I kid you not, as I type these words I am sitting in my apartment waiting for the delivery guys from Sleepy’s to drop off the new mattress Lisa and I bought the other night.
Not that any of you reading are in any way interested in mine and Lisa’s sleep quality1, but she’s had the same mattress for about a decade (and we’ve been together for six years), so it was time to upgrade.
We walked to the local Sleepy’s down the street from our apartment and spent a good two hours test driving a few mattresses2 and narrowed it down to the one that’s supposed to be arriving between 8-12PM today (or when hell freezes over, whichever comes first).
We’re totally going to be asleep at like 6 tonight. Can’t wait!
A few things before I get to this week’s list of stuff to read:
Last weekend marked my official “start date” for my new solo venture.3 I’m sub-leasing space from Run Strong Studio in Brookline, MA (Boston) and training people out of there. Here’s a little flavor for what it looks like:
A video posted by Tony Gentilcore (@tonygentilcore) on
Rebecca – the woman who owns the studio – has been awesome. She’s a doctor who trains people on the side (mostly runners) in a rehab setting. When we met for the first time in person I saw she had a copy of Gray Cook’s Movement on her desk and she also dropped a few Mike Boyle and PRI references. I knew right away she was eating at the cool kids table.
Since our first meeting to now she’s allowed me to “vomit” strength and conditioning and bring in a bunch of equipment into her space. The result is what you see above.
It’s nothing fancy pants, but it’s perfect for what I’m looking to do: coach people, write awesome programs, and make them into badasses.
The first week has gone well and I’ve already had several people perform their initial assessment and are primed to get after it. If you’re in Boston and want to check things out for yourself you can go HERE.
ALSO
As a reminder: Dean Somerset and I will be in Los Angeles (Anaheim) at CrossFit 714 for our Complete Shoulder and Hip Workshop the weekend of November 14th.
That’s in two weeks, yo. For more information you can go HERE.
[Cue obligatory “this is why Tony & Dean are the awesome” testimonial here]
“Being cynical of the workshop frenzy in our industry has made me extremely picky with how I spend my time and money with my educational efforts. Tony and Dean presented our group with simple and concise information that will be easy to implement into my business’ daily operations.
The assessments and corrective strategies that I learned this weekend will be very useful in any size setting which translates to me being able to spend more time growing my business while delivering an effective product. If you value your time and the quality of your work, this is a must-attend event.”
Last week (another) major story broke reminding everyone that red-meat is going to kill us all. It happens every year, it’s nothing new, really, it’s not, and the mainstream media latches onto it and apocalizes (<– Yep, I just made up a word) it.
RUN EVERYONE. BACON IS GOING TO KILL YOU. AHHHHH……….
Cressey Sports Performance business director, Pete Dupuis, explains why we waited seven years before pulling the trigger and opening a second location.
The term “muscle confusion” is, well, confusing to me. I understand in the most general of context it refers to muscle building and growth. Cool. Getting strong is part of building muscle as well, and I feel too much exercise variety is hurting everyone’s gains.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not adamantly against the idea of switching things up and implementing new exercises for the sake of variety. I mean, not everyone wants to eat vanilla ice-cream every day, right?4 It’s not a bad thing to spice things up and try new things. Oftentimes it helps keep people motivated to workout.
However, where it becomes problematic is when people start adding variety for the sake of adding variety – with no plan or intent to work on or improve something.
Like I said, exercise variety can be a good thing. But I find that many (not all) trainees view adding variety (or the idea of muscle confusion) as necessary for getting results in the gym. I’d argue the opposite to be true.
Less variety – and “owning” your exercises, is a major factor in long-term success. It’s not a idea cemented in stone, but just a conversation to consider.
In my latest article on T-Nation I explain my rationale.
To any overly patriotic or political zealots out there who may have misread, note the title does not say “Why I dislike America.”
To everyone else, notice too that the title doesn’t say “I hate the American kettlebell swing.”
Hate is such a strong word anyways; more appropriately reserved for things like Hitler, ebola, global warming, Gwyneth Paltrow playing the role of a health & fitness authority, poodles, and skinny jeans.
The kettlebell or girya is a cast-iron or cast steel weight used to perform ballistic exercises that combine cardiovascular, strength and flexibility training. They are also the primary equipment used in the weight lifting sport of girevoy sport. Russian kettlebells are traditionally measured in weight by pood, which (rounded to metric units) is defined as 16 kilograms (35 lb).
In other words: it’s one of those “cannonball with a handle” looking thingamajigs that you see all those people at your gym pushing, pulling, hoisting, and tossing every which way in an effort to 1) perform a legitimate exercise such as a swing, get-up, snatch, clean & press, Farmer carry, amongst many, many others 2) perform an exercise that makes absolutely no sense for its intended design and/or use.
Like this:
Although, giving credit where it’s due, this is kind of badass. Albeit from a cost-benefit standpoint I see little upside.
And 3) to look cool. <— Research backs this up.
Kettlebells are a very useful piece of equipment, a piece of equipment I use often with my own athletes and clients, but I do find some people take an elitist attitude towards them to the point where things like barbells and dumbbells are considered obsolete or inferior (which I feel is an absurd stance to take).
It’s a minority take, but a take nonetheless.
The Kettlebell Swing
Splitting the conversation further is the swing; one of, if not the most popular exercise performed with a kettlebell.
FMS and Strong First instructor, Brett Jones, showcasing the Russian Style (and I’d argue, correct) swing.
I’ve written several articles in the past expounding my take/approach to the swing and I’m not going to belabor my point(s) here. If interested you can peruse THIS, THIS, and THIS article. We can high-five later.
I’d also encourage you to seek out information from the likes of Dan John, Dr. Mark Cheng, Jen Sinkler, Neghar Fonooni, Gray Cook, and Iron Body Studios (Artemis Scantalides and Eric Gahan):
All the coaches/peeps mentioned above advocate the “Russian” style swing as opposed to the “American” style. To which I say, “Samsies.”
What’s the Difference?
Russian Style = less ROM, more vodka.
American Style = more ROM, because, why not? And, America!
There are adamant supporters in both camps, and both make solid cases for why their style is the style everyone should be using.
And, as far as internet pissing contests are concerned, it’s an “argument” that ranks right up there with the low bar squatters vs. high bar squatters, steady state cardio vs. HIIT cardio, meat eaters vs. vegetarians, and you better bet your ass this calls for a Rocky vs. Drago reference.
I have to say, though, the “American” advocates have a far less stellar rationale (it’s just my opinion of course) for their style.
Let’s discuss shall we?
My Case Against the American Style Swing
I posted the following question on Twitter yesterday:
Little Help: can anyone provide benefits/advantages for the “American” KB swing?
I received this well-thought out response (which made me chuckle):
“Looks more hardcore in METCON.”
However the bulk of responses fell in the line with:
“To practice the movement for CrossFit competition. Sport specific practice, in essence.”
“It is measurable in the context of the bell has to be fully extended overhead to be a rep is the only thing I can think of.”
It’s hard for me to counterpoint that train of thought. I get it, I respect it, and I can appreciate any “specificity” that’s involved. You don’t get better at swimming by riding a bike just like you don’t get better at American style swings by not doing American style swings (for competition).
CrossFit competitions are one thing (and even then, why?). Where I feel things get dicey are for those CrossFitters who don’t compete and when personal trainers/coaches start using the American style with their regular clientele who, again, don’t compete and more importantly, have poor movement quality…all because they watched the wrong YouTube video, or Jillian Michaels DVD.
Mind you, there are plenty (not a lot) of people who can perform an American style swing and not make my corneas bleed.
It’s a learned skill just like any other exercise – with a right way and wrong way to do it (I think) – and I’m sure it’s not too hard to find passable images on Google.
However, lets not kid ourselves…most people who do it end up looking like this:
Or this:
Maybe it’s the cynical coach in me speaking, but all I see is forward head posture, excessive lumbar extension (both primarily compensation patterns for limited shoulder flexion mobility; or the ability to get your arms over your head, and lack of lumbo-pelvic-hip control; or limited anterior core strength/stiffness), and a local physical therapist salivating.
And who knows: maybe the pics taken above were rep # 117 of a WOD, where technique is bound to take a hit. Either way, my back hurts looking at it.
I am not at all against people training overhead.
I just feel the vast majority of people need to earn the right to do it.
Many people just don’t have ample enough shoulder flexion and/or lumbo-pelvic control to get their arms overhead without blatant compensations and (potentially) serious ramifications down the road – much less be competent enough to add load and repetitions (unfortunately, usually both).
Someone was kind enough to link to THIS article on Twitter written by CrossFit serving as a rebuttal to everyone else’s rebuttal that, for 90% of people 90% of the time, the American swing, and I’m paraphrasing here, fucking stupid.6.
See! An example of a better, “passable” American swing where the hips get through into more terminal extension. Understandably the criteria for a CF competition isn’t to get the hips through, it’s just whether or not the arms get overhead.
From the article itself:
“On first being introduced to the kettlebell swing our immediate response was, “Why not go overhead?” Generally, we endeavor, somewhat reflexively, to lengthen the line of travel of any movement. Why? There are two reasons.
The first is somewhat intuitive. We don’t do half rep pull-ups, we don’t do half rep squats, and we don’t do half rep push-ups. If there is a natural range of motion to any movement we like to complete it. To do otherwise seems unnatural. We would argue that partial reps are neurologically incomplete.”
I’ve already pointed out my disdain for assuming everyone can train overhead. It’s just not true, and I applaud any CF box or affiliate who take the time to properly screen their clients beforehand to better ascertain who can and cannot perform movements overhead…safely.
I almost shit a kettlebellwhen I read that second paragraph.
First off, every gym does half rep everything. Walk into any gym, anywhere, and you’re bound to see people “cheating” their lifts. Some lifts warrant partial reps – block pulls, Anderson squats, board presses, etc. There’s a ton of efficacy for partial ROM lifts, typically to address a technique flaw or weakness in one of the “big 3.”
But I’m sorry, CrossFit isn’t anything special, needs to be held to the same litmus test, and recognize that people cheat their lifts just as much there as in any other gym (commercial, collegiate, private, or otherwise).
All of that comes down to coaching anyways.
Secondly, You don’t do partial rep pull-ups?
Um, what the hell are kipping pull-ups then? They’re certainly not full- ROM. Puh-lease.
Here’s another doozy from the same article:
“From physics we know that the higher we lift something, and the more it weighs, the more “work” we are performing. Work is in fact equal to the weight lifted multiplied by the height we lift the object. Work performed divided by the time to completion is equal to the average “power” expressed in the effort.
When we swing the kettlebell to overhead, the American swing, we nearly double the range of motion compared to the Russian swing and thereby double the work done each stroke.”
Who says you have to increase ROM (and do more work) to make an exercise better? It’s the American way I suppose. We work more, take less vacation, and are otherwise stressed to the gills because we’re a-holes like that.
More is better, right?
With the swing – as with more conventional exercises like the bench press, squat, and deadlift – it’s not (always) about how much more work you can do (by increasing ROM) to make it better or harder or more effective. With the latter examples it’s about doing LESS work to improve efficiency and to take better advantage of one’s unique anatomy and leverages.
This is why many coaches advocate a low-bar position when squatting or why we tinker with deadlifting style to get the hips closer (laterally speaking) to the bar. Some do better with conventional deadlifts while others do better with Sumo. It depends.
Lastly, with regards to the American swing being more “powerful” compared to the Russian style I’ll defer to THIS excellent post by Mike Young on why that’s not the case.
I’ve also seen it argued that the American swing produces more force due to the increase in ROM. Sorry, but force output is more about forward motion, not up (the bell actually slows down the higher you go).
Not to mention – from a personal standpoint – I feel there’s more room for error with the American style swing. Taking compensation patterns and physical limitations out of the discussion, the increased ROM often lends itself to the bell traveling well below the knees for most people, which can lead to much more “stress” to the lumbar spine – something I’d like to avoid altogether.
Although the KB snatch is very similar, so I guess the real culprit is one’s ability to “clear” the hips and get overhead.
Additionally, I’ve heard stories of people losing the bell overhead, where it ends up flipping over and the bell falls.
In the End
This is not an attack on CrossFit or any coach who uses this particular style – relax. Far be it from me to tell any coach what he or she should be doing with their clients. If they want to coach their swings American style, have at it. They have their reasons.
It’s also not about pandering to which style is right or wrong. However I do feel the Russian style is more optimal and a better fit for most people. Why fix what isn’t broken?
All of this is my opinion – one it’s hopefully coming across in a respectful, “huh, that makes sense” kind of way – and as with anything in this industry the right answer as to whether or not the American style swing is a good fit for you is…it depends.
It depends if you compete in CrossFit. If so, I get it. I guess.
It also depends on whether or not you have the requisite shoulder flexion and anterior core stability to go overhead. Most people don’t.
It also depends on the cost-benefit. I argue there’s little upside to performing it. It does make your METCON finisher look more hardcore. Yay?
Today’s guest post comes courtesy of Missouri based personal trainer, Stevan Freeborn. I don’t provide nearly enough nutritional content on this site, so it’s nice whenever I have the chance to have someone with more experience on topic shed some light.
Enjoy!
Restriction, Restriction, Restriction.
That’s the name of the game for most people when it comes to eating healthier.
Just about everyone has had that experience where they have bought the latest trending diet book, threw out everything in their pantry, restocked it with whatever buzzwords the expert author used (organic, gluten free GMO free, zombie proof) or claimed was “clean” or “healthy” and then proceeded to prepare a week’s worth of “healthy” and “clean” meals that will help you lose that excess belly fat you have been carrying around for the last couple years.
Note from TG: on the topic of GMO’s, I really like THIS article via Precision Nutrition.
But what follows this experience is never what we all hope for.
Usually it consists of several days filled with frustration, self deprivation, and envy followed by a quick and swift return to your old diet and grocery store list.
So the questions we need to be asking ourselves is why does this happen?
Why do we start off so motivated and excited to start something new, yet quickly lose our dedication to the cause? Why do we keep repeating this chain of events that always ends in a crash and burn scenario?
I think the answer lies in the approach we are taking in regard to how we are taught and teaching how to make food choices. I think if we can change the way we coach people to change their diet we can dramatically improve the outcomes for those people who want to eat better, fee better, and look better.
In my mind there are two different approaches for nutritional coaching and food choices.
One is habit-based and the other is diet-based. I will spend time later in this post explaining more about each concept, but it is important to remember that both are tools that can be used effectively with or by the right person in the right situation.
SPOILER ALERT: I think you are going to find that I personally have a huge biased towards one approach over the other because of my own personal experience and logical conclusion about its practicality.
Diet-Based Nutritional Coaching
This is the approach everyone has been using for the past 20 years. The experience I initially described to you is a product of this kind of approach.
Someone teaching or practicing a diet-based nutritional approach focuses on the things they can and cannot eat.
They create list of foods that are “good” or “clean” and a list of foods that are “bad” or “dirty” and make all food decisions based on where the foods fall on these master lists.
This approach can be done on a macroscopic scale looking at whole foods or it can be done on a microscopic scale looking at the macronutrients which make up the foods. Depending on which scale or combination of the two the foods that make up the lists can be greatly varied. Good examples of this approach are the popular ancestral diets (Paleo) and the “If It Fits Your Macros” approach.
Pros
This type of nutritional approach sets very clear and defined guidelines as to what should be consumed and what shouldn’t be consumed leaving no room for interpretation or time spend worrying over what food to pick.
It allows people to make comprehensive grocery lists and meal plans that gives them peace of mind that they are making healthy choices. It provides people with a system to categorize and label foods which as we all probably know by now is something the human brain loves to do.
Cons
On the flip side this approach often creates a restriction mindset (except if you are practicing a macronutrient based version).
It tells people they can’t eat any of their old foods and requests that people change their entire way of eating overnight.
It typically is centered more about what you are not supposed to eat than what you are supposed to eat. It requires incredible levels of organization, dedication, self discipline, and motivation to stick with it long enough to have this way of eating become a way of life. It places labels on foods such as “good” or “bad” and thus creates negative connotations toward foods and subsequently negative emotions when these foods are consumed.
Habit-Based Nutritional Coaching
This is the approach I prefer and have had great success with clients.
In this type of approach we are focusing on what exactly you are eating. We aren’t concerned with the minutia of where it was grown and how it was grown. Habit-based nutrition is about using what we know about human psychology to better leverage our efforts to change.
We focus on creating a singular habit which we perceive as super duper easy to do and than practicing that habit for two weeks becoming the master of whatever this habit makes us do.
The habit will be different for each person depending on where they struggle more with their diet and how far off they are from a complete and nutritious diet. Once someone has successfully mastered a habit for two weeks you simply add another habit which again we perceive to be super duper easy. This process continues in piece-wise fashion until we are eating a diet that supports the person’s overall health and specific performance goals.
Pros
This approach gives people action.
It focuses on what a person can do to eat better than what they can’t do. It applies the power of less, which means that by focusing on one change instead of several the likelihood of success significantly increases.
It provides direction, but allows the person to take ownership over the specific execution of the habit. It meets the person where they are at currently with their way of eating.
It focuses on creating lasting and sustainable change. It acknowledges the fact that the action of eating is rather complexed and is preceded by a crap ton of other behaviors all of which influence the likelihood of actually eating what you are suppose too.
It acknowledges the scientifically validated concept that self-discipline is a depleting resource and can’t be used endlessly. It is scalable to the person’s level of commitment and motivation meaning the habits can be made incredibly specific or broad with a lot of room for improvisation. Most importantly to me it eliminates the self deprivation attitude towards eating better.
Cons
Honestly from a personal and professional standpoint I really see no downsides with this approach other than it won’t sell a lot of books or allow for the development of niche food brands that can profit off of someone’s dietary restrictions.
*Cough, cough, cough* Food Babe.
Like I said I am biased towards one approach over the other I acknowledged that at the beginning of this discussion as well as the fact that both approaches can be used successfully with the right people in the right situation.
We have to see these differing approaches as tools and use them for the correct job. I think we have to stop trying to use one size fits all models for trying to improve our health and rather tailor the approach based on the individuals psychology.
For example, if I had a client who was 40 years old morbidly obese, recently been diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia, prescribed several different medications to treat all these health problems, and still had a family to take care of and look after…my approach would be to use a diet based approach.
Why?
First this client is probably highly motivated. He knows that if he can lose this weight he will be able to stop taking all these expensive medications he is buying every month and that he will be able to live long enough to take care of his family and see all his children become adults. Second he really doesn’t have the rest of his life to figure all this nutritional stuff out. He needs to lose weight now and the best way to do this is to create an energy deficit which will require coaching him on specifically what foods and how much of these foods he is allowed to consume.
Conversely, if I also had a 25 year old female who was 50 pounds overweight with no medical conditions or injuries and just wants to be able to walk around in a bikini and feel like a rockstar I will more than likely try to start her on a habit based approach.
In this case for two large reasons.
First this lady is young and she needs to develop a relationship with food that will contribute to long lasting and sustainable results both in her overall health, but also in the way her body appears. Second I have found that women practicing diet based approaches often develop some serious dysfunctional eating patterns specifically, being over restrictive on food intake and/or practicing binge-purge cycles.
You see the approach has to fit the clients situation not the other way around.
These are just a couple of examples of how you could decide on which approach is better than the other. You could also look specifically at each persons level of commitment and motivation in order to select an intervention that fits where that person currently stands in both areas. You could also ask the person or yourself how much success in the past have they had with dieting.
I hope this helps you find a way of approaching nutrition that best fits your needs or the needs of your clients and leads to increased success in the long run.
About the Author
Stevan Freeborn B.Sc. ACSM-CPT is a trainer from Joplin, MO. He trains clients both in person and online. When he isn’t, he enjoys picking up heavy things, crushing trail mix, and being a coffee snob. He would love it if you would connect with him on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter and spend a few minutes getting inside his head at Freeborn Training Systems.
For starters I’ll officially be open for business and taking on new clients at my new spot in Boston. I’ve spent the past few weeks getting my ducks in a row purchasing equipment and getting some semblance of “systems” set in place to help organize things.
A photo posted by Tony Gentilcore (@tonygentilcore) on
It’s like my very own Transformer!
I’ll be updating the website soon to better highlight what services I’ll be offering in Boston, but for now if you’re reading this and wondering to yourself, “huh, I wonder what it would be like to have Tony train me7” you can shoot me an email at: [email protected] (or use the Contact function on the homepage).
UPDATE: actually, you can go HERE for more information.
Also, I’ll be making a cameo appearance at Legacy Strength in Floral Park, NY on Sunday (10/25) to do a 1-day workshop on shoulder shenanigans for a group of personal trainers and coaches. It’ll actually be my first time driving to NYC (and not taking public transportation), so FML.
I am, however, really looking forward to Sunday.
And lastly, speaking of speaking engagements, I’d like to run something past all of you.
Lisa, my wife, is an accomplished psychologist (with a doctorate in Sports Psychology) and she and I have been toying with the idea of offering a 1-day workshop tentatively titled “Kick It Up a Notch.”
[NOTE (slight brag fest): she actually jumped in when I was down in Australia this past March and spoke to the group of trainers/coaches on mindset and how to better communicate with clients. They ate it up. She’s also speaking alongside Artemis Scantalides in a few weeks at the I Am Not Afraid To Lift (Boston) Workshop. There are a handful of spots still available. Hint, hint].
Helping athletes/clients on the physical component is one thing – most trainers and coaches are well prepared for that. However, it’s a whole different ball of wax when mindset and the mental component is thrown into the mix.
What the two of us have been thinking is combining a workshop where I speak to how to progress our clients in the weight room (discussing exercise progressions/regressions, performance on key lifts) and Lisa speaks to how to help our clients with mindset, inner dialogue, and the mental component.
Do you feel there would be ANY interest in something like this?
I do. But I’d like to see if I’m right or if it’s just wishful thinking on my part.
Without further ado, lets get to this week’s list.
Keeping with the “lifting heavy stuff” theme, in this article Greg discusses five common coaching cues with the Big 3 that are often misunderstood or confused.
Lindsay is Dean’s wife, and an accomplished endurance athlete. In this very important post she describes why strength training has been a crucial component to her success as a competitive athlete.
Some Bonus Stuff
1. I’m really excited about the upcoming release of Strength Expert Secrets.featuring the likes of Dan John, Tim Henriques, Matt Kroc, Jordan Syatt, Dean Somerset, Josh Bryant, Bud Jefferies, and me.
As part of the pre-launch you can sign up to receive 8 FREE preview videos of the product. All you need to do is provide your name and email address HERE.
5. Helping to reverse the toxic trend predicated by the mainstream media that women shouldn’t (or worse, can’t) strength train and/or lift appreciable weight.
I’ve tried my best to do my due diligence to fight the good fight and to take on the role as an ambassador who advocates for women to lift heavy things, and to shed light on the absurdity that they should refrain from it.
Posts like THIS (where I pwn Vogue Magazine), THIS (where I speak to the main stream media’s message towards women), THIS (where I highlight a few of my favorite “go to” women’s sources), and THIS (which is hands down the most popular post ever in this history of this site) help to elucidate my thoughts on the topic.
Of course, I’d be remiss not to mention the overall “tone” conveyed by the media in recent years has relented and has gotten a bit less vomit in my mouthish – in no small part to the popularity of CrossFit and sites like Girls Gone Strong.
To speak to that point, recently I let it be known that I left Cressey Sports Performance to pursue other opportunities and that I’m now training people at a small studio space in Boston.
NOTE: I will be updating my services page soon, but if you’re interested in getting more information – where the studio is located, the basic format, what the cost is, as well as the secret handshake involved to get in – shoot me an email (via the contact page).
As such, I’ve had numerous people reach out to discuss working with me, some of which have been those from out of town with future travel plans to Boston.
Today I wanted to share an interaction I’ve had with a woman who lives near the NYC area.
From her first email:
“I’m in desperate need of a trainer. Since July I have tried two different local trainers (Nyack, NY) and I am really not happy – lots of light weights, no emphasis on compound movements (and when I insist we squat, deadlift or bench they never even discuss form/technique with me and just let me do whatever I want).
They tell me things like a body part – even glutes – can only be trained once a week, I should be eating only tilapia, broccoli, and six almonds, and I want to just run screaming out of the gym.”
I wrote back saying how sorry I was she had been having such bad experiences working other trainers and that I hoped I could try to break the trend.
After a few more emails back and forth she sent this gem:
“I still have several sessions with my current trainer which is driving me nuts because he says things like “people – and especially women – can’t build muscle after the age of 40” and I’m 50, building muscle, and really don’t like to hear I can’t do something especially when he has no evidence to back this up.”
I wrote back:
“What’s up with this guy? He’s pretty outdated in his train of thought. Is he living in 1919? Does he expect you to make him a sandwich? No, wait, he still thinks women can’t vote, right?”
Alas, sadly, this is the type of information (and message) that’s being relayed to women from fitness professionals – not all of them – who should know better.
The exchange got me thinking on where many (again, not all) fitness and health professionals go wrong when it comes to women and fitness.
1. Catering the Toxicity In the First Place
You see the messages all the time on magazine covers when you walk through a checkout line at a grocery store, and can’t help but feel saturated by WTF’ness of it all:
“Lose 1o lbs Fast. Without Dieting!”
“Get a Lean and Sexy Figure With These 4 Moves.”
“How To Get Toned for Summer.”
“The New Low-Carb, Guilt Free Diet Food: Sawdust!”
I understand marketing and know full-well that words like “strength, squats, muscle,” and “it’s going to take more than a month of dedicated, consistent, hard work to get the results you want” won’t sell women’s fitness magazines.
But come on: as a fitness professional you should know better than to pander to the BS.
And it’s not only fitness professionals – personal trainers and strength coaches – who are to blame. I’ve heard stories of FEMALE high-school athletic directors and coaches dismissing strength training for their FEMALE athletes because, to quote one of them:
“There isn’t any female-friendly equipment for them to use anyways.”
What the what??????
Mind you this was in reference to a very well equipped high-school weight room that had 6-8 full power racks and platforms.
The “female friendly” equipment she was referring to were treadmills, ellipticals, and pink colored frisbees for all I know.
That’s a hell of a crappy message to be conveying to an entire demographic of impressionable teenagers. The guys can use the squat racks; you ladies should be over there on the cardio equipment.
Chop, chop…off you go!
I for one like to educate my young female athletes and adult woman clients on why strength training is a good thing, and how it can empower them to accomplish many things outside of sports.
Although, admittedly, I prefer to get every woman I train to “buy” into more performance based goals rather than focusing on losing 10 lbs or trying to emulate an unrealistic, photoshopped societal expectation on the cover of a magazine.
It’s amazing how much of a confidence boost and overall sense of accomplishment that arises when a woman I work with finally hits a bodyweight deadlift (for reps), destroys her previous best on push-ups, or can do something as baller as this:
Rather than continuing to pick the scab and telling a female athlete or client what they can’t or shouldn’t be doing based off archaic, out-dated, and overall damaging information regurgitated by a complacent media, why not instead help them to explore the amazing opportunities, autonomy, and empowerment strength training provides?
I dare you.
2. Thinking Women Need To Train Differently In the First Place
Men have boy down there parts.
Women have girl down there parts.
It’s a big difference, but it doesn’t mean that because you have one instead of the other you need to train differently.
Actually, scratch that.
I don’t mean that entirely.
Need and should are two different things.
I don’t feel women need to train differently than men. I mean, the human body is the human body. The female body reacts to progressive overload in much the same way the male body does. And, quite frankly, as a fitness professional, I don’t want to set the expectation that women should train “x” way while men should train in stark contrast to that.
I very much treat the women I train like the guys, and I think most – whether they realize I do this or not – appreciate it.
However, I do feel women should train differently.
What the what???
To put it another way: women should train differently compared to men, at times.
As an example, hormones do play a major role here. When a woman his having her period I can’t hold her to the same (performance) standard compared to other times outside that window. She’s going to feel like garbage (<– for lack of a better term) during this time, and I’ll almost always reduce her training volume to coincide.
Moreover, a lot of research (and anecdotal experience) backs up the notion that women don’t get sore as easily, are less quick to fatigue, can handle more training volume compared to men (maybe due to less overall muscle mass?), and that they can train closer to their 1RM more periodically comparatively speaking as well.
As we like to say in Boston, “how you like dem apples?“9
NOTE: for more information and insight you can check out THIS webinar I recorded last year on the topic.
3. Trying To “Win”
“But I don’t want to get big-and-bulky.”
Whenever I heard a woman say this to me in the past whenever I broached the words squat or deadlift I used to always try to “win” the argument.
Well, first I’d roll my eyes and then jump into a live volcano. And then I’d try to win the argument by countering with something like this:
Mind you, I still LOVE the above commentary, but I have since rescinded this approach to a large degree.
Why?
In large part because it doesn’t work and does nothing to build a meaningful, initial rapport with a prospective (female) client.
Don’t get me wrong: I still play devil’s advocate at times and relay to some that, contrary to popular belief, you won’t grow an Adam’s Apple overnight because you happen to lift something heavier than 50 lbs.
Likewise, I let it be known that saying you’re going to get big and bulky from strength training is like me saying I’m going to win the gold medal in the Olympics because I went out and did some sprints yesterday.
But I digress.
Instead of going on and on about women’s limited testosterone levels and how they’ll never attain the results of elite female bodybuilders, yada yada yada…I steal a page from local Boston-based trainer Lauren Perrault, dig deeper, and ask more questions.
“Why do you feel strength training will make you big and bulky?”
“Is this something that happened in the past?
“What exercise(s) in particular do you feel cause this?”
Maybe their train of thought projects that of a trainer they worked with previously. Maybe they never took the time to learn nor where they shown proper technique. Or, I don’t know, maybe they have a hard time letting go of certain myths and think the Abominable Snowman exists.
Either way…
Sometimes it’s more helpful to take some time to peel back the onion and to ascertain someone’s root cause for thinking they way they do, rather than chastise them out of the gate for the sole purpose of proving them wrong.
Today’s guest post comes courtesy of Thomas Campitelli, a Starting Strength Coach and one of Mark Rippetoe’s lead lecturers for his Starting Strength Seminars.
A Brief Backstory: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away Back in early September, Cressey Sports Performance coach, Tony Bonvechio, wrote THIS article for my site explaining some of CSP’s general philosophies with regards to squatting (and in particular some useful drills to help people squat deeper).
A disagreement followed. An internet scuffle if you will.
(You can read the article then peruse the comments section if you’re curious.)
It seemed some people took issue with Tony’s view on torso angle during a squat. It was interpreted – falsely – that Tony was against a forward lean (which he is not). He, I, and the rest of the CSP staff just prefer that people not fall forward – and “fight” to try to maintain more of an upright torso – when coming out of the hole.
NOTE: much of the fault was my own. I had used a picture – without permission – from a Starting Strength seminar showcasing what I believed to be proper depth for a squat (Tom, the author of the article below took the pic). Given some of the messages in Tony’s article, however, and the fact that Starting Strength takes a slightly different approach (maybe 5-10% different) to the squat, some people were irate. And that’s their prerogative. Upon request I took the picture down, but it did open up the floodgates for a few commenters on what I felt, was a non-issue.
For his part, Thomas chimed in and he and I were able to keep things civil without ad hominem attacks or making fun of each other’s moms.
He offered to write a guest post to elucidate more on his side of the “debate.” I was down with the idea because 1) I’m awesome and 2) I feel it’s important as a fitness professional to stay cognizant of insights or opinions that may not necessarily jive with mine. Too, I feel it’s important to relay good information – whether I agree with it 100% or not – so that people reading can make up their own mind(s).
This is an excellent read.
The Low Bar Squat
The barbell squat is a foundational lift for the acquisition of total body strength. Although the squat can be described as “sitting down and standing up again,” its performance with a heavy weight is both physically and technically challenging.
There are three main variants of the barbell squat: the front squat, the high bar back squat, and the low bar back squat. Leaning over during the low bar squat helps to make the movement more effective. Further, for most purposes and trainees, the low bar squat should be your movement of choice.
Strength is your ability to exert force against an external resistance. It is the most general and fundamental of any human physical or athletic characteristics. Everything you do with your body requires force production at some level and without adequate strength a given physical task cannot be accomplished.
If you wish you train for strength, the movements you choose should embody the following criteria:
Utilization of the most muscle mass possible
Employment of that musculature over the longest effective range of motion
Usage of the heaviest weight you can handle with good form
By combining these elements together, you can become stronger in a way that is unrivaled in its effectiveness.
The low bar squat fully meets these criteria.
Let’s begin the discussion of how to do it.
Where you place the barbell determines a number of things about how you squat, specifically how much you will lean over during the movement. Forward lean in the squat is a misunderstood concept and one that is often equated with poor outcomes–injury, inflexibility, lack of athleticism, and hurt feelings– none of which need actually occur.
Every squat variant utilizes some inclination of the torso with respect to the ground. In the low bar squat, leaning over is fundamental to the movement. It is not a form fault. Instead, it is desirable–an expression of good technique that allows you to meet the criteria above.
To squat a weighted barbell safely, you must be in balance. The center of mass of the barbell and your body’s center of mass must be directly in line with your balance point–the middle of the foot.
If you move the bar down the back so that it sits in the shelf formed between the contracted posterior deltoids and spines of the scapulae, this will affect what you do to stay in balance. To keep the bar over the middle of the foot, you will need to lean over as you descend.
How much you lean over depends upon the relative lengths of your torso, thigh, and lower leg to one another. These relationships, called anthropometry, and how much forward lean is required will vary from lifter to lifter.
If you move the bar about two inches up the back so that it sits on top of the trapezius, as is done with the high bar squat, the amount you need to lean over is less than before. Further, if you move the bar in front of the neck so that it rests on the anterior deltoids, as is done in the front squat, the torso angle is more vertical yet. You cannot lean over very far in a heavy front squat, or you will dump the bar on the ground.
These differences in torso angle affect joint angles and how the muscles must act to produce motion around those joints.
Placing the barbell lower on the back requires an active contraction of the musculature of the upper back and torso to hold it in place. Leaning over on the way down also elongates the adductors, or the groin muscles, and hamstrings in ways the other squat variants do not. Muscles only produce motion around the joints through contraction, or shortening.
If groups of muscles are already shortened, they cannot be as effectively used to extend the hip during the ascent of the squat. Leaning over produces more leverage against hips as the torso acts like a wrench against the hip joint.
In order to maintain the normal anatomical relationships between the vertebrae and avoid flexion, the erector spinae are called into hard isometric contraction. By keeping the pelvis locked in place with respect to the spine and driving the knees out, the forward lean elongates the adductors while preventing the hamstrings from shortening during the descent of the squat. The inclination of the torso required by the low bar squat forces the lifter to utilize the most muscle mass possible.
The bottom of the low bar squat occurs when the adductors become fully elongated. For just about all people, this happens when the crease of the hip descends below the top of the knee cap by approximately one to three inches.
Full depth in a properly done low bar squat is determined not by powerlifting judges, but by anatomy.
Going deeper, such as continuing to descend until the hamstrings touch the calves, will force some of the musculature to relax when performing a low bar squat. The knees will travel further forward, shortening the adductors and hamstrings, or the spine will flex as the pelvis rotates downward.
Perhaps some of both will occur.
In either of those cases, you lose control of your back position and probably your back angle, too. Muscles shorten without moving the weight up and tightness is lost. This violates the first criterion mentioned above. Going too deep in the low bar squat requires some relaxation and therefore prevents the full utilization of the musculature.
Safety and efficiency align perfectly here.
When the muscles do not manipulate the skeletal levers effectively, poor positioning results. Spinal flexion and relaxation under a load are the frequent results. Good technique not only allows you to lift more weight through the recruitment of the most muscle mass, it also keeps you safe.
This is why the second criterion above uses the qualifier “effective” when describing the longest range of motion. You do not want to sacrifice muscular involvement in the squat for a slightly longer range of motion. You need to go below parallel.
Every time.
However, you do not need to touch your hamstrings to your calves if doing so necessitates relaxation and poor positioning.
There are volumes more to say about squatting and low bar squatting in particular. However, this is merely an introduction. Leaning over in the low bar squat is both essential and beneficial.
It allows for the most muscle mass to be used over the longest effective range of motion. This enables the lifter to handle heavier weights and to increase their physical strength both efficiently and safely. Next time you perform a low bar squat, lean over while keeping the bar in balance over the middle of the foot.
You will be doing it right.
About the Author
Thomas Campitelli is a Starting Strength Coach and photographer who lives in Oakland, CA. He is a lecturer and platform coach for Mark Rippetoe’s Starting Strength Seminars and travels throughout the North America and Europe teaching others to lift. When not on the road, he maintains a barbell training practice at CrossFit Oakland where leaning over during the squat is encouraged.
I’m heading to Chicago this weekend to meet up with Dean Somerset for our Complete Shoulder & Hip Workshop.
NOTE: We’ll be in LA the weekend of November 14th (go HERE for more info).
It’s my first time visiting Chicago, and my wife, Lisa, is tagging along. We’re making an extended stay out of it (through early next week) and she’s been busy drumming up an itinerary of places to visit, places to eat, and things to do.
We can’t wait.
Speaking of Chicago, the venue Dean and I are speaking at – Rebell Strength & Conditioning – is located near Wrigley Field, and the Cubs are in the playoffs (score!). Although they’re playing the Mets in NYC this weekend (bummer).
The Red Sox ended their World Series drought back in 2004. I moved to Boston in 2006 and have been fortunate enough to witness the Sox win two more.
The Cubs haven’t won a World Series since 1908 and now, after defeating the St. Louis Cardinals, Vegas has them as the odds on favorite to take home the title in 2015.
I mean Back to the Future II predicted it:
But This is Even Cooler
A good friend of mine, Matt, who was a former professional baseball player that trained and eventually interned at CSP, and who is now living in Chicago while attending medical school posted this the other day.
“I’ve been very lucky to see my fair share of St. Louis Championships (Rams in 2000, Cardinals in 2006,2011) but I’m starting to notice a trend – every city I live in wins or beats a St. Louis team to break their championship/playoff droughts (and generally dominates in all sports)…which means, it’s looking good for the Cubs!
1987- 1 year old Matt watches Minnesota Twins Beat Cardinals for first ever World Series
2000- St. Louis Rams Win Super Bowl
2002- Watch Patriots beat Rams in Super Bowl
2004- (year I move to Boston)- Boston Red Sox Beat Cardinals, break 87 year curse
2004- New England Patriots win Super Bowl
2006- New England Patriots win Super Bowl
2008- Boston Celtics win NBA Championship (first in 22 years)
2011- Boston Bruins win Stanley Cup (first in 39 years)
2013 (move to Chicago) – Chicago Blackhawks win Stanley Cup (beating the St. Louis Blues on their way AND Bruins in Finals)
2015- Chicago Blackhawks win Stanley Cup
2015- Chicago Cubs Beat Cardinals en route to first World Series in 107 years?!?
I’ll be taking moving offers to other championship-less cities if the offer is right!”
He and I see eye to eye on many things training related, and this article is no different. I’m particularly fond of his take on the 1-Arm DB Row.
Also, on an aside: Lee and I are both considering teaming up to produce a podcast in 2016. It’ll mostly be dealing with fitness and training, but he and I are both movie aficionados as well so I’m sure we’ll go a little off tangent in that regard too.
Earlier this year10 I was given an opportunity to sit down with Norwegian strength coach, Eirik Sandvik, and discuss some of my personal philosophies on program design, corrective exercise, and how to coach up some common lower body exercises as part of a larger project to be released down the road.
Here’s the trailer. It’s less than a minute long, but will require 7 seconds before you start salivating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xpruYNqBo
To be honest it’s quite surreal to see my name affiliated alongside so many other outstanding coaches, many of whom I’ve looked up to throughout my career.
I mean come on!
Dan John, Tim Henriques, Josh Bryant, Matt Kroczaleski, Bud Jefferies…can someone please pinch me? It’s a dream right?
And yes, I’m fully aware of irony in that I’m the smallest guy in the line-up. Wait, scratch that. Jordan Syatt is technically smaller…but he’s also like the world’s strongest Hobbit with a 4x bodyweight deadlift.
NOTE: I contacted Jordan a head of time to see if he’d be cool with the Hobbit joke. He LOL’d.
Nevertheless, I know how to get people stronger, moving well, and performing at a higher level and that’s exactly what I cover in my section. Here’s the cover to my DVD.
And my section is only 1/8 of the total package.
Josh Bryant – talks about making serious gains in the bench press.
Dan John – talks about hip movement.
Jordan Syatt – talks about what else, the deadlift.
Matt Kroc – talks about upper body training.
Tim Henriques – breaks down the squat.
Bud Jefferies – discusses unconventional training methods.
Dean Somerset – talks about core training.
And then there’s me. La de freakin da.
Pre-Launch Video Series
This resource isn’t available yet (and it won’t be until January 2016), but in the meantime you can get a sneak peek of ALL the videos (8-10 minutes) FOR FREE.
Everyone likes free stuff.
All you have to do is click the link provided and enter your email address, and you’ll get all eight videos sent to you periodically. The first one is Tim Henriques discussing the squat, and it’s baller.
Screw the conventional, formulaic approach to writing movie reviews.
You know those snazzy, buzzword filled headlines a lot of studios use from various magazine or newspaper reviewers to help promote their movie?
Examples include:
“4 Stars”
“Damon shines!”
“Best space drama since Apollo 13.”
Those are all fine and dandy, if not woefully lame. Here’s what mine would say:
“The Martian is one hour and 44 minutes of Celias for your penis. I had a nerd boner the entire time. And, Damon shines.
Okay, okay…a bit crass. But I defy you to tell me you’re not 100% interested in going to see this movie now. And you should go see it. Because it very much is the best space drama (don’t worry, there still a bunch of action) since Apollo 13.
Based off the book written by author Andy Weir, it’s a miracle this book was ever published much less made into the latest Hollywood blockbuster starring Matt Damon and directed by Ridley mothereffing Scott.
The Martian was first published on Andy Weir’s blog…for free. Egged on by friends and fans of the story he then made the book available on Amazon which could then be downloaded for $1.
And it BLEW up from there.
The story follows astronaut, botanist, engineer, and seminal jokester, Mark Watney (Damon)11, as he attempts to “science the shit out of this planet” after a freak accident results in the rest of his crew leaving him behind thinking he was dead.
Oops.
And so the story unfolds as we follow Mark as he tries to solve a congested number of life threatening issues including but not limited to lack of food, water, any semblance of communication with NASA, and an infinite amount of disco music at his disposal.
Much of the fun is watching him solve each thing with a fervorous “huh, so that’s how you’d grow potatoes on planet with no soil, water, and an average temperature of -81 degrees Fahrenheit” enthusiasm; cool!
Equally as thrilling is watching the higher ups at NASA – Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean (SPOILER ALERT: who’s character doesn’t die for once), Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mackenzie Davis, Kristen Wiig, et. al – debate on how to get him home.
Can they get him home?
And least we forget the crew back on the Hermes – Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Aksel Hennie, and the Winter Soldier himself, Sebastian Stan – who, to no fault of their own, left Watney behind. What the hell is going on through their heads?
It’s smart. It’s set in space. It’s directed, masterfully, by Ridley Scott.
I wrote back:
