Subscribed. Don't have time to chat right now but I'll circle back around soon.

Okay, before commenting specifically to some of the remarks, I shared the article because from my vantage point it seems many people solely concern themselves with the amount of weight lifted. Success and failure are determined by whether or not there's been an increase in load over time. And that's likely stemming from the old thought of, "if you're not stronger at the end of the year, you likely haven't gained any muscle."

In addition, we've had a resurgence of basic strength programming with the likes of Mark Rippetoe bringing back the old 5x5. By and large, I'm on board with that movement. Anyone who's paid any attention to my writing over the years will recognize the fact that I subscribe to down and dirty, basic strength training. That's the nucleus of my most of my programming - for myself and for my clients.

Why?

Well for starters, I think being strong is a huge component of health and functional longevity when applied correctly. I've never met anyone who was worse off because they were stronger. Plus, being stronger allows people to do more work at lower intensity thresholds. I don't know about you, but the guys who can throw around 315 or whatever on bench can generally do metabolic/volume based work with what to most average gym goers will seem like impressive poundage.

Plus, there's the old adage that pure strength work builds denser muscles. Which is why when we see some of these guys who've been successful powerlifters for years diet down, they look rock solid with very dense muscles vs. the more fuller, bloated muscles of some of today's bodybuilders. You'll see some guys make mention that the heavy training of the former promoted primarily myofibrillar hypertrophy and the metabolic/volume based training of the latter promoted primarily sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

I'm not so sure I subscribe to that notion. I'm not sold on the idea that we can have mostly one or the other... I think that both just sort of happen in response to progressive overload and muscular fatigue. I've seen plenty of bodybuilders who've centered their lifting careers around relatively light, volume based training (pump and tone work if you will) who look damn dense if you ask me.

But all in all, I think there's likely a great deal of benefit in terms of physique by focusing some of your training on traditional strength work.

And before going on, when I say traditional strength work, I'm talking the lifting of weights that are heavy relative to the lifter's strength levels. We're talking loads that keep them in the 1-6... maybe as high as 8 rep range.

Most of the people who focus on this style of training emphasize load and the movement of weight - using leverage to their advantage - above all else.

And besides having obvious benefits in physique... it's downright awesome for building strength. But what about optimizing physique? My stance is it shouldn't end with this traditional strength work. Like most things in this game, I tend to shy away from extremes where it's either or. I subscribe to the idea that a little of both (intensity and volume based work) is ideal.

One of the primary reasons I like volume based training... actually let me first put a very loose definition to volume based training.

I'm talking about reps/sets that focus on controlled movement for higher reps per set than we see with strength training. Think 8-15 reps per set. Sometimes you'll see people reserve this sort of training for their isolation stuff like arm and core work. But in my programming it plays a bigger role.

For starters, rather than emphasizing load, it emphasizes tension at the muscle. When we're solely focused on load, we tend to lift the weight at all cost... even if it means reducing the tension at the muscle by speeding up rep speed, contorting your body to gain better leverage, using momentum, etc. When we emphasize tension, we're shifting a lot of the stress to the tissue level - the muscle we're actually trying to make bigger.

If you don't get what I'm saying, and if you've been someone who's only ever worried about load or low to medium reps, take a block of programming and focus on higher rep ranges and deliberate rep execution while focusing on the contraction of the working muscle. It's a whole different kind of stress.

I've found a lot of people are hesitant to do this correctly because they're so brainwashed into chasing more and more weight. To do it correctly requires a reduction in loads lifted. But again, in my own programming, I maintain a segment of pure strength work pretty much always.

Something to keep in mind about volume based training, which I tend to refer to as time under tension training (some of the more familiar folks might know it as accumulation training or hell, even referring to it as bodybuilding training works for me), is the fact that we're seeing some interesting results pop up in research pertaining to lowish load, volume based training. Most notable is the occlusion or blood flow restriction training... but there are other papers highlighting appreciable hypertrophy without the "grind it out" heavy loading.

We know that tension overload is a critical component to hypertrophy signaling. And that can be had by picking a load, heavy or moderate, and getting stronger with it over time. But there's more to the puzzle Some of which is clear to us. Some of which is as clear as mud... but we know something is going on... mostly concerning fatigue.

So yeah, that's my general thinking on the topic. How I specifically apply it depends on a lot of individual factors with the client, their current level of training, their stage in programming, etc. But it can be as simple as throwing in various things such as simply going higher on the reps per set, increasing rep tempo, inserting some rest-pause training (which I love), doing things like drop sets, 1.5 reps, same muscle supersets, etc.

As an example, I might work with an upper/lower split where I'm hitting each twice per week. With upper body training, one day might be intensity based and the second day might be accumulation based. Or maybe one day is intensity based for pushing and accumulation based for pushing and vice versa the next day. Or hell, I even split it up in some of my programming so that one day is vertical intensity and horizontal accumulation and vice versa the second day.

Or I might stage my programming into blocks, so that there's a few weeks of intensity based training followed by a few weeks of accumulation based training.

These are just random examples... there are endless ways of structuring things.

At the end of the day though, I've realized the best results when spreading the type of stress exposure out a bit to cover more bases.

I'm falling asleep at the keyboard here so hopefully I'm still making sense. I'm all ears for continued discussion, questions, etc.

Crossfit comes to mind when talking about reps/time vs form and tension

In terms of application... I'm not a fan. Many of the boxes I've been in have inexperienced coaches having their clients perform Olympic lift variations for time. I wouldn't want to see EXPERIENCED coaches having their clients do lift O-Life variants for time... let alone this.

In addition, crossfit tends to promote this strange variant of volume training that's still about moving load and leverage... even though it's done for time. Yes, there's like more total volume/tension at the muscle level being applied than, say, traditional strength training. But there are much better ways of accomplishing what I'm talking about.

I mean, look at their kipping pullups for example. Tons of momentum there... nothing controlled about it. This sort of movement pattern is bypassing the control and focus on the muscle contraction I'm referring to.

But yes, crossfit is one example of time under tension training. Optimal? Likely not. But it is a variant.

Exactly my thoughts. It seems to sacrafice form/tension in order to complete the exercise in xx time.

Maybe they should have stricter rules about kipping etc...

Well no, I don't think so. While I don't agree with a lot of what crossfit is about... they've become their own unique animal. It's a sport unto itself. Kipping pullups and the other nonsense they do are part of the sport. Crossfit isn't about aesthetics. I wouldn't tell an Olympic lifter to slow down his reps so he can get more controlled time under tension at the muscle level and for those same reasons I wouldn't tell a xfitter to stop kipping and start doing control pullups or chins.

Now that crossfit is an actual sport, the training for it is what it is. The problem I see isn't crossfit failing its users per se. Rather it's its users subscribing to crossfit simply because of the hype... they're applying a training modality that isn't necessarily tailored to their goals and/or training status.

Exactly my thoughts. It seems to sacrafice form/tension in order to complete the exercise in xx time.

Maybe they should have stricter rules about kipping etc...

Well no, I don't think so. While I don't agree with a lot of what crossfit is about... they've become their own unique animal. It's a sport unto itself. Kipping pullups and the other nonsense they do are part of the sport. Crossfit isn't about aesthetics. I wouldn't tell an Olympic lifter to slow down his reps so he can get more controlled time under tension at the muscle level and for those same reasons I wouldn't tell a xfitter to stop kipping and start doing control pullups or chins.

Now that crossfit is an actual sport, the training for it is what it is. The problem I see isn't crossfit failing its users per se. Rather it's its users subscribing to crossfit simply because of the hype... they're applying a training modality that isn't necessarily tailored to their goals and/or training status.

There's a joke or meme that I saw that basically said something to the effect of "Crossfit: Because I want to be the best at exercising" or something to that effect. There's some truth to it, IMO. EDIT: I'm not trying to stir the pot with that comment, just to be clear.

I have some (a lot, I apologize) questions about this article. There was one paragraph at the end that seemed to tie everything together, so I'll pick that one apart:

- "Moving on, a training program that focuses on muscle contraction quality over load quantity is basically a program that is focused on aesthetics."
So, a program focused on quantity does not consider quality? How would one make progressive strength gains if quality of contractions was not a factor?

- "A program that is focused on multiple and weak plane of movement patterns, over the few and strong movement patterns is focused on aesthetics."
It seems like he's saying that a strength-focus directs attention to muscles that are already strong, while aesthetic-focus incorporates weak as well as strong points. If there is a focus on strength, mild or primary, why does that automatically mean weak points will be disregarded in training?

- "A program that is focused on mild rest periods, rather than maximal recovery between sets. A program focused on medium repetition numbers, rather than low numbers to hit high weights."
Is this the "time under tension" Steve was referring to?

- "A program not restricted to barbells as some sort of essential, but rather on any tool that will stimulate the muscle in the plane of movement chosen. A program that appreciates the qualitative assessments the mirror provides instead of the quantitative assessment your log book hides."
I agree with this, because there's no need for a non-strength competitor to rely on such measures.

- "A program that “realizes” the fluctuating nature of maximal strength and provides freedoms within to adapt your stressors to your day to day state."
Shouldn't a person with either focus incorporate this into their training ideology?

The author also mentioned how training with max intensities is not necessary and may cause injury in the long-run. He said, "That risk of injury is higher. Much higher. Because the focus is on an external variable, the quantity of contractions under high load rather than an internal variable, the quality of contractions under ANY load."
Why does a focus on strength cancel out the need to perform movements safely and.... correctly?

I suppose my primary question is why can't there be a focus on both? It seems the author is suggesting you can only have one or the other. Also, somewhat unrelated, but this made me question training methods between bodybuilders and strength competitors. Why do bodybuilders train muscle groups while strength competitors train movements? Is there such thing as the "illusion" of strength? I understand a productive program would incorporate both ideas, but why does it seem like there is such a huge difference in their training considering their apparent conflicting goals?

I'd guess that powerlifters train movements in order to get technically better in those movements. Alot of what makes powerlifters able to lift more weight is about how technically well they perform those movements.

IMHO, that's illustrated even more when olympic lifting. Those moves are highly technical in nature. And w/o technical knowlege of the movement, you won't be lifting that much

Yes, I understand that because that's what they are competing for. I meant concerning the average person interested in strength and aesthetic improvement, why is it one or the other? It seems you either train like a bodybuilder or train like a strength competitor, even though it's clear to me that non-competing peoples benifit from both training methods.

Tagging...

tagging to read later