a new look and (more germane to this article) a new name: Charles Staley’s Athletic Dominance Protocol.

I’ve had a lot of questions about what this means, which isn’t surprising, since we made these changes rather abruptly and without explanation. This then, is the first in a series of weekly articles I’ll be writing in an effort to explain what “The Protocol” really means, why we developed it, and what it can do for you.

You Either Have One, Or You Don’t

We all have habits and tendencies. All of us have habitual ways that we go about our lives, including the relatively small portion of our lives we spend in the gym. The real question is whether or not your habits are reactive and spontaneous, or proactive and procedural.

For example, if, on your second set of presses you notice a sudden dull pain behind your right shoulder, do you have a set of principles to help you arrive at the best decision? Or do you simply make a spontaneous decision, based on nothing more than gut instinct? Which scenario do you think will most likely lead you to a better outcome?

That’s the difference having a protocol can make.

Many of us have incomplete protocols- procedures for certain aspects of their training, while other areas are left to “fend for themselves.” For example, most of you probably “taper” for important competitions- you take a “down week” to facilitate complete recovery so that you’ll perform at your best on meet day.

That’s a protocol, or at least a component of one.

If, however, you deal with your post-weigh-in hydration in a completely sporadic and haphazard way, that’s a hole in your protocol. And that hole may be the one that sinks the ship, no matter how well-constructed the rest of that vessel happens to be.

The Rules Are Best Written When You’re Of Sound Mind

Back to that post-weigh-in hydration issue: If you create that aspect of your protocol right then, while you’re half-dazed from sweating off that last 5 pounds, it might not be representative of your best thinking.

But what if you’d thought this through already? What if you’d studied the science, and/or spoken to other successful athletes and coaches who deal with this procedure on a regular basis? Then, based on your research, you developed a set of rules- a protocol for handling your post weigh-in.

Now you’ve got a procedure that’s presumably a lot smarter than you are in your current dehydrated fog. Now you’ve got something you can trust, even when you can’t trust yourself.

And that’s really the point of having a protocol.

In all professions where failure isn’t an option, there’s a protocol that must be followed. Surgeons have a very detailed protocol that must be adhered to, and so do pilots. Likewise for soldiers, lawyers, pharmacists, and accountants. The greater the potential consequences, the more detailed the protocol.

Now needless to say, all of the aforementioned professionals are highly skilled, tremendously intelligent, and thoroughly trained. So why do they need a protocol? Here’s a tip- they don’t need it for the times when things are going well. Here’s what I mean:

I’ve flown a small plane before, as a student. If you’ve never had the experience, the amazing thing is not how difficult it is to fly a plane, it’s how easy it is! What I mean is, assuming the plane’s in good repair, the weather is good, and you have at least a cursory understanding of the skills required, it’s really not that big a deal. As you’re accelerating down the runway, that plane just wants to take off, and that’s just what it’ll do, unless you make some type of bonehead mistake.

The problem is, things rarely go perfectly.

There’s bad weather, fatigue, mechanical problems….all sorts of things can go wrong. And when they do, it’ll be your protocol that saves your ass (provided you have one of course. Meaning a protocol, not an ass).

Now I’ve just outlined a case for the prevalence of specific protocols in high-risk professions, but they can also be found in any successful profession or industry. Think about the last time you went to Burger King.

After you said “Hi” to Phil, the zitty high schooler handing you your 2000-calorie obesity maintenance kit will probably say “Would you like fries with that order?” That’s because, long ago, the researchers at BK determined that annual revenues would skyrocket if every employee asked this question on every order. For those of you who just thought the kid was being unusually considerate, think again. He’d be reprimanded if he failed to ask the fries question each and every time.

I’ll end this article with a question.

Is your training important enough to have a protocol? Or are you OK with the last 16 weeks of training going down the toilet because you carelessly make a single stupid decision 2 days before the meet? Are you satisfied with 65-70 percent results, or would you rather tease out every last speck of your potential?

If you just deep-down know that you could be achieving more from your training, stay tuned…next week I’ll be outlining the essential components of all successful protocols, and I’ll also give you a sneak peak into the Athletic Dominance Protocol, or as we simply call it, “The Protocol.”

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

Possible VS Likely

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

A few weeks ago I was having dinner at our local Outback, when I overheard the following in the booth behind me:

“My trainer says that if you eat too much protein, it’ll turn to fat.”

Did you catch that? And if someone posed that suggestion to you, how would you respond? This is a great exercise in logic, so let’s look at it for a second:

First, is it possible to get fat by eating too much protein?

Sure, in much the same way it’s possible to die by getting hit by lightning while you’re being eaten alive by a shark.
Second, is it likely that you’ll get too fat from eating too much protein? Well again, it’s about as likely as getting hit by lightning while you’re being eaten alive by a shark.

To be slightly more serious, let’s do a bit of thermodynamic mathematics:

If your caloric needs are say, 2500 calories per day, and you eat a high-protein diet consisting of 7500 calories per day, you’ll definitely get fat- that’s my educated guess. However, let’s examine the improbable mechanics of eating this much protein for a moment. If we say that your 7500-calorie diet is 80 percent protein, this means that you’re getting 6000 calories from protein per day, which equates to 1500 grams of protein. Further, if a 6-ounce chicken breast contains 40 grams of protein, you’ll need to eat 37 chicken breasts a day to hit that number. Or to use another food source, you’d need to consume about 37 protein shakes per day (assuming each shake contained 40 grams of protein)

OK that’s obviously absurd so let’s modify the original example to a somewhat more likely scenario:

Using strict thermodynamics, you’d have to consume about 3600 calories per week (or about 500 per day) above and beyond your normal caloric requirements, to gain a pound of excess bodyfat in that same period of time. So if your caloric requirements are 2500 per day, we’re now assuming you’re eating 3000 calories per day, where 80 per cent of those calories come from protein. Now you’re eating 600 grams of protein per day, or 15 chicken breasts or shakes per day.

Unlikely? Well OK, not as unlikely as getting hit by lightning while you’re being eaten alive by a shark, but have you ever eaten 15 chicken breasts in one day (or the equivalent of it)? I never have, not even once.

Now I have eaten the same caloric equivalent in fats and/or carbs - in fact many times. And I bet you have too. In fact, 3000 calories in non-protein form is amazingly easy to consume. Here are a few possible options you might consider:

2 & ½ pints of Haagen Daz ice cream (this would be my first choice!)
A 14-inch All Natural Pepperoni Pan Pizza
(6) Starbucks Venti Caramel Frappuccino’s with whole milk
Or you could mix & match. For example:

(1) Pint of Haagen Daz, (2) slices of pizza, and (2) Starbucks
In any event, it should be clear that it’s FAR more likely to get fat eating fats and/or carbs than it is to get from eating too much protein. So with that in mind, what’s the rationale for statements like the one I overheard at Outback? What motivates people to say things like this, given how preposterously unlikely they are? Is it simple ignorance? Or perhaps many people have some type of PETA-inspired hatred of protein? I’d love your thoughts on this, so please click the comments link below and share your experiences and insights!

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

The Real Principles of Progress

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

Last week we explored the general rationale behind having a protocol — a proactive procedure to keep yourself on track when problems arise in your training.

And trust me, we all have problems to overcome. I’d even go so far as to say that the most successful athletes are those who most effectively manage their bad workouts — not those who simply have great intensity and consistency when things are going well.

With that in mind, there is a set of principles that govern success in the gym, or during any attempt to acquire a new skill. Almost everyone reading this already knows what these principles are, but the more pertinent question is- do you comply with them when you’re under the bar? In other words, is your training always specific and progressive? Does it respect your unique individual peculiarities, such as age, genetics, leverages, and orthopedic history?

It’s one thing to cognitively understand the principles of specificity, progressive overload, and individuality, but it’s quite another thing to successfully apply them to your training, especially when you’re in a slump.

Let’s consider a problem that we all face from time to time — you’re not getting stronger. Despite your hard work 4 times a week in a well-equipped gym, and despite the confidence you have in your program, your numbers just aren’t moving. And it’s not like you don’t know what you’re doing; let’s assume that as well. So what gives?

During times like these you’ve got to go back to the bedrock principles. You need to look at your program through “beginner’s eyes,” as if you’re looking at someone else’s workouts with a critical, unbiased eye. It’s only then that clues begin to emerge.

(Incidentally, how many times have you heard trainers say something like “Man, my programs work great for all my clients but they never work for me!”? THAT’S a clue that you need a more objective analysis of what you’re doing. If you don’t think you can rely on yourself to do this, find someone else. )

Since a lot of you reading this are lifters, let’s tackle the issue of specificity for a moment. If you’re a powerlifter, you’re required to perform 3 heavy attempts each on the squat, bench, and deadlift. If you’re a weightlifter, ditto for the snatch and clean & jerk. And if you’re involved with highland games and/or throwing, a similar requirement holds true. The common denominator here is that you’re performing 3 or more single attempts.

This being the case, the principle of specificity demands that most of your training consistent of heavy singles- particularly when you’re close to a competition, but I’d argue that heavy singles should dominate the overwhelming majority of all your training.

Now that’s easy enough to understand, so let’s now turn to the flip-side of this question, which is “What circumstances (if any) warrant the inclusion of relatively non-specific work?” Because let’s face it — all of you do perform non-specific work, right? So the question is, “Why?” Some legitimate answers might include:

To develop supportive capacities/motor-qualities that are difficult to develop using completely-specific training.
To encourage recovery/regeneration from periods of very heavy work.
To provide a psychological break from monotonous heavy training.
To address weaknesses (muscles/ranges of motion/etc) that cannot be easily improved using specific training alone.
Lighter weights make me faster/more explosive
Eccentric training will help to “injury-proof” me
I need to back off to let my injuries heal and/or do some rehab work.
Some more questionable reasons might include:

To “confuse” your muscles into new levels of growth
Because the grass looks greener over there (I.e., boredom)
Because the Bulgarian periodization system you just discovered demands it.
Because that’s what your training partner/coach says you should do.
Because what you were doing before didn’t seem to work, so you decide to try something new.
You read a new article/book from a famous coach and it makes so much sense, you’ve just gotta try it.
Now be honest — just looking at these two lists, which category do you tend to fall under? And regardless of which category best describes you, are you becoming more clear about why you shouldn’t be coaching yourself?

The Link Between Specificity And Individuality
I hope it may have dawned on you that your individuality is at least the co-author of specificity. After all, your individual characteristics dictate, often in large part, what methods you should be using. For example, if you’re short, you have a lesser chance of sustaining lifting-related knee problems, as compared to your taller peers. This impacts your training protocol- if you’re tall, you may need to pay more attention to patellar tracking, hamstring length, and IT-band health. If you’re shorter, these decisions will be closer to the bottom of your list.

As another example, if you’re overly reliant on the stretch-shortening cycle, your training should reflect this through the inclusion of a pause immediately prior to the concentric phase of the lift.

No matter how many examples I choose to cite, it always comes back the the same inescapable truth:

“Exploiting Your Opponent’s Weakness Starts With Identifying Your Own.”

The Link Between Specificity And Weak-Links
If you believe that a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, you’ll be compelled to prioritize the identification and correction of weaknesses in your training. As we saw earlier, this cannot always be achieved in a highly-specific training context.

As a weightlifter, you need enough pulling strength to accelerate the bar high enough to rack in on your shoulders (in the case of a clean) and also enough squatting strength to stand back up after you catch the bar in a squat position. Whichever component is weakest will determine how much weight you can clean. If you can pull 275 high enough to rack it, only to become crushed in the squat because you lack enough squatting strength to stand up with it, no amount of heavy cleans will correct this imbalance. Instead, you’ll need to focus on front squats until your squatting strength matches your pulling strength.

If you’re an MMA competitor with poor hand-striking skills, no amount of competition-specific fighting will ever improve your weak-link, because under intense pressure, you’ll of course revert to your strengths in order to “survive.” Instead, you’ll need to spend time in drills that require you to solve problems with your hands. Such drills are less than 100% specific, yet they are necessary to overcome your weaknesses.

When To Be Specific; When To Be General
The training of boxers provides a useful analogy for those hoping to better understand the continuum between specificity and generality:

Hard, competition-intensity sparring for several 3-minute rounds, using regulation gear is the most specific form of training a boxer can perform. Add in some canned applause on the PA system and put a little money on the line, and it becomes even more specific.

Now, if you didn’t have a firm grasp on the foundational principles of training, you’d rightly assume that this would be the most productive type of training a boxer could do. Following that, you’d also assume that he should simply spend all of his time doing hard sparring. But you’d be wrong of course, and here’s why:

Typically, the most specific training is also the most intense, and that certainly holds true for boxers. You can only do so much hard sparring before you break down and/or burn out. How much hard sparring would it take before reaching this breaking point? I’d guess if you did 9 hard rounds per day- at truly competition-level intensity- you’d be toast in 5-6 days max. That means you’d be dead meat from 36 minutes of training per day (9 minutes of which is actually spent resting) in less than a week. Clearly, as athletes, we all reach a point where we no longer have adequate resources (time, energy, orthopedic integrity, etc) to perform highly-specific training, but where we do still have adequate resources to perform less intense training (cardio, stretching, skill work, etc).

More often than not, highly-specific training environments are less than optimal for the development of skill-deficits. Think of it this way: if you wanted to learn a second language- say, Italian- imagine how difficult it would be if you found yourself suddenly immersed in an Italian population of people who had absolutely no English skills. I’d be willing to bet that you might not ever acquire significant skills in the Italian language. A more successful approach would be to enter a less-specific learning environment, where you could first learn individual words, common phrases, and then gradually work your way into complete sentences under the guidance of a competent teacher who can provide constant feedback.

Less-specific training is by definition contrastive, and as such, serves the valuable function as a form of active recovery. This is especially useful during the week(s) leading up to an important competition (also called the “taper phase”). A peak is, by definition, surrounded by two valleys. High-intensity, is by definition, a transitory state.

Understood By All, Mastered By Few
The principles of progress are like an abbreviated musical scale consisting of only 3 notes- you know what the notes are, you know what they sound like, you’ve figured out how to make a few chords, but you’re likely unaware of the almost limitless ways they can be applied in order to create a successful outcome.

The best musicians work from the same notes that the worst ones do- it’s just that they find ways to synthesize them into amazing new compositions that inspire their les-skilled peers. Start thinking of training principles in this way, and you’ll be well on your way to strength-training mastery.

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

Your Operating System

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

Last week we examined the challenges many of us face when trying to apply the three bedrock principles (progressive overload, variability, and specificity) to your training.

This week, I’d like to challenge you to explore your personal “system” of training, and more specifically, I’d like you to take an assessment of your personal “Values” as pertains to training. In other words, what’s your “Training O.S.?”

Before doing that however, it’s important to realize that you do already have an operating system. All of us have a set of habits, paradigms, proclivities, and/or beliefs that govern our decision-making under the bar. For example, I’ve written volumes about a belief that many people hold, which is that pain equals gain: the more something hurts, the better it must be.

If you happen to hold this point of view, you’re likely do manage your workouts differently than someone who holds a contrasting belief (for example, that “performance equals gain”). This sequence of events can be visually summated in the following diagram:

Paradigms ‘ Decisions ‘ Consequences/Results
Needless to say, if you operate from accurate, productive paradigms, you’ll make good decisions that will lead to good results. If you operate from incorrect assumptions, you’ll make faulty decisions and suffer unwanted consequences. Let’s examine a few common belief patterns so that you’ll have a concrete understanding of this sequence of events:

Paradigm:

“John” is (unconsciously) overly enamored by novelty. He’s always looking for the newest, coolest training system, diet, or training equipment.

Decision:

Every time John becomes aware of a new system, diet, or tool, he immediately discontinues what he was previously doing in favor of the new discovery.

Consequence:

John never makes any progress because he never does anything long enough for it to work. Interestingly enough, he always has a convenient excuse- his current methods are behind the times!

Paradigm:

“Jenna” believes she is weak and needs to be a tougher person, mentally and physically

Decision:

Every time Jenna encounters pain during a workout, she chalks it up to personal weakness and continues despite the pain.

Consequence:

Jenna is nearly always injured, which reinforces her paradigm. She’s caught in a vicious cycle, and she’s completely unaware of it.

Paradigm:

“Joe” is fascinated by, believes in, and has extensively studied periodization.

Decision:

Joe plans his workouts months in advance. Every exercise, set, rep, and weight is pre-planned.

Consequence:

When Joe inevitably encounters a workout that he isn’t able to complete “by the book,” he gets frustrated and immediately starts writing a new macrocycle, convinced me made an error on his last plan. Like John and Jenna, his faulty paradigm is self-replicating.

Like John, Jenna, and Joe, we all have productive paradigms and faulty ones. How then, can we reinforce the former and eradicate the latter? Simply by increasing our own self-awareness. I’d love your input on this discussion, so if you’d like to share your own paradigms- good or bad, current or former, please click the discussion link below. I’m certain you’ll find the exercise to be enlightening and transformational.

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

“Training to Failure”

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

The notion of “training to failure” is perhaps one of the most revered practices in the modern bodybuilder’s “toolbox.” But interestingly, this training method seems unique to bodybuilding.

In other iron sports, such as Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, and throwing, athletes develop enormous levels of muscle mass without training to failure, at least not in the way that most bodybuilders would define it.

This observation, coupled with the fact that many elite-level bodybuilders do not embrace this practice, warrants a second look at this concept.

Birth of a Paradigm
Many credit Arthur Jones (the inventor of Nautilus equipment) with developing and popularizing the “one set to failure” paradigm. Jones argued that bodybuilders should work to the point of momentary failure, using one set per exercise/per session, rather than using multiple sets of multiple exercises.

But Jone’s commercial success may been potentiated by a long-standing tradition among young trainees (particularly men) who, in the absence of qualified supervision, regularly trained to failure as an intuitive way of obtaining objective feedback about their progress. Whenever an additional rep could be performed with a given weight, the trainee was psychologically reinforced, which further entrenched this “habit.”

Unfortunately, it also reinforced poor exercise form and the tremendous frustration that set in when, after several months of monotonous training, the inevitable plateau set in. This frustration then paved the way for numerous ill-conceived commercialized training “systems” that emerged over the past several decades. The result is an endless cycle of unsupervised trainees switching from one miracle method to another, in an endless search for the “perfect program.”

Before we criticize Jones or the authors of the many programs available today, it may be necessary to revise our expectations of what a training method should and shouldn’t do. Remember that nearly any training method can be effective, at least temporarily, for the following reasons:

1) Beginners will make short-term progress with any training method, provided they aren’t injured in the process.

2) Many people train in a very monotonous manner, rarely changing acute exercise variables such as choice of exercise, order of exercise, rest periods, and load (volume and intensity). When such a person changes programs, they will progress, at least temporarily.

Conversely, NO training program is perfect because:

1) Everyone is different. No two people respond exactly the same to a given program.
2) The body will eventually accommodate to any program, and when it does, you hit a plateau.

The conclusion that might be drawn from these points is that all methods can be viewed as “tools” which have a certain degree of utility when used in the proper proportion and in the right context. The problem is when a proclamation is made that “This is the perfect program for all people all of the time!”

DEFINITIONS

A significant impediment to discussing this issue is the lack of consistent
working definitions for several terms which are germane to the discussion at
hand:

What is “Training to Failure”?
The very definition of “training to failure” needs considerable clarification. Does it mean concentric failure? Eccentric failure? Inability to complete another repetition in good form? (and what is “good form?”) Inability to maintain the desired tempo (speed of execution)? Are we referring to failure of the cellular, or neural system? Failure of the stabilizers, or prime movers?

For the purposes of this discussion, “training to failure” describes training in a manner where each set is continued to the point where further concentric repetitions “in good form” cannot be completed under the lifter’s own volition. Second, the notion of failure is inexorably linked to the magnitude of effort and ability to withstand pain and fatigue— both of which are subjective qualities.

What is “Good Form?”
While the amount of resistance, number of sets and reps, etc., constitute the quantitative element of training, good form (or exercise technique) can be seen as the qualitative element. Exercise technique includes range of motion, tempo, and control over the resistance being lifted. For the sake of variation, bodybuilders should plan for regular variations in tempo and range of motion. Such variations help to break through strength and hypertrophy plateaus.

Control, however, should never be sacrificed, especially for the purpose of “eeking out” another repetition. For the sake of this discussion, “good form” will be defined as “exercise performance which is consistent with pre-determined objectives concerning range of motion, tempo, and control of the resistance.”

Using this definition, it is not considered bad form to lift a weight through a partial range of motion, as long as you pre-determined that the repetitions would be performed in that manner. On the other hand, if you planned to do parallel squats, and start losing depth due to fatigue, this would be considered bad form. Similarly, if you plan for a certain tempo (duration of each repetition) or even rest period, it would be considered bad form to alter these parameters in the middle of a workout.

What is Intensity?
Sports scientists and bodybuilders often assign two very different meanings to this term. In the sports sciences, intensity is usually defined as the difficulty of the work performed, expressed as a percentage of 1RM (One repetition maximum), or an athlete’s maximum poundage for a single repetition for any given lift. Using this definition, if an athlete has a 1RM of 400 pounds in the leg press, a set performed with 350 pounds is more “intense” than a lift performed with 300 pounds, regardless of how many reps were performed, how close the set came to failure, or how much mental effort was applied.

Most bodybuilders, on the other hand, define intensity as the magnitude of effort applied to a task. Using this definition, a leg press of 300 pounds might be more intense than a set with 350 pounds, if a greater effort was applied to that set.

For our purposes then,we will distinguish between “extrinsic” intensity (or, the magnitude of the external load) and “intrinsic” intensity (or, the magnitude of effort applied against that load). It’s important to recognize that extrinsic intensity is objective, and intrinsic intensity is subjective. In other words, we can measure the weight on the bar as a percentage of maximum, but when someone claims that they “went to failure,” we have to take his or her word for it.

Objectives and Methods of Training
For bodybuilders, the object of training is muscular hypertrophy. The methods used to accomplish this objective are dictated by various training principles, most notably the principle of progressive overload. Fatigue, and occasionally failure, are unavoidable by-products of these methods. Viewing fatigue and/or failure as an objective of training (as many bodybuilders do) is masochistic and counterproductive.

The hallmarks of successful training are long-term consistency and progression. But progression must be gradual— very gradual— if it is to be consistent. Many athletes insist on always taking a set to utter failure, even if it’s not necessary to achieve a new personal record. But these same athletes neglect to project these gains into the future, which reveals the impossibility of continuing these gains.

As an example, if you manage to put 5 pounds a week on your squat, this equates to 20 pounds a month, and 240 pounds a year. If this could be continued for even three years, you would be a national level powerlifter, with size to go along with it! A better approach is to achieve very small increases in load on a regular basis, even though you won’t reach failure. These smaller increases are easier for the body to adapt to, and recuperate from. Taking each and every set to complete failure is like trying to run a marathon at sprint speed— after a very short period of sprinting, you’ll have to slow down considerably, if you expect to finish the race.

The Downside of One Set to Failure
As stated earlier, few training practices or techniques are good or bad in the absolute sense. Most often, it’s a matter of application and context. Performing all sets to failure (or, trying to) is particularly problematic, for the following reasons:

1) Insufficient training volume for hypertrophy development
Many studies have confirmed that metabolic changes associated with muscular hypertrophy are best instigated through loading by high volumes, whereas neural adaptations are best brought about through high intensity loads. Training volume is calculated in pounds lifted per unit of time. If you plan to lift a certain weight for 5 sets of 5 reps, only the last set would approach concentric failure— if you went to failure on the first set, the subsequent sets would have to be performed with significantly less weight.

This decreases volume, which can negatively impact muscular hypertrophy. International strength coach Charles Poliquin observes that for any two athletes on the same basic program, the athlete who uses a higher volume will have greater hypertrophy [1]. This observation may be due in part to increased levels of anabolic hormones which are associated with multi-set (as opposed to single set) training [2].

A second factor to consider with respect to the training load is that there is a limit to how long you can achieve progressions in intensity, but increases in volume can be achieved for a much longer period. For example, after about 9-10 years of solid training experience, you’ll arrive at (or very close to) your maximum lifts (1RM’s). Past this point, it becomes nearly impossible to increase the training load through increases in intensity. It’s much more feasible at this point to increase training volume (by adding reps and/or sets). In this way, you can continue to make gains in muscle mass.

2) Injury potential, both acute and chronic, increases
Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA and cell membranes. International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates a repetition in mid-stroke. “When the weight on the bar exceeds the muscle’s ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it’s the musculotendinous junction” One of the most important functions of a spotter is to stay alert and keep the bar moving in order to avoid such injuries, according to Arria.

According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of proper form, you’re asking for trouble.

3) Potential for overtraining increases
Louie Simmons, well-known coach to many elite-level powerlifters finds that taking sets to failure “has an ill-effect on the central nervous system,” which delays recovery. Simmons is noted for producing scores of high-ranked lifters with relatively low-intensity training

4) Regular failed attempts lead to a reduction in a lowering of the Golgi Tendon Organ (GTO) excitation threshold [3].
Successful lifts which are above what the body is used to will raise the excitation threshold of the Golgi Tendon Organ, while failed attempts tend to lower it. What this means in bodybuilding parlance is that the more often you miss a lift, the more likely it is that you’ll miss it again in the future.

Is Training to Failure Necessary?
Clearly, it is not. The overriding concept is that, like all training methods, training to failure is a tool. No tool should be used all the time for all applications. But used judiciously, it can be a useful training method. Any training program which plans for progressive resistance, consistency, and variation is likely to produce success.

Recommendations
1) Plan and document your training. If your best effort in the bench press is 225 for five sets of five repetitions, your goal should be to surpass that effort— either by getting five more pounds for 5×5, or by getting a greater volume with the same weight. When you do, you’ll progress, even if you don’t go to failure on each and every set. Keeping a training log is a must in order to know what barriers you’re trying to surpass. Use one!

2) Use and apply strictly defined technique parameters for yourself. Cheating (by utilizing co-contraction from non-targeted muscles) only encourages inefficient movement patterns, poor posture, and potentially, injuries. Your technique on the last rep should be identical to the technique you use on the first repetition.

3) Progress is a function of gradually increasing your training load over time—not how “trashed” you feel after a workout.

4) Careful attention to acute program variables can have a big impact on how much volume you can comfortably tolerate. Here are two examples:

a) Muscles can be worked more thoroughly by first training in an unstable environment (i.e, free weights) which challenge the stabilizers, and then moving to a stable environment (i.e, machines) [4]. To test this for yourself, first do a set of dumbbell bench presses to fatigue. Next, load a barbell with the same weight, and immediately do a set.

You will find that you can lift this weight, despite failure on the DB bench. Next, go to a machine bench press, load it with the same weight, and you’ll find that you can continue even further. This phenomenon is an example of “stabilizer failure,” meaning that the motor cortex will limit neural drive to the prime movers when it senses that the body is unable to stabilize a load. This phenomenon has vast implications for the majority of trainees who primarily work prime movers through machine exercises only.

b) Because fatigue is specific [5], greater workloads are possible if sets of contrasting exercises are performed back to back, as opposed to finishing all sets for a particular exercise before proceeding to the next. As an example, if you plan to perform bench presses and lat pulldowns in the same session, sets 1,3,5, etc., would be bench presses, and sets 2,4,6, etc., would be lat pulldowns.

The more distant the two muscle groups are from one another, the greater the reduction in residual fatigue. Still another method of reducing fatigue is to alternate between low repetition sets, which fatigue primarily the nervous system, with high repetition sets, which fatigue primarily the metabolic system. The low repetition sets facilitate greater neural drive, which carries over to the high repetition set, allowing a greater overall workload to be performed.

c) Except for beginners, a linear progressions of training load, where the athlete attempts to add resistance each and every workout, result in early stagnation and loss of improvement. A more productive approach is a “three steps up, one step down approach” [6] which allows for periodic regeneration and continued improvement.

5) For hypertrophy development, remember that muscles consist of more than just contractile fibers. Use a variety of repetition ranges to stimulate all elements of the muscle cell— including sarcoplasmic volume, capillary density, and mitochondria proliferation. (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)

6) It is especially important to recognize the qualitative components of a good set— elements such as the feel, control, and overall mastery of the movement. Over-reliance on achieving the maximum number of repetitions at any cost is an invitation to injury and long-standing technique errors. A useful guideline is “Once you find yourself cheating, you’re already beyond failure!”

7) Stick to conventional or “basic” training methods until they no longer yield results. If your neuromuscular system experiences every strength training method known to science in your first year of training, what will you do when you hit a plateau? Save “advanced” methods, such as partial repetitions, eccentric training, and ballistic methods for later, when you’re advanced.

Training to Failure: Traditional and Revised Definitions
The majority of trainees define training to failure as continuing a set of repetitions (including both the concentric and eccentric portions of the rep) until no further repetitions are possible without a considerable erosion of form, or assistance from a partner, or both. Frequently, after concentric failure is reached, the trainee will continue the set, either by cheating (utilizing co-contraction from additional muscle groups), or with the help of a partner by either 1) completing a certain number of eccentric-emphasized reps, 2) performing “forced reps” (ie., utilizing help on both the concentric and eccentric portions of the reps), or performing “strip sets,” meaning, the partner continues to reduce the weight on the bar until no further repetitions can be completed.

Other authors have rightly pointed out the fact that failure is specific to fiber type. As an example, you may select a heavy weight, and reach failure after performing 3 repetitions. While no further repetitions are possible with this weight, it would still be possible to lower the weight (as in a strip-set) and continue even further.

Olympic lifters terminate their sets when the ideal tempo and/or coordination erodes beyond acceptable parameters. For this reason, Olympic lifters rarely if ever utilize spotters, even on their heaviest maximum attempts, since (at least in theory) the worst thing that can happen is that the last rep will be slower than desired.

Is One Set Really Enough?
Many proponents of the “one set to failure” method justify their claims by suggesting that one set is sufficient to recruit a maximal number of motor units. While this may be true (although there is little solid data to support this statement), this approach assumes that simply recruiting a motor unit once is sufficient to fatigue it, which is a prerequisite to hypertrophic adaptations.

For beginning trainees, it may be that single exposures to a training stimulus are sufficient to provoke an adaptation. But athletes with even moderate experience are likely to require multiple exposures (sets) in order to fatigue the target motor units.

Hypertrophy of other biological tissues is accomplished not by stressing the tissue close to its limits, but by applying a stress which is slightly beyond what it normally encounters. Bone, as an example, hypertrophies when a force equaling approximately one-tenth it’s breaking point is applied. This example supports the contention that gradual progression is the ideal method for achieving muscular growth.

References:

1) Personal Communication, February, 1996.
2) “Growth Hormone Release Following Single Versus Multiple Sets of Back Squats”. Bruce W Craig and Ho-Youl Kang at the Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1994, 8(4), 270-275
3) Personal communication with Dr. Fred Hatfield, January, 1996.
4) Program Design Video Series, Paul Chek Center for Health & Performance, LaJolla, CA, 1996.
5) Zatsiorsky, V. M., Science and Practice of Strength Training, p.p. 111, Human Kinetics, Champaign, 1995.
6) Bompa, T.O., Periodization of Strength, Toronto, Veritas Publishing, 1993, p.p. 53.
7) Telle, J., Beyond 2001: New Approaches to Scientific Training for the Advanced Bodybuilder, EDICT, Denver, 1995.
Hatfield, F.C., Fitness: The Complete Guide, ISSA Publications, Santa Barbara, 1995.
9) Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J., Designing Resistance Training Programs, Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, 1987, p.p. 58.
10) Baechle, T.R., (Ed.) Essentials of Strength and Conditioning, Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, 1994.

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

Remember That Every Rep Counts

By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems

During a golf clinic I recently attended, the instructor told us: “If there’s one thing I’d like you to come away with today it’s that ‘every ball counts.’”

That’s very sound advice for any golfer looking to lower his score, and it also made me think of parallels to lifting. As a recreational golfer, I typically hit 60 balls during a practice session at the range. Sometimes I’ll hit 90 or 120 balls. Over the course of a week I probably hit about 350 balls. Professional golfers take far more shots than this, and some reportedly hit 1000 balls a day.

Now as competitive lifters we can’t take 1000 reps a day- not even close. And even if, over the course of an extremely high-volume workout, you managed 300 reps, across all exercises and including warm-up sets, the only reps that really “count” are those done on the competitive exercise(s) at 90% intensity or above.

With that in mind, if you’re a powerlifter, and it’s “squat day,” how many total squat reps are you likely to take (that are 90% or more of your current 1RM) during that workout?

Three? Five? Eight?

Just to make the math easier, let’s say you’re a complete maniac and you get 10 meaningful reps per workout on whatever competitive exercise you happen to be doing.

Then consider the following question:

If “every ball counts” during a 1000 rep workout, how much more does “every rep count” during a 10-rep workout? Obviously, it’s 100 times more relevant, just based on that simple comparison. Then add the fact that “bad” reps in the weightroom can also compromise your personal safety, and the importance is magnified even further.

So if we agree that every rep counts, it might be worth considering what we really mean by “counts.” For example, if your best deadlift is 440-pounds, what criteria do you use to assess quality on all of your 396-pound and heavier pulls? In my mind, there are at least four possible ways to define “counts” on any given rep:

1) Completion: You complete the lift, irrespective of speed and/or technique

2) Technically Accurate Completion: You complete the lift using good technical skills, irrespective of speed.

3) Fast Technically Accurate Completion: You complete the lift using good speed and technical execution.

4) Competition-Specific, Fast Technically Accurate Completion: You complete the lift using good speed and technical execution. The distinction between this level and the previous category is that here, you do everything possible to mimic contest conditions. Possible ways to accomplish this might include wearing competitive apparel and gear, strictly abiding by competitive rules, carefully mimicking likely rest-intervals between lifts and attempts, lifting in front of spectators, and/or generating a competition-specific level of psychological intensity. This is the highest level of “counts.”

As you consider which standard of quality you should use to define “counts,” be sure to consider the challenges involved in accurately measuring the various components of each level. For example, it is possible to measure lifting speed, but it’s much more difficult to quantify things like intensity and acceptable technique.

Please join me in the conversation! If you’d like to add your own perspectives on this topic, click the comments link below and share your thoughts with us!

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

The Bouncing Stiff-Legged Deadlift Technique

 
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
 
Disclaimer: The following exercise may pose a significant risk to some individuals. If you decide to try this exercise, do so at your own risk. The following article simply chronicles the author’s own experiences with the exercise. Your experience may not be as successful.

After watching Phil Stevens playing around (if you call 405×20 “playing around”) with this exercise during his regular workouts at Bed & Barbell, I decided to give this unusual drill a shot recently while I was in a knee-rehab phase.

What’s nice about the exercise is that it’s a great way to train full trunk/hip-extension, with significant loads, while keeping stress off the knees.

We use bumper plates with this drill, which allows us to actually bounce the plates off of the floor between reps.

While it looks a bit haphazard, the bounce actually reduces loading a bit when you’re in the greatest amount of flexion, adding a measure of protection to the exercise. If you’ve got bumpers, give the bounce a try, and you’ll find that it only takes a few reps to become very precise and symmetrical with the bounce. If you don’t have bumpers, try a more controlled “touch and go” technique with standard Olympic plates.

As the name of the exercise implies, this is a stiff-leg deadlift, not a straight-leg deadlift. Maintaining a small amount of knee flexion gives the glutes a strong anchor via the TFL (tensor fascia latae)/IT-band complex. Without this anchor, the glutes are unable to contribute as strongly as they could otherwise, resulting in higher loads to the remaining structures involved, and reducing the safety of the exercise.

Another unusual aspect of this exercise is that we don’t keep the bar snug against the legs, as you typically would during a standard deadlift, clean, or snatch. There are two reasons for this- first, the speed used in both directions make it very difficult to keep the bar any closer than what’s shown in the video. Second, as the bar is lowered, the hips are forced aggressively backward, which means that even though the bar doesn’t stay against the legs, it remains well within the center of gravity of the lifter-barbell unit.

This movement seems more suited to repetition-work as opposed to maximum loading. We suggest starting off with sets of 10 initially, and then once you become comfortable with the movement, you might consider gradually working up to 20 reps for a single set. Use straps so your grip won’t be the limiting factor in the exercise.

One caveat is in order before you attempt this drill: it’s important that, at the bottom-most position, you’re able to maintain a neutral spine. This requires long hamstrings. If you don’t have the hamstring length required to keep your spine neutral throughout the entire range of motion, simply shorten the range of motion by placing elevated platforms (perhaps in the form of small flooring squares or plates) under your plates.

The bouncing stiff-leg deadlift is a fantastic way to strengthen the posterior chain with minimal load to the knees. It’ll pack lean mass onto your spinal erectors, glutes, and hamstrings.

If you have no known orthopedic issues, and you decide to try this exercise, use caution for the first several sessions until you’re sure you can perform it safely with significant loads. Good luck and be sure to post your experiences by clicking the comments link under my photo below.

About The Author

His colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results. His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show and The CBS Early Show.

Currently, Charles competes in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit, with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s World Championships.

Learn More About EDT Training!

You can build muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15 minutes, 3 times a week with EDT…it works for EVERYONE - male, female, young, old…your body simply has no choice but to get results!

Click here to learn more and get your copy today!

Next Page »