Bodyweight Training – why, what, when, where, and how?

Posted on November 14, 2011 by Josh

Local Parkour facility Parkour Visions posted this talk of Charlie Moreland discussing bodyweight training.

Great talk!

AND…

I agree with his early assertion – “We can do what you can do, but you can’t do what we can do.”

This is often true, because movement is a skill.

So, if you practice doing the bench press often (laying on your back), you get very good at that movement-skill.

If you practice the progressions Charlie recommends, your nervous system gets much more greatly enriched.

That said, weight training still has its place. I just prefer to limit it.

Weight training has become popular in the past few decades as a way to rapidly change physique.

It also matches up with a cultural tendency to isolate things – we do “isolation” exercises like biceps curls, triceps pushdowns, etc., in much the same way that we isolate ourselves in other ways…

Free weights offer an easy way to “progress.” And, being less demanding on supporting muscles than bodyweight only training can be, it’s often easier to “bulk up” on free-weight programs than on bodyweight programs.

So what’s the best?

For the average person, the best is – diversity of movement.

Yes, I know I’ve discussed the SAID principle at length in this blog. The fact is, that’s true. You get what you train for.

But the average person wants to train for LIFE itself. There’s no “competition” date…or rather, every day is a competition…to feel good, to stay exuberant, to be healthy, to have energy.

There are a zillion ways to approach this, but at this point in life, my favorite is this:

Pick one “classic” barbell exercise: Squat, Deadlift, Clean and Jerk, Snatch, Overhead Press
Pick a few full-range-of-motion bodyweight movements.
Pick one movement practice – dance, martial arts, walking or hiking, climbing, etc.

Do your classic lift twice a week. Day one work up to a 1-3 rep max. Back off and do 2 or 3 sets of 3-6. Wait 72 hours. Do that lift again but do 60% of your 1-rep max, and go for 4 sets of 3 explosive (or, preferably, ballistic) reps.

Do your bodyweight training every day. Mix it up if you want. Stop with gas in the tank.

Do your movement practice every day.

In other words, use weights for “strength training.”

Use your body to move better.

Smolov Intense Mesocycle Day 1

Posted on October 10, 2011 by Josh

Today was day 1 of the Smolov Squat Routine Intense Mesocycle.

This cycle comes after a two week ramp-up, four weeks of four-day-per-week squatting, and then two weeks of speed/power lifting.

Today was a workup to a 5-rep set with 285. Not super difficult, but it was definitely challenging to do that many continuous reps at that weight, having mostly focused on doubles with that sort of weight for the past six weeks.

I also realized that I have to start giving significantly greater rest periods during this portion of the program. 1 or 2 minute rests didn’t cut it today to be able to move FAST.

Smolov Switching Microcycle Week 2 Day 1

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Josh

Today was Smolov’s switching microcycle, week 2 day 1. It consisted of one negative rep with 355 on the back squat. It was surprisingly easy! My legs felt really strong! Form was great and I was in the groove.

For readers who don’t know what the heck I’m talking about, check out my intro post on the Smolov Program.

In short, it’s a Russian back-squat program that uses a percentage of your 1-rep maximum in the back squat to determine which weights to use on which days.

It starts out as an easy three-day-per-week program, then goes to four weeks of four days of squatting per week.

That’s high-volume back-squatting for most people.

But the results of all of that volume are (potentially)
+ huge gains in your back squat 1RM
+ improvement in form/technique
+ overall strength improvement

The caveat is, you have to do it with good form!

Practice back squatting that much with crappy form, and guess what, you get crappy results.

Duh.

Overall strength improvement comes from the general hormonal increase from heavy back-squatting.

As I mention in my first post I really underestimated my total 1RM.

Why? A couple of reasons:

1. My baby boy was just born (YEA!), which makes sleep an uncertain quantity. I knew posting a true 1RM would probably tax me beyond my ability to recover when getting sub-optimal sleep.

2. I hadn’t done any heavy back-squats in about five months. I really wanted to focus on form, “tightness,” and speed.

So far so good!

What Good is Heavy Weightlifting?

Posted on June 21, 2011 by Josh

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an article about Ivan Abadjiev, the one-time director of Bulgaria’s Olympic weightlifting program, who now works out of a weightlifting facility in Danville, CA.

The article points out Abadjiev’s method – “The Bulgarian Method” – of weight training. Train every day, multiple times, working up to maximal attempts each workout.

The article also (sadly) quotes some coaches who wonder whether or not they’re “loading” their athletes enough. I say “sadly” because these guys are strength coaches for athletes who are not Olympic weightlifters.

This goes to a notion that is popular in much of the strength world now that all athletes benefit from Olympic (or heavy) weightlifting.

It’s not true.

As a strength coach, the number one priority* is to understand your athlete’s (or client’s) desired outcome. For an athlete, the outcome must be to perform better than anyone else at their given sport or position. For a client from the general-population, it must be to enrich that person’s movement capacity (in terms both of movement quality/ability/skill and strength) as much as possible.

Heavy weightlifting is not necessarily the answer to either of those outcomes.

Most of what I’ve ever read about Abadjiev and the Bulgarian method says that it was based around the idea that the weightlifter who survived the training protocol would definitely be world-class (simply because they could survive that type of constant high-intensity training).

The most gold medals Bulgaria ever won in an Olympics was in the Summer Games of 1988, with 10. But at least two of those medals (for weightlifters) were stripped when it was discovered that they had been using steroids. (Note – this Olympics was likely more riddled with steroid abuse than any before or since…it is also the Olympics of Ben Johnson’s steroid-boosted record in the 100m). This was the Soviet/Eastern-Bloc’s last hurrah in international competition.

So What Good IS It?
Heavy weightlifting creates a certain response in the human body. “Heavy” lifting usually entails the use and development of the anaerobic lactic and alactic energy systems, the expression of increased levels of growth hormone and testosterone, increased bone and soft-tissue density, and higher nervous system firing rates.

Want to affect those qualities in your body? Lift heavy stuff.

The way you do it will make a difference as well. Heavy-and-fast (best exemplified by Olympic weightlifting) will have significantly different effects from heavy-and-slow (exemplified by the sport of Powerlifting). Both maximally load the body, but one does so in an explosive movement, while the other does so in a “slow” movement.

Heavy lifting and the changes it imparts to the individual can be generally beneficial. They offer greater structural strength and stability, and increased neural drive. But they also demand a lot of dedication and a high amount of recovery.

Mixing heavy weightlifting into a program in a competent way, keeping volume relative to the needs of the individual, is probably generally a good idea. How you do it should be dictated by what you want.

As Buddy Lee says – “Train the way you want to move.”

*The number two priority must be to understand where the client is starting in relation to that desired outcome. And then comes building a measurable plan to get them there…

Squatting and Deadlifting – Mobility and Strength

Posted on February 23, 2010 by Josh

Chris at Conditioning Research posted a great entry about the different benefits of squatting and deadlifting.

What really caught my attention was this quote from Matt Metzgar, taken from a post on his blog:

“Toddlers squat constantly, but it is all “mobility” work. The squats are done for the purposes of movement, not for the purposes of lifting a weight. If a toddler wants to lift a weight, they shift into a deadlift position.”

we all used to do it...what happened?!

The Back Squat

As far as squatting goes, there are a ton of squatting types/forms. What the authors above are talking about is a natural full-squat position, similar to the resting/seated position used by most people in most “undeveloped” countries:

many still do...

The exercise called “the back squat” involves placing a bar across your upper back, and squatting with it. As the authors mention (and Mike Boyle harps on), this can cause injury if proper form isn’t maintained – that is, if you progress too fast in weight.

The body is only as strong as its weakest link, and, in most “modern” people the lower back is a very weak link. When you put that weight on your shoulders, and squat down, if your mobility sucks, you bend forward, and all of that weight goes to your weak link.

Then the weak link breaks.

The “back squat” though, is called the “back squat” not just because you put the weight on your back, but because it is a back exercise. The back squat, traditionally, was thought of more as a strengthener of the back than of the legs. The deadlift, as the authors above mention as well, was traditionally a leg exercise – though not even the “predominant” leg exercise…that was the “front squat.”

The Front Squat

The front squat involves supporting a bar across the front of your shoulders, and squatting with the weight held there.

The front squat usually allows for a much greater range of motion than the back squat, because the weight is ahead of the individual. It also uses the quadriceps much more than the back squat, and can take a lot of the loading off of the lower back, as the back is necessarily kept in a more upright position (to avoid falling over).

This is the squat used in Olympic lifting, where lifters frequently achieve weights in excess of 3 or 4 times their bodyweight. And it uses the “full squat” (“mobility”) position.

The Deadlift

The deadlift was called “The Health Lift” by most writers before 1970. It was considered the single best lift for achieving total body strength. I think it still is.

However, the deadlift has its own problems, which are, or can be, very similar to those encountered in the back squat.

If form is sacrificed in the traditional deadlift, and the lumbar spine rounds, the load, again, is transferred to that spot, and the weakest link goes.

The Goal – Maximal Strength within Proper Technique

The problem with all of these discussions is that they try to make a claim that one exercise is “better” than another. That “better” can mean “builds more strength,” or “is less dangerous,” or “has a higher functional carryover.”

But there is no absolute truth…except, maybe, this:

If you do any exercise with proper technique, to the current limit at which you can sustain proper technique, and progress as you are able, you will be fine.

No exercise is “better” than any other. They’re all good. They all have their time and place.

The problem happens when people try to rush things, and sacrifice technique for “success.”

Sacrificing technique for success = failure.

Write that on your whiteboard.

Some recent lessons

Posted on December 21, 2009 by Josh

I haven’t done a “cookie-cutter” weightlifting program in years. Probably not since I bought Ross Enamait’s excellent book “Never Gymless.” I think that was in 2006.

Since then, I’ve created my own training programs. I’ve vacillated wildly between types of training – weightlifting, bodyweight, o-lifts, Crossfit and Crossfit-style workouts, rings/gymnastics, etc.

Too much stuff!

I feel like I’ve learned some things since then, and figured I’d share some of those lessons.

1. Cookie-cutter programs aren’t all bad. Hell, I and most of my friends learned everything we knew about the gym from magazines, and from trying out programs in those magazines. I still like to try people’s programs, to see how they affect my body. While I might fiddle with them a little, I try to adhere as closely as possible to the program as-is, to see what happens.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll pitch it again, because I think the guy has a ton of integrity. DeFranco’s “Built Like a Badass” program is fantastic. It’s based on the “core lifts” (bench press, deadlift, squat, overhead press), is based around the individual’s current single-rep maximum, and progresses up nicely. I don’t know how it would work with a pure “beginner,” but it’s working great for me. Try it out if you’re looking for something new.

2. Related to the above, I feel more and more like strength is built in the gym, but skill is built on the field of practice. Modern “functional training” has athletes doing a lot of stuff that is not related to strength training in the gym.

3. Strength is best built using the “classic lifts”/”fundamental movement patterns,” and adhering to the guidelines of good form.

4. This is where “functional training” or “corrective exercise” come in. When an individual has a limitation that doesn’t allow them to perform the “classic lifts” or fundamental movement patterns in a way that is biomechanically sound for them, you have to start incorporating the lessons from functional/corrective training methodologies.

5. If the individual’s form is breaking down because the weight is too heavy for them, you have to evaluate the risk/reward equation for them. Is it worth it to possibly get injured in the gym, in order to lift more weight that day? Maybe. Maybe not.

6. There is no “perfect” anything. There’s no “perfect” form. There’s really good form for a particular individual at a particular time. There’s no “perfect” program. There’s a really good program for an individual at that time.

7. Athletes need specificity. The general person needs general movement.

Let me be more clear. When you have specific tasks or demands that you have to accomplish, you have to be very specific with the type, frequency, and intensity of the movements you engage in. When you don’t have anything so specific, you have free reign to do whatever you want to.

That being said, while the athlete’s “skill” training (aside from the “skill” of strength) will be specific to their sport, position, or event, the general gym-goer will benefit from playing more to develop skill.

8. Rhythm is critical to success. As the saying goes, “timing is everything.” I’d make it more specific – “rhythm is everything.” Find the rhythms in your life and synchronize them to your best advantage. Use rhythm in your training, both in terms of programming, and in terms of practice itself – engage in rhythmical movement more frequently.

Ok, that’s all folks…more later. Appreciate any thoughts on the above…

The skill of strength…

Posted on December 21, 2009 by Josh

The first person I ever saw use the phrase “strength is a skill,” was Pavel Tsatsouline. His method of “greasing the groove” – repeating a movement pattern (like a pullup, for instance) very frequently throughout the day, but with very low duration/repetitions – summarizes this idea, and has helped a lot of people achieve levels of strength they thought were impossible.

It struck me today, after my workout, that this is really true, but in a different way than I had understood before.

It seems like the type of strength you practice is a skill. I mean, like a skill, strength is highly specific.

I’ve long been an admirer of Digby and Sale’s SAID Principle – Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand. But I guess I never really felt it in my own training till today.

I started a weightlifting program about a month ago. Specifically, DeFranco’s “Built Like a Badass” program (more on that later). It had been a while since I’d done any regular, scheduled weightlifting. My workouts for the past six months or so have been bodyweight stuff.

Today I was doing some heavy one-arm rows, and realized how different I felt versus the first week of the program. It wasn’t just strength-gain/adaptation. I felt accustomed to the whole thing – the movement pattern, the intensity, the stance, etc. It was something I haven’t felt for a few years…since the last time I did one-arm rows on a regular basis.

I realized that that type of strength was a skill I had stopped practicing.

And I know that when I go back to bodyweight movements, there will be a (re-)learning curve there as well.

Seems like Pavel, Digby, Sales, and everyone else who said it was right…strength is a highly specific skill.

Train within yourself – or – There are no shortcuts

Posted on December 19, 2009 by Josh

When you’re training, anything – martial arts, weightlifting, tae bo, Pilates, etc. - it’s important to train within yourself.

What do I mean by that?

I mean, be fully present in your body, in the experience in the immediate moment. Be as aware as you can of what you’re doing, what’s happening inside your body, and how that is expressing into the environment around you.

But why is that important?

There are a few reasons. The first is, that no real progress is made by ignoring the body. You may see changes, but those changes will be divorced from you, separate. They’ll be ephemeral, unreal.

It’s like Maxwell Maltz says in the book “Psycho-Cybernetics.” He had patients come to him for plastic surgery. After the procedure, once they’d healed, they would all say “Yes, I can see that I look different…but I don’t feel any different.”

They had succeeded in changing their form, but had been divorced from the process of that change.

And that’s where shortcuts come in.

When you train properly, within yourself, as a method of realizing your full potential – as “self-actualization” – there are no shortcuts in that method.

The method of shortcuts, shortcuts you out of the equation. It creates a thing. A thing that is, by definition, not you.

Feel more deeply within. Observe that within interacting with what is “outside.”

For guides, go find a good Autogenic Training program. I’m going to put on one iTunes within the next couple of months. You can buy that one. Or, go get Eckhart Tolle’s book “The Power of Now,” and do it.

The trick is, neither shortcuts nor process matter if you don’t do them. Do nothing…get nothing.

GO!

Goal- or Process-Orientation

Posted on December 11, 2009 by Josh

My response to a reader about my most recent blog post sparked something in my brain. I remembered having read something about the difference between what I referred to as “goal” and “process” orientations.

That is, whether you’re the type of person who likes to focus on the long-term (or short-term) definite goals, or whether you’re the type who likes to focus on the process itself.

Turns out, my terminology was off. Both “types” are goal orientations. That is, there is a “goal” in both cases (though I slightly disagree with this…more about that in a second). The difference is whether you are “outcome” focused, or “process” focused on the path to your goal.

My disagreement with the terminology is this – an “outcome” is a desired end-state. A “goal” is a particular moment/achievement in time. There are ultimately “final outcomes” for both “types,” and different ways of keeping the individual on track toward those outcomes. But one type focuses on finite “goals” to get to their desired outcome, and the other focuses on process.

Now, I will say this – I think that people who are “process” focused are rarely “goal-thinkers.” That is, they are immersed in the flow of the process. They don’t tend to see the big goal as a point-in-space/time.

And definitely not the way what I would call the goal-focused (“outcome-oriented”) people are. Those folks need goals – long-term, short-term, mid-term – to help themselves feel “on track.” The process folks are much more “along for the ride.”

In my experience, everyone is different, and responds predominantly to one or the other of these approaches. Trying to get someone who is goal-oriented to focus on immediate processes is like pulling teeth. Instead, you set smaller, more immediate (mid- and short-term, goals for those people.

Similarly, trying to get a process-person focused on goals is like getting an ADHD kid to focus on building a model airplane. Hard to do, and the results will be less than optimal. Instead, make sure the process person is always checking in with their course of action in reference to a desired end-state (still a goal, but not a permanent, looming object…something that can shift a bit).

A lot of research has been done on these two types of people, and their tendencies in different situations. This paper, in particular, focuses on these two types in conflict situations, stating that:

“Outcome oriented parties tend to focus on positions, often becoming increasingly locked in to one position. Process oriented parties tend to focus on finding the best negotiation strategy to resolve the conflict.”

One of my reasons for writing this post is that it has been a topic of discussion between me and a few friends quite a bit recently. The topic of those conversations has largely had to do with the physical training of clients/students, and ways to get them motivated and keep them on track.

Standard training methodology says you set goals. “I want to bench press 2x bodyweight,” etc. “I want to run a sub 4-second 40.” You set your goal, write it on your forehead, write it on the mirror in the gym, write it on a 3×5 card that you keep in your wallet, write it on your wife and kids, etc. then you go for it.

You “keep your eyes on the prize,” as they say. Stay focused on the goal.

But I think something, or several things, get lost with this approach.

The goal-focused lose track, oftentimes, of how their body is actually feeling. They’re so focused on the end-state that they forget to check in. They go too hard, too fast. They break down. The process folks can, sometimes, be the opposite.

I might even classify these orientations by the types of activities the person chooses. Most goal-oriented folks are hard-driven. They prefer competitive environments, sport leagues, and all-out-effort activities. Process-oriented folks tend to prefer cooperative environments, group/community settings, and longer/slower activities.

However, the goal-orientation tends to be more of a finite-game player. That is, they tend to play to win. Process-oriented people, in my experience, are much more infinite-game players. They tend to play to keep playing.

The question, ultimately, is how to manage both types of person, and whether or not it’s in the interest of anyone to try to change a person from one type of orientation to another.

I’ll leave that up to you.

Look Within

Posted on November 21, 2009 by Josh

Everyone who comes to see me, who comes to train with me, wants me to record numbers.

They want to record their weight. Their bodyfat level. Their heart rate. Their VO2max.

They want me to record the weights they use. The number of repetitions. Their speed.

And that’s fine. I’m happy to oblige.

But I’m not always happy with what lies beneath those requests.

When I’m unhappy about it, it’s because my clients are looking only at their numbers. They’re succumbing to the externally-focused drive of our culture. They’re looking at magazine cover-models, movie stars, their neighbors and friends, or anything other than their own bodies.

It’s fine to track your progress with different measures. However, the primary concern of anyone engaging in an exercise program should be to become more who they are. To be more in their own body – to learn how to move, to build strength, and to feel the full measure of that strength-in-movement within.

When a month has gone by, and the weight on the scale has gone up, it’s usually because relatively heavier muscle is replacing relatively lighter fat in the body.

But the externally-focused individual just sees the higher number. And that blocks them from feeling themselves what the effects of the exercise have been. Do you feel thinner, more fit, happier? Do your clothes fit more loosely (or more tightly, in new areas, like the shoulders and thighs, perhaps)?

The other thing that happens is that people become fixated on strength goals. “I want to bench press 315.” Ok, great. What happens when you plateau at 285 for a few weeks?

The externally-driven person will tend to want to push past this plateau, instead of allowing what the body actually needs at this point – more time.

There are many methods for getting past plateau’s – focusing on the eccentric (lengthening) portion of the movement, doing partial reps, overspeed/power work, etc.

But usually, what the body needs when it hits a plateau (that is, if you’re still applying the same level of mental intensity to your lifting), is some time to accommodate to that load. The plateau is your body speaking to you. It’s saying “give me eight or ten weeks at this load,” “play with this weight for a while,” or even “back off.”

If all you can hear in your head is a number (315), you won’t be able to hear that voice, telling you what you really need to be doing.

This tendency is cultural. We put the Type A personality on a pedestal in this country. To our own detriment. It is also a choice. You do not have to push things all of the time. You can choose to slow down and listen.

However, that’s extremely difficult, because everything around you says you should push.

The tendency for people to constantly quote scientific research to support their claims, and the equally damaging tendency to believe people who do that, is another example of this external-focus.

Science is based on the law of averages. It is not concerned with the individual. And you are an individual. You are not an average. Nor are you average.

First, listen to yourself.