Structuring training programs off of pre-set percentages has it’s advantages and disadvantages.
For some it provides accountability, structure, a sense of built-in auto-regulation, and I’m pretty sure I read somewhere it increases the likelihood members of the opposite sex1 will want to hang out with you by 413%.
Don’t argue, it’s science.
For others, percentage based training can be a double-edged sword: with loading parameters either too easy or too aggressive for some.
In my latest article over on T-Nation I break things down and and discuss why percentage based training may (or may not) be a good fit for you.
Today’s guest post comes courtesy of Dean Somerset, who’s excellent new resource, High Tensile Strength, is set to be unleashed today to the masses. It’s a 6-month, semi-custom based training program based on how you move, where you need to work the most, and what your specific goals may be.
Even if you’re trying to be Jason Bourne. It’s that good.
Enjoy!
5 Mobility Exercises You’ve Probably Never Done, But Should
Mobility is a simple word with big implications.
In many circles, it determines whether you can progress from a basic exercise to a more advanced exercise. For instance, if you don’t have the ability to actively bring your arms over your head, the chances of doing a solid overhead squat or even overhead press without having some negative compensation through the spine become limited.
There’s also those who say mobility to a specific benchmark is needed to maintain health.
Things like squatting to the floor sound awesome and are a great way to show off for those who have the innate ability to do it, whereas those who might not have the anatomy to get there will be frustrated with their lot in life.
I’ve always viewed mobility a little differently and with a much less extreme “yes/no” kind of ideal:
“How much do you have versus how much do you use?”
Let’s say you can grab your knee and hug it to your chest, but when you have to do a squat you wind up looking like you’re more of a marionette puppet whose strings aren’t quite long enough.
Note From TG: or you can perform and nail this simple “deep squat” assessment from the floor (seen below). But, like Dean said, when you stand up and try to squat without assistance from the floor, you resemble a baby giraffe learning to walk.
This disconnect between where you could get to by hugging your knee to your chest and where you managed to get to when asked to squat means you may have to get some more control over your motion, and maybe not as much time spent doing static stretch or “muscle lengthening” exercises.
This doesn’t mean there’s no use for them, but that the use is not as well spent as others.
So in this vein, I wanted to showcase a few mobility drills that teach how to use a range of motion effectively, while also trying to use as much of it as possible. Some people will have anatomical structures that will allow massive excursions during these movements and some won’t. There isn’t a standard I would want anyone to work to in order to say they’re a sufficient exerciser or good person, but just use as much as you have, and work hard at using it.
Here’s a simple hint to make each of these exercises even more diabolically intense:
Whenever you get to the end of the range of motion, try to contract the muscles pulling it in that direction as hard as possible to try to coax a little more room out of each position. If you find a sticking point in the range, this would be a good point to try those max isometric tension developments.
#1: Rolling Cossacks
This movement works on getting some adductor stretch while also imparting some controlled rotation through internal and external rotation. Considering how overlooked adductors are to general health and function of the hips and knees, they can definitely stand having some direct work once in a while.
#2: Half Kneeling Elastic Thoracic Rotations
This is an active and vertical movement similar to the side lying thoracic rotation.
With most mobility drills, there should be a progression to coming off the floor into a more vertical position so that the usability of that mobility can be more applicable. This movement relies on core control to develop hip and thoracic spine rotation, plus some extension of the spine to accommodate the arm movement.
Try to reach the arm as high as possible and get the biceps as close to the ear as possible.
#3: Standing Hip Circles
These look deceptively simple, but can be massively challenging.
The key here is to make the movement come entirely from the hip socket doing the work. This means keeping the knees locked out and trying to not have any twisting from the hips, side leaning, or any deviation from neutral at all.
#4: 2-Step Kneeling Hip Stretch
This stretch focuses on developing tension into the hip flexors and glutes in reciprocal manner.
When in the half kneeling position, try to get the glute of the down leg to flex hard and drive into the hip flexor without letting the low back extend. When in the pigeon pose on top of the knee, try to drive the knee into the floor to get the glutes to respond to the stretch reflex more effectively. Don’t forget to breathe either.
#5: Shin Box
This is a solid way to start up a workout and work on improving hip internal and external rotation simultaneously.
It’s a simple movement with some excellent carry over into many of the activities you would want to include in your workout, and can be scaled down by simply putting your hands on the ground behind you, and scaled up by doing something like this:
You could even work into something like this if you’re feeling up for it:
To see these exercises, as well as over 200 others in action, pick up Dean’s brand new product, High Tensile Strength.
As noted above, it’s a 6-month training program that’s customizable based off a handful as self-assessments and it focuses on building strength, improving usable mobility, and making everyone feel like a million bucks.
Moreover, the workouts can be taken from the gym to the living room to the hotel room seamlessly, making it one of the most user-friendly and portable programs available.
In addition, and this is something I hope people can (and will) appreciate, Dean took 18 months to brainstorm, build, and hone this program before releasing it.
This isn’t some “quick money grab” project he wrote in 20 days. He put in a lot of work to make it right, and I think it’s his best to date. What’s more, the program is designed for both men AND women and it’s undoubtedly going to help a lot of people and provide a ton of direction in their training.
High Tensile Strength is on sale all this week at 50% off the regular price, and for a 6-month program is a steal!
I’ve been on a “less is better” stick to the basics kick lately with my writing2.
Last week I wrote an article on T-Nation on why I feel “muscle confusion” is wack, and this week I have a new article on BodyBuilding.com with a similar vibe…
…extolling people to make the “classic” moves (squats, deadlifts, rows, presses, etc) a priority, but to also do versions of those lifts to help improve technique.
This image came up when I did a search for “classic exercises” in Google. I thought it was hilarious, and ran with it.
It’s a good article with some solid advice (if I do say so myself3). But I understand if your eyes glaze over. I get it: an article telling you to focus on the basics is about as exciting as watching NASCAR. Or this video:
However, I do offer some neat4 exercises you may find interesting and worth giving a try.
In the realm of fitness and strength & conditioning we’ve all heard the phrase:
“You need to stimulate the muscle to grow, not annihilate it.”
I can’t say I disagree with the sentiment, albeit I do feel it’s a bit reductionist taken at face value. I mean, assuming someone isn’t injured or has a history of injury, most people can train a whole lot harder than they give themselves credit for.
I’ve said it in the past and it bears repeating here:
“Lifting weights isn’t supposed to tickle.”
Furthermore, if you pick the brains of coaches like Alex Viada or Chad Wesley Smith they’d be the first to champion the notion that you should annihilate muscle. Or, to be more fair: do more work. Or to be even more fair: follow a carefully structured, periodized, undulated, (possibly) concurrent plan that fluctuates training stress.
Photo snaked from Greg Nuckols courtesy of Andy Morgan’s site RippedBody.jp.
Those are big words to some people. In non-geek speak all it means is: do more work, but not all the time…smartly.
To quote Pat Davidson:
“I’m a strength coach which means I am a stress manager more than anything else. The only difference between me and your shrink is that I want to dump as much stress on you as I possibly can to see what you can survive. If it doesn’t kill you, it will likely make you stronger.”
That’s about as succinct of a way to describe things as can be put. Any strength coach worth his or her weight in barbells knows most programs written (geared towards strength and performance) should consist of alternating patterns of high stress (whether it be accumulation, intensity or both) with low stress.
You can’t just take the word “annihilate” and implement that mantra 100% of the time and expect to make continued progress. We’re not Terminators. Fatigue will always masks one’s true fitness.
Not into graphs? Me either. They make my head hurt.
Think of it this way: lets say you test your 1RM in the deadlift. 315! Not too shabby you sexy beast. Now, go run a 5K. Don’t ask questions, just do it.
When you finish we’ll immediately re-test your 1RM deadlift.
Do you think you’ll sniff close to 315 lbs again?
Not a chance.
Overtraining?
Fatigue doesn’t mean overtraining. The internet loves to toss out the word overtraining, as if it’s an easy thing to attain. Trust me: you’re not overtrained. Just because you squatted two days in a row or, I don’t know, took a CrossFit class, doesn’t mean you’re overtrained.
You have to go really, really (REALLY!) out of your way to come remotely close to overtraining. To put things into perspective: The Iron Cowboy, James Lawrence, completed 50 triathlons in 50 days (in 50 States) and he wasn’t overtrained. I’m sure he felt like shit, but he wasn’t overtrained.5
Which is why I respect guys like Alex and Chad who prefer to provoke/nudge people to work harder (but smartly) and not be too analytical about everything. That’s the only way to assure adaptation and continued progress (and PRs).
What Does “Smartly” Even Mean, Tony?
Good question.
It can mean a lot of things, but here are some quick, random, bullet-point ideas/points to consider:
1. You’re Not an Elite Athlete (Sorry, I’m not Sorry)
Using James Lawrence as an example or THIS article about how to max out squats everyday, lets take an objective look at things.
I have no issues with squatting everyday, or people who decide to actually do it. In fact, I thought the article was brilliant and had a lot of great and innovative things to say. But, as I remember it a few years ago, within 24-48 hours of the article going live on T-Nation, I received a swarm of emails from random dudes asking me if they thought it would be a good idea if “they too?” should train everyday?
I had to try really hard to resist the urge to throw an ax into my face.
NEWSFLASH: you’re not an elite athlete!!!!!!!
Unless you have 4-6 hours per day to train, and that’s literally all you do, it’s probably not going to be a good fit.
Lets be real: For many people (not all), you read an awesome article, and right then and there, decided it’s “exactly what you needed.”
In theory, it sounds amazing. But here’s the thing – you make the Tin Man look hypermobile. The last time you lifted anything remotely explosively was back when Patrick Swayze was rocking stone washed jeans. And, the last time I checked, you sit in front of a computer for 8-9 hours per day, and actually work for a living.
You have the time for this when?
Listen, I get it, you like to exercise. What’s more, who am I to say that people shouldn’t be enthusiastic to train more often and actually move around a bit more? I encourage that, wholeheartedly!
But come on people – lets not put the cart before the horse.
Actually, scratch that. I’m not opposed to people training (hard) everyday. I mean, there’s definitely a way to do it right and I think that’s what many people should strive for. They just shouldn’t train balls to wall (ovaries to wall?) every single day.
What I don’t agree with, and think is borderline dangerous is when people read an article about ELITE athletes whose sole job is to train – and who have been doing this type of training FOR YEARS– and then run out to their local globo gym, try to be a hero, and hurt themselves the third day in.
Trust me – it will happen.
I swear, I’m going to do a social experiment someday, write an article detailing how running over your right arm with a car repeatedly will somehow increase testosterone levels by 317%, and see how many people email me asking for more info.
NOTE: I like what Bret Contreras had to say on the topic. HERE’s a old(er) blog post he wrote on how to incorporate daily training into the mix.
2. Deadlift Less
Yep, you read that correctly. I just told my reading audience to deadlift less.
What’s next? Me telling everyone to perform more kipping pull-ups? Eat tofu? Admitting I had it all wrong and that Tracy Anderson was right all along: women should avoid lifting anything above 3 lbs. LOLz.
Relax. Deep breaths. Give me a second to explain.
Once you reach a certain level of strength (lets say 2x bodyweight) there’s a point of diminishing returns with regards to deadlifting more than once a week. I’d argue the deadlift is the most “draining” – both physiologically and neurologically – on the body compared to squatting, bench pressing, etc.
Maybe it’s more anecdotal on my end, but I’ve found – through a lot of trial and error – that whenever I deadlift (heavy) more than once per week my body hates me.
Too, I find this to be pretty accurate for most other people.
I’ll often limit “max effort” work (85% + of 1RM) to once every 2-3 weeks for most people. Rarely will I ever have someone hit that level every week.
I will, however, include more speed/technical work into the mix and typically have no qualms implementing this more than once per week. It may look something like this:
Day 1 – Deadlift Cluster
Week 1: 4×4 (70%), one-rep every 15s. Week 2: 3×4 (75%), one rep every 15s. Week 3: 5×2 (80%), one rep every 15s. Week 4: 3×3 (65%), one rep every 15s
I feel many trainees miss the boat in using their own bodyweight as load. Fellow Cressey Sports Performance coach, Greg Robins, is a big fan of including less “mechanical loading” into some programs (including my own) to help stave off “annihilation” and still gain a lot of benefit.
I hit the big lifts pretty hard, and I don’t necessarily need to make myself hate life any further with my accessory work.
Try this:
Bodyweight Bulgarian Split Squats For Time
Week 1: 3 sets of 30s/leg (FML) Week 2: 3 sets of 40s/leg (Seriously, FML). Week 3: 4 sets of 40s/leg (Hahahaha). Week 4: 3 sets of 60s/leg (Kelly Clarkson! Watch the clip below for the reference.)
If you really want to up the ante do the above, but a controlled tempo up and down (2s down, 2s up; 3s down, 3s up).
4. Go For Walk
Totally not kidding.
Casual walks work wonders in terms of recovery. And you don’t need to make this some sort of heavy backpack walking or sled dragging uphill for AMRAP hybrid. Tone it down, killer.
Just walk. Enjoy it.
5. Deload (Volume)
At CSP, we generally “save” week 4 of each program for a deload week. For starters it fits our training model well because each athlete/client gets a new program every month anyways (billing cycle is every four weeks).
While I don’t go out of my way to introduce too many new exercises with beginners – they don’t need a ton of variety – those who have been working with us for a while will usually get a slew of “new stuff” and their ass handed to them in week #1. The deload week prior serves as a way to better “prepare” them for the onslaught inevitably coming.
Generally speaking, on a deload week we deload overall volume, and keep intensity (as a percentage of one’s 1RM) at high level.
NOTE: not to jump into the weeds too far, but going back to the topic of overtraining, if someone does enter that territory, they tend to do so as a result of too much volume and not so much with intensity.
As such we’ll either decrease volume with the MAIN LIFT of the day, but keep intensity up:
Or we may decrease overall volume (tonnage) via reduced accessory work.
And yes, sometimes, we’ll tweak both volume AND intensity. It just depends (typically this is reserved for those in a competitive season. Think: powerlifter).
There are numerous ways to “deload” – OMIT all axial loading for a week, maybe perform a bodypart only split, maybe reduce training days from 4-6x per week, to 3x per week, nothing above 70%, play kickball, I don’t care, you know your clients better than I do – but as whole, I find reducing volume (yet keeping intensity up) bodes well for most people.
Your Turn
The above is in no way an exhaustive list. I could keep going, but I doubt many have made it this far anyways. If you have, 10 points to Gryffindor!
Do you have any thoughts on the topic? Any ways you like to “not annihilate” your body? Share them below.
Whether you refer to it as a circuit, death circuit, METCON, or my preference…a finisher, the goal is one in the same: you spend 10-15 minutes at the end of your training session kicking the living crap out of yourself pushing things, lifting things, throwing things, pulling things, flipping things, or any combination of “things” that will make you hate life.
Simply put: a finisher finishes you. Except in this instance Sub Zero isn’t ripping your spine from your body Mortal Kombat style.
No fatalities here.
For most people, most of the time, a finisher is designed to not tickle and basically serve as a way to post something badass on their Instagram feed.
On one hand, I get it. There’s a sense of accomplishment and bravado that comes with completing a challenging finisher. It’s not for the faint of heart, and I for one will never begrudge someone who goes out of his or her way to work hard and get after it in the gym.
On the flip side, however, I find there’s a rate of diminishing return when the goal of a finisher is to solely make you feel tired or exhausted at the end of a workout.
When you think about it that’s not that hard to do.
As a strength coach and as someone who’s interested in not only improving performance, but also helping people possibly address injuries, postural imbalances, and/or movement deficiencies it behooves me not to be more meticulous in how I design my finishers.
Put another way, I’d rather a finisher do more than just finish you.
In my latest article on BodyBuilding.com I discuss my favorite mode of finisher and offer up THREE different variations for you to tinker with.
“How do you know when to progress an exercise whether it be increasing load or implementing a different exercise altogether?”
This is a question I receive a lot from other trainers and coaches, as well as many of the athletes and clients I work with on a daily basis.
And to be honest there’s no one clear-cut answer. As is the case with any question asked the appropriate response is…it depends.
What do you want for dinner tonight? It depends.
Who are you going to vote for in 2016? It depends.
Where should we go on vacation? It depends.
What do you want to watch tonight on tv? It depends. But if it’s Downton Abbey I’d rather swallow live bees.
The above examples aside, when it comes to anything related to fitness, and especially with regards to exercise and weight selection, the default answer is always…it depends.
There’s a cacophony of factors that need to be considered, including but not limited to one’s training history, experience, injury history, training schedule, equipment availability, work ethic, not to mention any number of specific goals and needs that need to be taken into consideration.
All factor in and play an important role in designing a training program.
Speaking from a generic vantage point I do feel there’s an easy answer to the question.
1. How To Progress Load
Lets use an example I think everyone reading can relate to. Have you ever been working with a certain weight on any exercise and crushed it, only to increase the load 5, 10, maybe 15 lbs. and it seems as if gravity increased tenfold? The weight doesn’t budge. Or if it does it’s infinitely more challenging?
What gives?
Simple.
You haven’t “earned” the right to increase load yet. You haven’t performed enough repetitions at “x” to increase to “y”.
I get it: Progressive overload is KING. It behooves all of us to make a concerted effort to try to increase load (increase sets or reps or both, or decrease rest intervals) – to do more work – each and every week. I think this is a fantastic approach and something many trainees often overlook in lieu of the more sexy or unconventional answer.
It’s not the lack of chains, or bands, or some lost Eastern Bloc Undulated Block Periodization set/rep scheme written in Elvish that’s the reason you’re not getting stronger or making progress.
For whatever reason many people resort to long division or Common Core for the answer when all they needed to do was add 2+2.
Or, in this case…add more weight to the bar.
But even that simple approach will only go so far. And this is what occurs when we add 5-10 lbs. to the bar and it’s as if a giant magnet is underneath the floor.
Stick with the lower weight. Stay there. Own it.
You’re not any less of a human being or the spawn of Satan if you perform an exercise with the same weight for multiple weeks in a row. Life will go on.
For further reading on progressive overload check out my article on BodyBuilding.com on the topic HERE.
2. When to Progress An Exercise?
The answer to this is a little trickier and a bit more murky. Without getting too far into the weeds I find that most trainees (and even worse trainers/coaches) suffer from exercise ADD.
The market is saturated. Walk into any commercial gym and you’re likely to see anywhere from 10-20 head shots of personal trainers near the front desk all highlighting their certifications, education, and how long they’ve been eating Paleo.
Who to choose?
Far be it from me to tell you. While I attempt to answer that question HERE, it’s hard to say with any certainty what you’re getting when you hire a personal trainer. There are plenty who look amazing on paper who end up making people do shit like this:
And this is what I mean when I refer to exercise ADD. Because the market is so saturated many trainers resort to gimmicks and smoke & mirrors (and use buzz words like “functional training” and “core” and “balance”) to separate themselves from the masses.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
The more “gimmicky” and against the grain a trainer appears, sadly, the more attention they get. Goblet squats just aren’t as sexy as whateverthef*ck is being demonstrated above is.
Personal training has become more about entertainment and one-upmanship than getting people results and helping them become more autonomous.
READ: the goal of any trainer should be to educate and make it so their client DOESN’T need their services.
I mean, look at a program like High Performance Handbook (which is representative of many of the programs we write at Cressey Sports Performance). There’s not a ton of variety involved. Yet, people get results.
Of course there are outliers and trainers/coaches who don’t fit into this mold. But those are few and far between. In this day in age “success” is defined by Facebook likes and Twitter followers than it is by experience and being able to actually coach someone through a deadlift.
To that end, to answer the question:
1. Read THIS article by CSP coach, Tony Bonvechio, which gives some insight on how to choose the best accessory exercises.
2. I’d argue most people don’t need as much variety as they think they do. The whole notion of muscle confusion and that you have to switch up exercises every few weeks irritates me. For most people this makes no sense because rarely do they allow themselves enough time to learn and “own” the exercise to be able to perform it efficiently.
Alas, they make very little progress.
I’ve used this analogy before, but with program design (especially when the goal is to get stronger) I think of things as a diamond.
At the bottom are your beginners, and at the top are your advanced and high-level competitive clients/athletes. Neither need a ton of variety in their training.
Beginners need to learn and master the basics – squat, hinge, lunge, push, pull, carry, skip, swing, side-shuffle, etc.
Advanced trainees/athletes need to be concerned with their competitive lifts and/or because they’re so strong, don’t require a ton of variety (or stimulus) to maintain that strength.
In the middle, however, are the intermediates. Not coincidentally this is where most of us (even myself) reside.
It’s here where we can be a little more Willy Wonka(ish) and immerse ourselves in the crazy, zany world of variety.
So in many ways how you “progress” an exercise will be dictated by where someone resides in the diamond.
NOTE: I’ll be covering this very topic in more detail at the Elite Training Workshop here in Boston on Saturday, August 1st.
I’m going to fill you in on a little TG trivia from back in the day. And it’s something I’m not too proud of.
I failed my driver’s license exam…twice.
Yeah, yeah…..ha, ha, ha. Laugh it up.
I deserve it.
I didn’t get my license until I was 18. Which, in hindsight, wasn’t the end of the world because there wasn’t much to do in my hometown in the first place, in good ol’ Groton, NY. Driving down Main St. took all of about 30 seconds, and outside of the local bowling alley the “hang out” spots were the parking lot of the local Sunoco station or any number of various corn fields.
There’s that, and I was pretty much a tool of teenager anyways. My idea of fun was staying at home lifting weights, thumbing through my baseball card collection, or watching 90210.
Chicks loved me.
And it’s not like I was in any hurry to be seen driving around in my parent’s car. Because nothing says “sexy mofo” than a 1992 Chevy minivan. With wood paneling on the side. Holla!
But yeah, I failed my driver’s exam twice. The first time was because, after successfully parallel parking the car (which was/is every teenager’s Mt. Everest), I was then asked to perform a 3-point turn. I put the car in reverse, and then kept it in reverse…and nailed the curb.
Oops. Mulligan?
I don’t even remember what happened the second time. I think it had something to do with failing to use the blinker, following the speed limit, not hitting pedestrians, whatevs.
The third time was the charm, though. I passed with flying colors, and no civil lawsuits were filed.
I’ll tell you what: I prepped my ass off for that third test. I was determined to pass, and I made it my mission to bug my mom every chance I got to let me drive to the store with her. I’d pop in my Tribe Called Quest cassette tape, and off my mom and I went…in the minivan. Like two bosses.
I practiced my parallel parking, made sure my 3-point turns didn’t involve any roadside curbs, and kept my hands on the steering wheel at ten and two o’clock at all times.
I used my past failures as a woefully inept driver to get better and to help prepare myself for future success.
And not to brag or anything, fast forward 20 years later, I can say I’ve never been issued a major traffic ticket (parking tickets don’t count, especially when you live in a large city) or have been in any major accidents6
Moreover, my wife – Lisa – and I survived driving in Australia back in March where everything is ass-backwards.
So What Does Any Of This Have To Do With Anything?
In it, the author, Megan McArdle, discusses why we shouldn’t fear failure or think of it as our enemy. More specifically she describes the concept of “normalcy bias,” which explains why so many people freeze when confronted with a crisis or why once successful companies like General Motors find it so hard to get out of their own way and learn from past mistakes.
Failing, in her opinion, and I agree, is the only way to get better.
Leaving alone the current debate over youth athletics and the “no one gets cut from a team, and everyone gets a trophy” mentality (which is grossly absurd, and a discussion for another time), people often forget that failing is what often builds resiliency.
If everyone wins all the time, or never faces adversity, or always gets the girl…how does that help better prepare him or her to change their ways, adapt, or grow?
It’s doesn’t. It leads to stagnancy, narrow-mindedness, and an inability to not stop sucking.
And that’s unfortunate, because there’s a lot everyone can learn from failing, and learning to fail well. Better yet: there’s a lot everyone can learn from understanding that failing is normal. It’s going to happen. How you interpret and handle it is going to be what helps separate you from the masses.
Take the fitness industry for example.
I can go back and look at programs I’ve written five years ago and chuckle. Actually, cringe. They’re that bad.
I can remember a time when we used the Sleeper Stretch on every baseball player that walked into our facility. We’d test them for GIRD (Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit), and if we saw they presented with it (generally: a lack of internal rotation range of motion), we’d have the athlete implement more Sleeper Stretches into their arm-care routines.
Fast forward a year or two later and we soon came to realize that GIRD was, holy shit balls, a normal adaptation of the throwing shoulder! It’s when there’s a lack of IR in conjunction with a lack of TOTAL ROM where more of a red flag exists.
All those Sleeper Stretches we’d been programming were probably making the issue(s) worse, not better.
We learned from our “failure,” and subsequently overhauled or approach to not only assessing the throwing shoulder, but how we went about programming for our overhead athletes in general.
And this speaks to writing training programs as a whole. I don’t think I’ve ever written a “perfect” program.
I’ll assess someone both statically and dynamically (watching your clients MOVE will give a gulf of information), ask all the relevant questions with regards to training history, injury history, favorite Mutant Ninja Turtle, and then write a program I feel will be the most efficient, effective, and safest way to get them from Point A (sucky) to Point B (less sucky).
Almost always I’ll have to re-arrange stuff, cross things out, or scratch certain drills or exercises from their program altogether. Sometimes stuff works, and sometimes it doesn’t.
Basically, I fail all the time.
But I use those failures to “correct my wrongs,” to learn, to get better, and to hopefully not make those mistakes again down the road.
As you’re reading this I’m either lying out on the beach reading a book, crushing the all-you-can-eat ice cream bar, or not swimming in the ocean.
I hate getting wet. I know, I’m weird.
In any case, I’m in beautiful Nassau, Bahamas, enjoying my honeymoon.
Which is to say: Naaah, nah, nah, nah, naaaaaaaaah.
However, I prepared a head of time (you didn’t think I was going to go a week straight without posting anything did you?) and today I have guest post from my good friend and superhero strength coach, Mike Robertson. His latest DVD set, Physical Preparation 101, was released today (at an unreal discount), and he was kind enough to help fill in for me this week and offer some insight on the concept of program design.
More specifically, some common mistakes many young coaches tend to make.
To give a quick plug: the 12-DVD set is baller, and goes into great detail on Mike’s overall approach to program design. One day covers program design. And another day covers coaching. No shadow puppets.
It’s an amazing resource and something that would be an excellent addition to any coach or trainer looking to take their program design/coaching skills to ninja, nay, Jedi level status.
Enjoy Mikes wisdom!
Writing your first program may be one of the most challenging things you ever do.
The first program I ever wrote was for myself. I’d been training for powerlifting for about a year, and I figured that if I was going to be a great coach (someday!) that I needed to start writing my own programs.
Needless to say, it was quite the experience.
In 17 years of playing organized sports leading up to this point, I had never thrown up in a practice or conditioning practice.
But when you’re banging out four sets of ten squats with a minute rest, and then moving immediately to Bulgarian split-squats right after that, well, things get real – fast!
Over the years, I’ve learned a ton about programming. And while I’ve been fortunate to learn a ton from books, seminars and DVD’s, one of the best things you can do once you have that programming knowledge is to go out and actually fail.
That’s right – you need to make mistakes to get better.
With that being said, here are three common fails I see when coaches first start writing programs.
Programming Fail #1 – Trying to be too “cute”
When you first start writing programs, it’s easy fall into the trap of being “cute.”
You’re throwing in all these random exercises that no one has ever seen before, but hey, it’s on the Internetz so it must be legit!
Instead of being cute, focus on the 80/20 principle, and realize that 80 percent of your training results come from 20 percent of your actual programming.
Dan John uses the analogy of being in prison. If you only had 15-20 minutes to work out each day and wanted to get bigger and stronger, would you spend that time curling your arms into oblivion, or doing something big and basic like bench presses or chin-ups?
So being cute and pulling random exercises and set/rep schemes is obviously a problem. But there’s an even bigger problem that I see now, which leads me to my next point…
Programming Fail #2 – Being too complex with your programming
One of the arts of program design is finding the appropriate program for the person in front of you.
Appropriate is the key word here – when someone is just getting started, you can do just about anything and help him or her get stronger.
Simple programs like 5×5 or 5-3-1 have done this for years. By waving volume and intensity, throwing in deload weeks, and promoting high quality technique, beginning lifters can see gains on programs like these for years.
The goal is to match the program to the lifter. A beginning lifter should follow a beginners program.
An intermediate lifter should follow a more intermediate program.
And an elite lifter needs to bring out the big guns to continue to see success.
I hate to break it to you, but unless your male clients are squatting and deadlifting 2.5x bodyweight, or bench pressing 1.5x their body weight, they’re not advanced.
Part of the problem is that deep down, everyone wants to think they’re advanced.
But really – they’re not.
So why on Earth should they following a triple block, Russian super squat specialization program to take them from 180 to 200?
Go back to basics here. Find the least advanced program you can have them follow, which still creates a positive adaptation.
Doing this not only ensures that they see success now, but for years to come as well.
Programming Fail #3 – Making every program a Mona Lisa
There’s definitely an art and science when it comes to program design.
You need to know the science to write a program that will give the desired training effect, but at the same time, there’s an art in figuring out how to shape and mold the program to the client or athlete standing in front of you.
If you’ve been writing programs for a few years, after a while all your programs start to look very similar.
Maybe there are subtle differences between variables (sets, reps, exercise selection, etc.), but there is a lot of similarity in the bulk of your programs.
Why do you think that is?
Hint: Because a lot of our clients move similarly, and have the same underlying issues!
Furthermore, if you’re writing programs that are rooted in the basics, then you don’t need a ton of variability in a program (especially early-on) to see success.
The analogy that I always use is this: New trainers and coaches want every program to be a Mona Lisa.
They agonize over it, labor over it, and ultimately, what should be a very simple program quickly becomes far too advanced or complex.
Instead, remember that the goal isn’t to spend oodles of time writing a program – but rather, to simply ensure that the program elicits the desired adaptation.
In other words, don’t make a basic fat loss program a Mona Lisa, when it should really be paint-by-numbers!
I think there’s wisdom in making something as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Do what you need to do to get your clients and athletes the results they want, while helping them move and feel better along the way.
At its root, what we do really is that simple.
Summary
As a young or new coach, I made more mistakes in my programming then I care to remember.
However, with trial and error, plus a ton of learning along the way, I’d like to think that what was once a weakness is now one of my ultimate strengths.
If you take nothing else away from this post, do your best to simply make your programs as simple and easy to use as possible.
By doing so, chances are you’ll strip away a lot of the fluff, and end up with a program that’s razor sharp in the results it delivers.
All the best.
Again, Mike’s newest product, Physical Preparation 101, is on SALE ($100 off the regular price) starting TODAY (6/2) and will run through Friday. He’s a coach that even I still learn from and someone I respect a ton, and if you found yourself nodding your head in agreement from reading above, this may be something worth investing in.
I – along with my colleagues Nick Tumminello, Mark Fisher, John Gaglione, and Joy Victoria – will be speaking to undergrad and graduate students (in addition to the event being open to the general public) on a variety of topics ranging from the meaning of life and other existential things like how to survive cafeteria food and nightmare roommates to more pertinent things like deadlifts and assessment.
A wide spectrum to say the least!
Okay, we’re not going to discuss cafeteria food or anything related to the meaning of life. Unless, of course, Mark (Fisher) goes into detail on leotards, ninjas, and unicorns. If that’s the case I’m all ears. The man knows a thing or two about living an epic life.
Our objective is to arm the attendees with some “real life” anecdotes on what it takes to be successful in this industry. For instance Mark will discuss what it takes to build a popular (and very successful) gym – built around culture – in one of the most saturated markets on Earth; the concrete jungle, New York City.
Nick (Tumminello) will discuss some of his secrets to single leg training. John (Gaglione) is going to coach the s*** out of everyone. Joy (Victoria) is going to discuss female fitness and how, to a large degree, it’s marinated in negative commentary and connotations.
And what am I going to discuss?
Plot details of Star Wars VII
How to Prepare For the Zombie Apocalypse
My Man Crush on Mark Fisher
Program Design
Or to be more specific: offering up the basic tools, insight, and inner dialogue young trainers (and old) will need to arm themselves with in order to write effective training programs.
I’m not going to discuss how to break down and/or choose the optimal set/rep schemes for any particular exercise. I’m not going to discuss ideal exercise order. Nor am I going to broach the idea of tempo, rest intervals, super-sets, tri-sets, how many days per week someone should train, or body-part splits vs. full-body vs. upper-lower splits vs. Godzilla.
Why?
Because none of it matters.
At least not for most young trainers anyways. Far too often young, impressionable trainers get too caught up in the minutia of program design. Often to the point where they’re stymied or paralyzed and are unable to think “big picture.”
“It is better to have someone squat past parallel with a 5-1-2 tempo with feet 17 degrees externally rotated; or should I have them deadlift instead using the rest/pause method with 6, no, 7 seconds rest between each set?
Some of you reading may be laughing, but scenarios like what’s described above happens all….the…..time.
Trainers and coaches get too caught up in the methods rather than the means.
One of the BIG ROCK themes I’m going to hammer this weekend is the notion of exercise variability. How much variety to trainees actually need?
We’ve all heard the concept of “muscle confusion” before. To dumb it down to it’s lowest possible dumbness (because, you know, it’s dumb): it can be watered down to the idea that we need to constantly “confuse” the body in order to make progress in the gym.
We need to go out of our way to change up our exercises every so often so that we don’t stagnate and/or lose all our gainz and turn into some catabolic ghost.
Now, before someone gets all huffy and thinks I’m telling everyone that exercise variety is a waste of time, hear me out.
I’m not saying you can’t switch things up every now and then – whether due to a change of goals or sheer boredom. I understand that sometimes we just need to do something different in the gym.
What I can’t stand is when we have trainers telling people that they have to switch up their exercises because the body will get used to them and then they’ll be unable to make any progress.
The human body is not stupid. And, correct me if I’m wrong……people back in the day did just fine with just a barbell. Plenty of people got massive and and in shape with very little variety. I suppose it’s just the nature of the beast when we live in a society where entire conversations take place in 140 characters or less.
Is someone really going to try to make the argument that if we perform back squats for eight straight weeks – and we’re staying cognizant of progressive overload – that the body will somehow stop making progress because there’s not enough variety?
Puh-lease.
Having said that, I do agree with Chad Wesley Smith in that the more advanced someone gets in their training career (I.e, strong) – and especially if they compete – their programming will reflect less variety, because the objective, then, is to hone in on their competitive lifts.
Powerlifters will focus on their competitive lifts: squat, bench press, and deadlift. Their accessory work will address a weakness or technique flaw in those specific lifts.
Weightlifters will focus on their competitive lifts: snatch, clean & jerk; with a healthy dose of front squats, deadlifts, and clean and presses.
CrossFitters, well, they’ll still need to focus on their competitive lifts too. I just don’t know what the hell that is. They’re a bit of an outlier.
In his article, The Pyramid of Strength, Chad notes that the tip of the pyramid is where advanced lifters will live. They won’t need much variety. This SHOULD NOT be interpreted as there is NO variety (there is!). It’s just not as diverse as many are led to believe for advanced lifters.
Yes, they rotate exercise or implement the conjugate method – but if you take a deep look at what their programs look like, for many advanced lifters – especially world class, elite level – they don’t stray too too far from their competitive lifts. Particularly the closer they get to an actual meet day or competition.
Conversely, at the bottom, where the base of the pyramid is wider, this is where most beginners will live.
Here variety is more or less open to interpretation. Using an easy analogy, I find one of the biggest mistakes young athletes make is to concentrate or specialize in ONE sport too soon. I encourage every young kid to play as many sports as possible throughout the year to ensure a more saturated motor learning environment. An environment where there’s no pattern overload and where they can explore new movements and stimuli.
I can see this mentality falling into the strength training side of things as well, but we have to be careful.
Here motor learning is still important and I want to ensure that the BASICS are stressed. Squat pattern, hip hinge, lunge, push-up, core stability, carry, crawl, etc. There’s variety, but it’s still manageable and not crazy. Beginners, for the most part, don’t necessarily need to be too concerned with high bar vs. low bar position on their squat, adding in chains and bands on their deadlifts, or performing board presses to help with their bench lockout.
The pyramid is a great starting point, but I do feel there’s an even better model to emulate, and what I feel is the key to better program design.
The Diamond
This is a concept I believe James “The Thinker” Smith first came up with, and something I heard Greg Robins discuss in the past.
Instead of a pyramid, think of program design as a diamond.
At the bottom are your beginners, and at the top are your advanced and high-level competitive clients/athletes. Neither need a ton of variety in their training.
Beginners need to learn and master the basics.
Advanced trainees/athletes need to be concerned their competitive lifts and/or because they’re so strong, don’t require a ton of variety (or stimulus) to maintain that strength.
In the middle, however, are the intermediates. Not coincidentally this is where most of us (even myself) reside.
It’s here where we can be a little more Willy Wonka(ish) and immerse ourselves in the crazy, zany world of variety.
In this stage we’re past being labelled a beginner – I can hip hinge like a boss, thank you very much – but we’re not where near the advanced level.
Here is where adding in some semblance of variety will come in handy and have more of a place. Here’s where maybe switching up from a low bar position to a high bar position on the squat – to help with staying more upright- can be beneficial. Or maybe adding in chains to work on bar speed?
Here’s where rotating through various deadlift iterations has a place. Maybe your hips come up too fast due to weak quads. If that’s the case, maybe performing some deficit deadlifts will help with that?
Maybe you’re weak off the chest on your bench press. If that’s the case, some dedicated speed/technique work using sub-maximal weight (55-70%) may be in order.
I don’t know: Maybe it’s Thursday and you just want to blast your biceps?
Whatever the case my be, it’s in the middle of the diamond – where intermediate lifters reside – where the concept of “exercise variety” has more applicability and more wiggle room.
For many people walking into a gym can be just as confusing as long division, watching a leaked copy of House of Cards spoken in Mandarin (shit!), or a Lady Gaga outfit. I don’t get it.
Lets put it like this: there are a lot of machines, trinkets, and gadgets in the gym and trying to figure out which “tool” to use for whatever goal can be daunting.
We have barbells, dumbbells, kettlebells, suspension trainers, ab wheels, squat racks, power racks, platforms, specialty bars (trap bar), not to mention a litany of different brands such as Cybex, Hammer Strength, LifeLine, and Swole Patrol (<— not a brand, but it should be).
While nothing is set in stone – besides, only Sith’s deal in absolutes – generally speaking we can “pigeon hole” certain exercise/training equipment into categories to better match with certain goals.
My latest article on BodyBuilding.com better elucidates my thoughts on this topic. Check it out…..
