Joanne asks me:

What about (insert famous athlete’s name here)’s training program?  It got him/her to such success; shouldn’t we emulate it?

The short answer is no.  The reason?  You couldn’t survive his/her training program.  And even if you could, you might not have the same degree of success.

Shouldn’t we seek to emulate what the best performers do to reap similar yield from our training efforts?  Doesn’t “success leave clues”?

Not always.  Read the definition of survivorship bias and see if you can’t see how it would apply to exercise and fitness.  For every Michael Jordan, there are thousands of wanna-bees who are following the same routine as he is and yielding a fraction of the result.

What could be causing survivorship bias with regard to training programs?  I know I’m going to get flamed for this, but it’s genetics.

Don’t misunderstand me here.   I’m not at all saying that you’re doomed by your genetics; in fact, I’d argue that by maximizing your individual genetic potential you can achieve levels of performance or aesthestics that would floor most people (Bruce Lee is famously quoted as saying, “Circumstances?  Hell, I make circumstances!”).  But what I am saying is that your genetic potential does create a set of boundaries around which you must operate (or suffer the consequences *cue ominous  music).  Your genetics set the rules of the game – and it’s a good idea to play by the rules if you intend to win.

The lesson here is that it’s good to experiment, but nosce te ipsum. If you’re a rank beginner to weightlifting, don’t jump right into Naim Suleymanoglu’s 1995 program.  It’s cliche, but listen to your body – it’ll give you signs as to whether or not you’re progressing properly.

Do you know what the trouble is with looking solely at performance as a method of gauging results?  It’s easy to underestimate the beneficial impact of change.

Imagine, for example, that you’re a professional-level golfer.  Your coach tells you to switch your hand position because it will help to prevent that nasty habit you have of breaking left on wedge shots.   How do you think your swing will be for the next few days/weeks/months?  Yet, if you stick through the learning curve, you’ll likely do better at this year’s Masters.

I’m not talking about variety for variety’s sake, of course.  What I’m alluding to are small changes that cause a slight, immediate dip in performance but pay off big in the end.  It’s probably worth it, for example, for you to learn to pull sumo instead of conventional if you’ve got short legs, even if you’ve been pulling conventional for years.  Similarly, while there’s nothing wrong with keeping the same routine as long as it works, why not try rearranging your workout schedule or exercise order to see if you derive any additional benefit?

How do you optimize results while avoiding the trap of the constant tinkerer?  Make one small change at a time, and give it time to work.

With anything involving a change in technique or skill, do yourself a favor and reduce the weight considerably.  Give yourself two weeks or so to allow the technique to “groove in” and to build back up to an appropriate poundage.  Accept that your results may be a little less than stellar while you work out the kinks and press on.

Of course, if anything hurts, abandon ship.

Are you sticking with the path of foolish consistency?  Or tweaking your workout so often your workout log looks like a map of Middle Earth?  Or neither?   Leave me a comment; I’d like to know.

…when you change up your program.  There’s a simple reason for this:  The most common reason for changing a routine is lack of results.

As an example, say you stop losing fat on a weight loss program, and you change your feeding schedule, your diet composition, your workout frequency, and your training partner.  Assume fat loss resumes.  What caused the change?  Was it because you eat less when you eat 6 meals a day vs. 3 meals?  Was your previous training partner letting you slack off during your leg workouts?  Is the extra (albeit minor) caloric expenditure the thing that tipped the scales in favor of weight loss?

When you change everything, you can’t identify what specifically caused the change (this is the problem with most studies, by the way).  And if you can’t identify what specifically caused the change, you’ll just be guessing when you’re faced with that problem again.

Change just one variable, on the other hand,  and you’ll know whether it works or not.  You can systematically eliminate factors that make no noticeable difference, freeing you up to concentrate on those things that give you the biggest bang for your buck.  And while the process might require a little more time (if you guess wrong the first time), it’s valuable in the long-term, since you won’t have to guess every single time.

There’s one exception to this rule, of course.  Change everything when you’re burned out and you’re ready to give up on exercise forever.

Ever wonder why Election Day is in November?  It turns out that in 1845 (the year the official date was set) most Americans were farmers.  November happens to fall right in between the end of the harvest season and the start of winter.

And why it’s on a Tuesday?  Transportation in 1845 was not by train or bus, but by horse and buggy.  You needed a day to get to the voting station.  So Tuesday it was.

Of course, we’re no longer a primarily agrarian society.  And instead of traveling to vote at the county seat, you can just walk a block to one of many polling stations.  Or you could drive to one in less than five minutes.

And yet, we still vote on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Of course, it’s not just in our election process that we keep doing things due to tradition.  Most martial arts, for example, shun more “traditional” forms of strength and conditioning for improvised, inventive, but mostly wrong exercises, mostly because “that’s how my teacher did it.”  Hey, I’m all for tradition – but let’s embrace technology and progress.

You may want to consider that Sifu used iron rings because he didn’t have access to a barbell.

The underlying problem is resistance to change.  Change is scary.  Change is painful.  But most times, change is necessary for growth and continued progress.

Are you still doing things that worked for you at the beginning of your fitness program but don’t make much sense now?

What things do you do just because you’ve always done them that way?

Happy New Year to everyone!  It’s around this time that 2 types of articles/posts begin to spring up: articles gushing with misguided overenthusiasm about setting New Year’s goals; and overly cynical posts that say something to the effect of “New Year’s goals are so worthless/I don’t believe in New Year’s goals/You’ll just end up quitting in 3 weeks anyway.”

Now, trending towards the former (hey, I am a personal trainer, after all), this much I can admit – the cynics have statistics on their side.  According to a survey by Franklin Covey, 67% of the people who make New Year’s resolutions fail before the end of January.  By Valentine’s Day, that’ll rise to 80%.

Of course, if you’re already a regular gym-goer, this is no news to you – a quick glance around on your February 22nd workout says it all.

Why is the failure rate so high for New Year’s resolutions, and what can you do to improve your chances?

It’s a trick question.  Failure rates are higher for New Year’s resolutions because more folks make them.  Here’s a real life example: ACE is the largest certification organization in the fitness industry.  Their certification test has the highest failure rate of any in the industry.   But it’s also the easiest test in the industry.  The failure rate is highest because the ACE test is taken more often than any other exam (often by the least-qualified applicants).

In other words, there’s nothing inherently treacherous about New Year’s resolutions that make them prone to failure.  But the flipside is that there’s nothing special about them that makes them easier to stick to either.

I still stand by one of my favorite frothy sentiments: If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing today. Got fitness goals worth achieving?  Then don’t wait for New Year’s, or any day.  Start.  Right now.

Posts you may find handy for goal-setting/achieving:

Making Resolutions Stick.

Rethinking Your Workout Plan.

Making Time For Exercise.

As I wrote about in the previous installment, most of the training programs I write for clients are function-based, as opposed to bodypart/muscle group based. I outlined the reasons in my previous post, but for your reference, they are:

1. Form follows function, so train the function to improve form.

2. Peformance is easier to track than aesthetics (which are primarily decided by eating habits).

3. There’s no downside to training functions vs. muscle groups.

The 8 major joint functions I include in a program are:

• Lower body Push
• Lower body Pull
• Upper body Push (vertical)
• Upper body Pull (vertical)
• Upper body Push (horizontal)
• Upper body Pull (horizontal)
• Trunk flexion
• Trunk extension

Sounds nice – if you’re an anatomist, that is. The rest of us need actual exercises. From the above template, I draw upon the following lists of exercises that correspond to the muscle/joint function:

Lower Body Pushes:

• Squat
• Front Squat
• Leg Press
• Supported Step-Up
• Split Squat
• Leg Extension

Lower Body Pull:

• Deadlift
• Stiff-legged deadlift
• Leg Curl
• Glute-Hamstring Raise

Upper Body Horizontal Push:

• Bench Press
• Chest Press
• Incline Press

Upper Body Horizontal Pull:

• Seated Row
• One Armed Row
• Hise Shrug
• Reverse Flye

Upper Body Vertical Push:

• Overhead Press
• Military Press
• Lateral Raise

Upper Body Vertical Pull:

• Chinup/Pullup
• Lat Pulldown
• Pullover

Trunk Flexion:

• Crunch
• Reverse Crunch

Trunk Extension:

• Back hyperextension
• Lumbar extension

Note that these lists aren’t all-inclusive or comprehensive (I could have included cable flyes or dips in the horizontal pushes, for example), but represent my primary choices. Note that in general, I choose multi-joint exercises over single-joint exercises. Multi-joint exercises give you more bang for the buck because they involve more overall muscle in a single exercise than do single joint movements.

Example: Chinups (multi-joint) vs. Biceps Curls (single-joint). Which would you say works more muscle and is more results-producing? Hint: It’s not the biceps curls.

So, what would a sample workout look like? Well, if you did all 8 movements in a single workout, then it could look like this:

• Squat
• Glute-Ham Raise
• Chinups
• Bench Press
• Lateral Raise
• Hise Shrug
• Crunch
• Lumbar Extension

You could also opt to break it up into a two day routine, like this:

Day 1

• Squat
• Bench Press
• Hise Shrug
• Lumbar Extension

Day 2

• Glute-Ham Raise
• Chinups
• Lateral Raise
• Crunch

How do you know what combinations to use? And what about sets and reps? Easy, easy; coming up next…

Over the weekend my friend Andrius asked me about Crossfit, given its popularity among BJJers and mixed martial artists. What I told him (or rather, what I hope I conveyed) amounted to the following:

1. Crossfit has a lot of good things going for it: It promotes athleticism, community, benchmarking, and it’s undeniably fun. They place a huge emphasis on technical mastery and on understanding exercise, nutrition, and physical performance on a deeper level than your average “one more rep” trainer, which is excellent. Certainly has a lot to give for the guy or gal who’s been strength training for a long time and may be getting a little sick and tired of the old “squat-deadlift-bench” thing. And you can’t fault a community that promotes low-carb eating.

2. Crossfit can be dangerous as it incorporates Olympic lifts, ballistic movements, and repeated maximal efforts. Unless you took the time to learn the fundamentals and scaled the workouts properly, you could be in for it. Even experienced Crossfitters, in their zeal for better performances, injure themselves (just check out the Injuries subforum on the Crossfit site).

Their offical mascot is “Pukie the Clown”, for heavens’ sake. This is not an exercise protocol for the faint-hearted.

Admittedly, for a guy who studies BJJ, this is almost akin to talking out of both sides of my mouth. And yes, you can get hurt doing just about anything if you don’t scale properly (like slow-lifting 500 lbs on your first try). Just like the stock market – higher gain, higher risk. And while I don’t think Crossfit is geared towards your average 55 year old overweight, pre-diabetic, sedentary individual, some of them will gravitate towards it – so I think it’s a point worth making.

3. The third – and biggest – misgiving I had about Crossfit is its random programming. Yes, I know Coach Glassman is running microcycles within his macrocycles; yes, I know that the overall framework has an emphasis on improving the glycolytic system; and yes, I can appreciate the metabolic, strength, and strength endurance combinations – but what’s readily apparent to even a casual visitor of the Crossfit site is that the workouts are random, and that’s not good for adaptation (a classic law of exercise science dictates that if training demands are switched around too often, the body resists adaptation – IOW it gets “confused” as to what to adapt to, so it doesn’t).

This is not to imply that Crossfit isn’t useful or doesn’t do anything; obviously it does or it wouldn’t be as widespread as it is. What it does imply is:

• It’s best if you’re an already accomplished athlete with a strong base in strength and sport skill.
• Random programming is less than optimal (in terms of adaptation) than trying to specifically increase a particular aspect of training (strength, endurance, etc.).
• Training to be a jack of all trades makes you a master of none. Which is totally fine if that’s your goal, but lots of folks would be better off specializing, especially beginners.

__________

So brings us to the point of our post – chaos theory. After this discussion with Andrius I thought about Crossfit and how its (seemingly) random workouts reminded me of chaos theory. Most people are familiar with the term chaos theory (systems that look random, but are deterministic). Well, Crossfit is the Mandelbrot set of exercise – seemingly random, but with an overall goal: To train the glycolytic (read: short, intense bursts of energy) system.

Chaos theory is neat to observe, fun to think about, but for the best results in your exercise program, approach attribute improvement with focus. You want to get stronger? Focus on training for strength. Want to get leaner? Eat properly and lift weights. Want to win the Pan Ams? Get yer duff on the mats and lift weights.

Edit (9/3/08): On an unrelated note, someone just sent this article to me. I side with Gray Cook – Crossfit is not necessarily dangerous unless you try to do too much too soon, just the same as any other intense activity.

Well, I promised a program template for a rank beginner, so here it is. By no means is this an end-all, be-all template for exercise – rather, consider it a jumping off point that should be tweaked to your individual concerns.

I don’t think you’ll get any argument over the idea that you need to (at some point) work your entire body. Not only are you preventing injury and discomfort from muscle strength imbalances, but all the girls will laugh at you if you have big biceps and tiny little chicken legs.

There are two main ways to arrange exercises: Body region (or muscle groups), or by function.

Most programs you see will be arranged by muscle groups. “Here’s an exercise for legs. Here’s one for chest,” etc. This is ok and will take you reasonably far, but I tend to think of exercise programs in terms of muscle function. Here’s why:

1. First, cliche as it is, form follows function. Muscles have a job to do, and the most efficient way of improving strength and muscle health is to increase their capacity to do their unique jobs. Without getting into a lot of boring science stuff, the best way to do this is progressively overload them in their most effective lines of pull (the muscle group’s “function”) because in that range muscles can handle the greatest amount of weight with the largest margin of safety.

2. By thinking of function first and not muscle groups, your emphasis is on improving performance, which is a lot easier to track than aesthetics (which largely depend on your efforts at the dinner table). Also, it’s good to be as strong as you look.

3. Last, and certainly not least, by working all the main functions of the body, you work all the major muscle groups. Since time is a strong consideration for most people (read: non-athletes), efficiency is key. Maximum effect for minimum investment.

The main 8 functions I look at for newbies are:

• Lower body Push
• Lower body Pull
• Upper body Push (vertical)
• Upper body Pull (vertical)
• Upper body Push (horizontal)
• Upper body Pull (horizontal)
• Trunk flexion
• Trunk extension

Now, are there more than these 8? Of course. Paul Chek identifies 12 main movement patterns. I choose these 8 because they comprise the main movements most folks need to be “strong all over.” In individual cases, such as athletes with a specific goal or individuals with rehab issues, there will be more than just these 8. Nor must a program consist of at least these 8. If you’ve sustained a severe spinal injury, you may only be able to work with one or two functions pain-free – so be it.

Next we’ll tackle putting exercises into this template and getting ourselves a proper program.

While I contend that short, intense exercise bouts and proper diet are all that are necessary to achieve and maintain health, the idea isn’t original. Jack LaLanne trumpeted this concept 60 years ago (as well as the crazy notion that eating too much sugar would make you fat and eventually kill you).

Here’s the relevant passage:

“He concurs with Jack’s belief that a person only really needs 13-17 minutes of high-intensity exercise every day and that a plan is more important than a lot of fancy equipment (emphasis added).”

I’d contest the “every day” part, but a plan being more important than the equipment? Is it ever.

Look, we’re not reinventing the wheel here, folks. The honest truth: While you can manage your health and fitness activities any way you please (and please, feel justified in doing so), there are several undeniable truths.

• First, muscles are made to move bones.
• Second, muscles move those bones in specific ways (i.e., have a unique job to do).
• Third, the cardiovascular system supports the muscular system.

The conclusions?

1. There’s probably a best way to move an object from point A to point B.
2. There’s probably some value in performing activities that challenge the muscular system.
3. It’s probably best to challenge that muscular system in a manner befitting the actual function(s) of the individual muscle group(s).

My old boss, Bill DeSimone, put it best – “My programs look simple; but boy, the thought I put into them!”

Keep it simple, folks. Basics = Best.

Edit (7/18): Full disclosure – I get no kickback from Bill for linking to his manual. In fact, unless he reads this blog it’s highly likely he doesn’t even know I did it. If you’re a fitness professional or a savant on exercise or biomechanics (or the kind of person who reads Godel, Escher, and Bach for fun), you will find his book valuable (personally, I think it’s Awesome). But be forewarned – it’s more Good Calories, Bad Calories than Body For Life.

Michele asks, “What do you consider the ideal amount of exercise per week?”

Good question. The inevitable follow-up riposte: “What are you looking to do?”

The problem: Ideal for one person’s purpose may not be ideal for another person’s. An ideal program for a 41 year old Olympic swimmer looks a lot different than an ideal program for a 62 year old recreational tennis player. Even if their goals are exactly the same, two individuals can have much different programs (say, Dara Torres and Katie Hoff).

So here’s the short answer – for most people to achieve what they’re looking to achieve (better-looking body, stronger bones and muscles, etc.), they would have to spend anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours per week of actual training time (not chatting, water breaks, lying on the floor gasping for air, etc.), and if pressed, I’d guess closer to 30 minutes, not 2 hours.

All in all, for the average trainee, in order to address all preexisting injuries, main muscle-joint functions, and sundries (tight hamstrings, upper cross syndrome, etc.), maybe an hour a week or so.

It’s important to note that the time spent isn’t important, it’s how that time is spent that’s important.

The literature doesn’t give us a clear cut answer here, so that’s my opinion based on my research and application. Lurking fitness professionals and enthusiasts, what are your thoughts? Post to comments.