InPart I, The Truth About Quickness Author Kelly Baggett and I discussed his unique background, the importance of perspective, and common mistakes performance enhancement specialists (not to be confused with "strength and conditioning specialists") make. We began to touch on the topic of testing athletes, so let's pick up where we left off.
EC: With optimal testing frequency down, let's cover the tests themselves. Which tests are good? Which ones are outdated?
KB: Any test that gets an athlete injured is obviously no good. For this reason there are times (e.g. inexperienced athlete) when it can be counterproductive to perform certain tests like low-rep squats, bench presses, etc. Any test can be improved with practice and I really like tests that don't require much if any practice. Now, for specific tests I really don't like the 225 max reps test for obvious reasons. There is also too much emphasis on a 40-yard dash. I like the test itself but don't like how coaches give so many points based on a player's "40." Agility tests are useful but they can also be improved dramatically with practice and are pre-rehearsed, so they aren't always accurate. Statistical data shows the only test the NFL uses that has much reliable correlation to playing ability is the vertical jump test. Interestingly, it would also seem to be the least "football specific" of all these tests. I'm also all for certain postural tests, length-tension assessments, and the like because these will go a long way in eliminating injuries, optimizing movement efficiency, and helping everything run smoother from the ground up.
EC: New tests that you have to introduce? I know you and I are both are big proponents of the vertical jump vs. counter movement jump comparison. Any others?
KB: When it comes to using tests to determine training focus, the vertical jump with and without counter movement is useful to determine strength functions. As an extension of the one you mentioned, try this: sit back on a chair in a ¼ squat and jump up and then compare this to your regular down-and-up jump. If the difference is less than 10%, it indicates that you rely on more pure muscular explosive strength and need plyometric/reactive work. If the difference is greater than 30%, it indicates you need more muscular/explosive strength because you rely largely on the reflexive/plyometric effect. This test is okay, but I still prefer a reactive jump test. The chair version will often give false results because people simply aren't used to jumping from a pure standstill. If I was only able to use one test to indicate ones optimal training focus, strengths, and weaknesses, I'd use the reactive jump test because it tells so much. Not only are the results important in terms of jumping, but they can also be carried over to sprinting, agility, and multiple sports movements. I ran across it in some writings by Schmidbleicher and am surprised that it hasn?t been used more. I've been using it for a year and a half now, and it is very effective; DB Hammer is a true master of testing and finding athletes' weaknesses and he also uses a version of this test but with a specialized reactive jump pad that measures the amortization phase. It's a nice addition, but most aren't going to have access to it and it's not really necessary anyway. The test enables you to gradually increase plyometric contribution and see how the body responds.
EC: For our readers who aren't familiar with the VJ vs. CMJ test, how about tossing out a brief outline?
KB: No problem. Generally, when reactive ability is good, the amount of energy that you put out in a movement will be directly proportional to the energy you take in. So, if you absorb more force, you develop more force. What you do on the reactive jump test is measure how much force you take in and compare this to how much power you put out. First, measure a regular down-and-up jump. Then, you use boxes and starting from around 12-inches perform a depth jump. Step off the box, jump as high as possible when you hit the ground and measure the height you jump. If it's less than your regular VJ, you can stop there because it's obvious you are lacking in reactive ability. Your ability to absorb negative force and transfer it into positive power is lacking. You'll want to start using reactive and power training immediately; altitude landings would also be good for training your system to better absorb force. Once you become proficient, you then just follow the altitude landings up with reactive jumps.
Now, if your 12-inch reactive jump was better than your VJ, you keep increasing the height of the box in 6-inch increments until you find where your reactive jump drops below your vertical jump. The greater the height of the box when you reach that point, the greater the reactive ability. For some, there will be a gradual increase with each increase in box height. They may find their best jump comes off a 30 -inch box or better. These people are very plyometrically efficient so they need to emphasize muscular strength and hypertrophy to create more resources they can draw from in a plyometric movement - and nearly all sports movements are plyometric dominant. The test also will establish the optimal height of the box one should use for depth jumps; simply use the box that gives you the best reactive jump height.
EC: This test also underscores the importance of postural assessments and seeking connections between different tests. If someone has dysfunction at the subtalar joint, it won't matter if they have potential for excellent plyometric abilities at the plantarflexors, knee extensors, and hip extensors. If they're excessively pronating, they'll cushion the shock too well, spending a lot of time on the ground because they can't switch over to supination, which provides a firm base for propulsion. They'll probably wind up with plantar fasciitis, an ACL tear, patellofemoral dysfunction, hip or lower back pain, or sacroiliac dysfunction. You can do power and explosive training until you're blue in the face, but unless you correct the underlying problem with orthotics or specific stretching and strengthening interventions, the exercises to make an athlete proficient will really only make them deficient: injured. Likewise, if someone has excessive supination, they'll be fine with the propulsion aspect, but won't be able to cushion landings well at all. These individuals will wind up with lots of lateral ankle sprains, iliotibial band friction syndrome, pain deep to the kneecap, or problems in the lower back and hip. They're easily spotted, as they don't get immediate knee flexion when upon landing. Again, corrective exercise initiatives have to precede corrective initiatives! Just my little aside; I couldn't keep my mouth shut for this entire interview! Where were we? Oh yeah - any more tests?
KB: Let's see...another test that I like to use is the speed rep test; this can easily be implemented for the squat and bench press. You want to be able to explosively and quickly move a load that is fairly close to your limit strength so that you stay to the left on the force/time curve. Instead of basing your explosive training off of percentages you base it on the time it takes you to complete your reps. You simply try to get one rep for every second. You can go two reps in two seconds, three reps in three seconds, or five reps in five seconds. The percentages will vary among athletes, but I like to see bench press numbers up around 65-70%, achieving five reps in five seconds. The squat should be up around 55-60%.
The higher the percentage weight you use relative to your 1RM, the faster you are and the more of your max strength you'll be able to use in a short sports movement.
The converse is also true; the lower the percentage relative to your 1RM, the slower you are. You want to gradually push up your max numbers while maintaining or improving the % of your maximum you can move quickly. If you're up around 70% for bench press, it's time to focus more on pure strength. If you're down around 50%, you need more speed. I should also note that it's not absolutely necessary to know your 1RMs for these tests. Very simply, the more you increase the weight you can use for this one rep per second explosive training protocol, the more explosive you will be in your sport.
EC: Good stuff. I know you've got some excellent points on 1RMs; care to enlighten our readers?
KB: Sure. For 1RMs, one thing I've picked up from Buchenholz is to look at the time it takes to complete the lift instead of just analyzing the weight lifted. There is a reason why so many people are divided on whether a maximal squat will transfer to added speed or power. It's because the time it takes you to complete a maximal squat is much more relevant to sport transfer; those who achieve their 1RMs with great speed tend to have greater carryover of pure strength into sport than those who lift slower. Watch the guys who naturally lift a max load fast and compare their athletic abilities to those who lift slowly and you'll see what I mean.
To give you an idea, Fred Hatfield completed his former world record 1014 lb. squat from start to finish in under 3 seconds! That's what you call being explosive with a high percentage of your limit strength. I'm not saying that the squat is the best activity to directly transfer to a jump, but it's no wonder that he (at one time) had a vertical jump around 40 inches without any specific training for it! A guy who can complete a true 1RM bench or squat in around four seconds or less from start to finish will often be able to train with more heavy strength training and hypertrophy work and get a good sport carryover. A guy who takes seven seconds or more to complete a 1RM attempt is too slow when applying his maximal strength to get much carryover. Even though he may be very strong, it doesn't matter - nearly all sports movements are quick. He'll need to back off on the heavy stuff and work on rate of force development (RFD) and reactive ability so that he can use a given percentage of his absolute force capabilities quicker. The test to which I just alluded is also useful because it will automatically encourage athletes psychologically to explode more in any of their lifts because they'll realize how important rep speed is. You just have to be careful people aren't going to try to go too fast, increasing the likelihood of injury.
EC: Any norms for these tests? What do you typically find?
KB: What is interesting about this is that the majority of genetically gifted professional and upper level collegiate athletes are going to fit into the first - naturally more explosive - group. In other words, basic heavy training will work for them - which is what most programs are focused on. What about the guys who are in the other group, though? What if they have to be thrown in on the same program with all the other guys? Unfortunately, they probably won't make optimal progress on the same plan. They need something designed to optimize their attributes and overcome their deficiencies. This is what I meant when I said that we'll see better athletes in all sports as the body of knowledge on training increases. Instead of arguing about basic heavy weights vs. Olympic lifts etc., more strength and conditioning coaches will understand what the best plan is for any given individual or group and train them accordingly. Toss preconceived notions and prejudices out the window and let the athlete be your guide.
EC: Optimize attributes and overcome deficiencies? Ubiquitous intelligent strength coaches? You're a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, aren't you Kelly? I mean, honestly, no arguments in the field of strength and conditioning? I can't decide if it would be a good thing because it'll quiet down all the HIT Jedis, or a bad thing because it means we won't be able to torture on them any more. While I search for answers, feel free to tell our audience about any other tests you use.
KB: When it comes to speed and finding the right training focus, it's useful is to look at split times. During the start of a sprint - especially for the first 20-30 yards - relative body strength is key. After the initial acceleration period, reactivity becomes dominant, so it's important to find where in the race the athlete is weak. Someone who has a strong start but weak finish is likely strong, but is trying to muscle his sprinting stride. His hips may drop and he'll be unable to run smoothly, allowing his hips and hamstrings to contract reflexively. It could be that his heavy training is getting in the way of relaxation and messing up his reflexive ability. For example, if someone has a 1.4 second 10 yard-dash, but only a 4.9 40, it's pretty obvious that he's explosive and strong. However, when reactive ability takes over, he suffers. He needs more speed work - either through flying runs, longer sprints, or quick action plyometric drills - where relaxation and reflexive action is key. If a guy is fast over the second half of a timed split but has a slow start and acceleration, he just needs to emphasize basic relative strength and explosiveness.
EC: As a kinesiology and biomechanics dork, I have to ask: how about actual movement analysis?
KB: Instead of evaluating posterior chain strength in the weight room and flexibility with static stretches, just watch how an athlete runs and moves. Is he getting triple extension of the ankles, knees, and hips with each stride, or is he chopping his stride short? This can indicate weak hamstrings or a flexibility or postural issue. Often, there is also a poor correlation between posterior chain strength demonstrated in the weight room and function of the posterior chain during a sprint, so you have to look at function instead of just numbers. If the function isn't there but the strength is, you?ll need to cut back on the weight work and focus more on things closely related to the specific activity.
EC: Let's talk about the future of sports training. What do you think are the biggest issues on this front, and what can we expect to see in the years to come?
KB: I think that the controversy over manufacturing athletes vs. letting nature do all the work will become even more of an issue than it already is. It's obvious that the U.S. is falling behind and it's readily evident by the number of what one could call naturally physically inferior European NBA players in the NBA now. It's getting to a point where the athletes born with the ability aren't the only ones who succeed, although that's pretty much the way it's always been.
EC: You gotta' love the Larry Birds of the world; they do a great job of throwing wrenches in the model for the perfect athlete on paper. That's not to say that we can't make every athlete better with proper training, though.
KB: I agree; with improved training methods, you'll see a lot more athletes with inferior physiques and skills (at least initially) make it to the top. The level of training will rise up so that someone who is born without any great physical abilities will be able to improve his abilities above and beyond someone who is born with them but doesn't work at it.
Now, we have all these sports performance centers popping up across the US. I feel that's a good thing but they, of course, require money. The people who are able to take advantage of places like these will be well ahead of the guys who just have a school program. This will become even more apparent in the coming years, especially as the people running these places get even better at their jobs. I think Shaq said it best a few years ago; he may have been joking, but I don't know. When asked how he saw the NBA in ten years, he responded, "They'll be a bunch of white guys who can run and dunk as well as shoot!" We'll just have to wait and see?
EC: Definitely. Okay, time for a little change of pace. We've focused on performance-based training exclusively thus far, but I know you have some insights regarding how to effecting positive changes in body composition and even bodybuilding-oriented training and nutrition tactics. The floor is yours...
KB: Bodybuilders and those interested in physique enhancement need to learn how to better work from the inside out rather than the outside in. Hormones are always going to be at least, if not more important than external initiatives with exercise and diet when it comes to determining what happens with our body composition (muscle gain and fat loss). Any male will put on a good 40 lbs of muscle without doing anything when he goes through puberty. The reverse will also gradually occur with age; that's just how powerful the hormonal effect is. True, we can influence our hormonal state and internal chemistry by what we do, but people interested in the best gains of their life need to learn exactly what is going on inside them and how to best influence everything through diet and exercise to mimic as close as possible that natural hormonal growth surge. In other words, they must learn to optimize their internal chemistry so that fat will melt off or muscle will go on in slabs.
Contributors from science and real world-based information sources are really advancing what we know about physical change related internal chemistry: how hormones affect us, what we can do to change certain signals, etc. Up until now, the only approach was to do a few things right and hope everything fell into place. Simply stated: eat like a horse and train heavy, or starve and eat a low calorie diet to lose fat - or load yourself up on steroids and a host of other drugs. Those approaches definitely work and will always work, but I feel they're getting outdated.
For example, when it comes to fat loss and stress, leptin has been touted as the major controller of all things related to bodyfat and bodyfat setpoint over the past few years. I believe that the function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and the stress response is as important, if not more important than leptin. The HPA axis and related central controls will largely dictate partitioning of nutrients, thyroid levels, androgen levels, and overall anabolism/catabolism. We know about too much stress and its effects on cortisol, but it's important to remember that having a lowered response to stress can be just as problematic as having too much. There's no doubt in my mind that methods to more optimally manipulate all these central controls will become very popular in the next couple of years
EC: It speaks volumes for knowing something about everything. It's not enough to be a strength coach that only understands training; you have to be up-to-date on nutrition, endocrinology, anatomy, biomechanics, rehabilitation, supplementation, motivation, equipment, and how they all are interrelated. There aren't many coaches out there that are that good, but you're definitely one of them, Kelly. Thanks for your time.
KB: No problem; thanks for having me!
EC: For more information on Kelly, check out the outstanding product he and Alex Maroko created, The Truth About Quickness.
Today, we have an interview with Kelly Baggett, co-author of The Truth About Quickness. Kelly's one of the brightest guys in the field of strength and conditioning - but I don't need to tell you that, as you'll get the picture very clearly just by reading the interview below. Check it out!
EC: Thanks for taking the time to talk shop with me, Kelly. Tell me a little bit about yourself; I don't want our readers to think that I just pulled some lunatic off the street for an interview in order to get an article in on time.
KB: I'm 30 years old and work as a performance enhancement specialist with individuals and coaches of all levels, setting up training, nutrition, and supplementation programs to optimize their progress. I've been fortunate to work in many aspects of the fitness, health, and sports training industry since the age of 18. My passion for these fields isn't limited to team sports; rather, it also includes bodybuilding, which, because of the emphasis on body composition management, has enabled me to pick up many things related to nutrition and apply them to the sports training world. I've pretty much always been into one sport or another; at one time or another over the last 20 years, I've been involved in motocross, baseball, football, basketball, bodybuilding, powerlifting, Olympic lifting, martial arts, boxing, and gymnastics. Now that I think about it - pretty much every sport except for golf!
EC: Yeah, I usually get bored after about five holes, too; there needs to be more violence, cheerleaders, and swearing...but I digress. What were the roots of your passions?
KB: I've always been partial to the speed and power dominant sports, but in spite of my yearning to be a great athlete, I really struggled as a youngster. Not only was I very small, but I was also really slow: these two qualities don't add up to much! I grew up with a lot of desire for developing the attributes of superior athleticism and plenty of curiosity and dedication to figure out how best to get the job done. These attributes, of course, include qualities like strength, size, speed, power, agility, quick feet, and, of course, "the look." With consistent training, my own athletic attributes really took off and I knew I was onto something. Fortunately, because of the environments in which I've worked, I've been able to apply the knowledge and experience I've gained toward helping others reach their goals. Nonetheless, I realize this is still the very beginning; right now, we're really just getting started with what can be done. When we look at strength and conditioning fifteen years from now, we'll be amazed at just how far we've come; I just want to do my part and contribute to this advancement as much as I can.
EC: One of the things that I've always admired about you is your willingness to think outside the box. Where did this unique perspective originate?
KB: It's funny that you'd use the phrase "think outside the box," as I hear that quite a bit; a lot of people comment that I seem to dig up answers from all over the place. When it comes to figuring things out, I probably do tend to stray from the more chosen paths. I guess you could say my overall approach of thinking was solidified by some things I've experienced personally. I developed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at the age of 25 and was basically told that I would be fortunate if I could walk in a few years. The commonly accepted treatment options for RA are drugs with harsh side effects like medications used during chemotherapy treatment and prednisone: drugs that I would have had to take for the rest of my life to help slow the progression of the disease. Based on what I observed and heard from others, the drugs didn't work consistently and the side effects were harsh. So, I decided to take my own path, which led me to explore alternative treatment options and develop an understanding of the disease in order to treat it holistically. To make a long story short (I have definitely had my fair share of struggles), I've never touched any common prescription medications for RA and am stronger now then I was 25. I pretty much carry that mindset into everything I learn and do; I feel that you can learn from anyone or any situation if you just keep an open mind. When you learn something, you have to immerse yourself in it fully. However, to really take advantage of the information and advance, you must back out and look at things from the outside-in, asking yourself, "How can I best use this and is this really the best way to accomplish my objective?" I'm all for science, but I prefer to start backwards; in other words, how can real world observations be explained by science?
EC: That's a perspective that I'd like to see a lot of people in the strength and conditioning industry adopt. All too often, strength and conditioning coaches are afraid to try something new and, as a result, wind up making the same mistakes year after year with different athletes. For instance, I'm amazed at how many people still think that boatloads of boring, steady-state aerobic exercise and a low-fat diet are the best ways to lose fat. All these athletes do is become weak, tired, sick, and apathetic with compromised endocrine status.
KB: I agree; conditioning for athletes is a very common area of ignorance in today's coaches. Too many coaches and athletes try to make up for poor diet by running their guy into the ground with conditioning. Not enough attention is paid to diet, and I feel not enough coaches are well versed in dietary approaches. Physically, someone like David Boston, although probably too extreme, is a good example of what can be accomplished with excellent combinations of each - training and diet.
EC: While we're on the topic, what do you think are the most prominent errors that strength and conditioning coaches make?
KB: Before I get to the errors themselves, we ought to reconsider the use of the term "strength and conditioning," coach, which I feel would be better renamed "performance enhancement" coach. The term "strength and conditioning specialist" conveys that as a coach you must either be busting your athletes' asses in the weight room or running them to death on the field. Too many coaches get caught up on the strength aspect when their time would be better spent focusing on means of improving performance. They should be asking themselves how they can best increase the short- and long-term performance of an athlete, and they should be able to tell you exactly why they're training a certain way at a particular time and know exactly how and why what they're doing is going to improve performance. Often, performance can be improved by doing nothing at all: simply allowing recovery to take place. Or, in some cases, focusing on things unrelated to strength and conditioning like basic sports movement patterns can be of tremendous value.
EC: Excellent observation; recovery is unquestionably one of the most misunderstood and underappreciated facets of not only making people bigger, stronger, and faster, but also improving demeanor. Some athletes just need more time off than others, so you have to know when to back off on volume, do some pool work, or just send them home to eat and go to bed.
KB: I agree. That statement also underscores the important of recognizing that one athlete's trash is another athlete's treasure; it's important to assess each athlete's needs individually. I can't tell you how many times I've seen football players with near-zero agility, dynamic flexibility, and reactive movement ability spend their entire summer in the weight room doing nothing but pounding the weights in an effort to get stronger with very little return in playing ability. On the other hand, I can't tell you how many basketball players, runners, and cheerleaders I've seen who have struggled for months and years on end trying to develop their skills when their woes could easily be cured by a solid month in the weight room making friends with the iron. So, it's definitely not a one-way street; the coach needs to understand which direction the athlete should go.
EC: Any other common errors?
KB: Another thing I see a lot that I don't always agree with is coaches and specialists looking a bit too much to the rehab setting for answers when they should be looking to the real world for answers. Now this is totally different for the general population, but when it comes to athletes, I think you have to draw the line and ask a simple question: "What qualities do the best athletes have and how can one gain those qualities?" To sum it up, list the twenty greatest athletes you can think of in the NFL, NBA, soccer, hockey etc. Out of those twenty, how many of them do you think spent significant time being coached in stability training, core activation, functionally correct linear and lateral movement training, etc. in their youth? Now, if your answer is anything like mine, it's going to be "Not very many!" What is it, then, that separates these athletes from the rest? What are the things that we commonly do now - the best methods to develop these attributes? That's what you need to be doing!
Now don't get me wrong, there is a time and place for almost everything, but I feel if something isn't working right, then you can go back step-by-step and correct it. You usually can use drills or exercises that are very close to what you would normally do; there's rarely a need to go back all the way and have this athlete performing a workout that would be more fitting for someone coming out of multiple joint replacement surgery. If your car drives pretty good and you want it to go faster, you'd want to put a bigger engine in it before you waste time trying to make it drive absolutely perfect. Moreover, before you go and start modifying an engine with all sorts of fancy gadgets, you better be able to use the engine you do have in the first place. This is a theme that resounds in our product, The Truth About Quickness.
To illustrate this concept, let me give a couple of examples from some "Rocky" movies. I'm just going to assume everyone reading this has seen "Rocky." Remember how Micky trained Rocky for speed and agility by having him catch chickens? Sometimes you just have to "turn the chicken loose." If you can catch the chicken, you're most likely able to move functionally well enough! However, if you can't catch the chicken, maybe you should initially spend more time focusing on the things that will more DIRECTLY improve your speed and quickness and see where that takes you instead of worrying about all the often excessively complex functional training techniques.
EC: It kind of brings to mind how the term "functional movement training" has been bastardized over the past few years. There were some really smart people on the right track with their definitions and explanations initially; now, commercially-driven goons have redefined it to convince housewives that standing on a stability ball while performing some silly-looking unilateral inverted wiggling motion with a two-pound medicine ball is the optimal way to be "functional and fit." Last time I checked, if a movement got you from point A to point B, it was functional. So, I suppose these people aim to look moronic, then what they're doing is somewhat functional?
KB: Sometimes you just have to take that more straightforward approach. Here's another "Rocky example." Recall that in "Rocky IV," Rocky trained in a harsh Siberian environment with nothing but logs, farm equipment, hills, axes, snow, and a pair of sneakers?in short, nothing that even remotely resembled sophistication. Then, you have his Russian opponent training in a pristine scientific environment with every little aspect of his training measured and accounted for. Sure, it's a movie, but I there's still a lesson to be learned. It's fine to use all that science has, but don't forget there are times when it's better just to roll up the sleeves because that's what sporting environments are like anyway; you can't get too far from that mentality. I try to combine optimal amounts of both sophistication and crude toughness.
EC: Another important lesson that I'd like to highlight from that example is that "Rocky IV" is the greatest movie of all time; I'm still upset that it isn't required viewing in high school history classes when the Cold War is the topic of discussion. By the way, you've already covered my favorite movie, but if you can somehow relate "Happy Gilmore" to deadlifting and "Braveheart" to insulin-independent glucose uptake, you'll be on my Christmas card list forever.You mentioned the optimal amounts of different contributing factors; I'm a firm believer that one can't just understand training or nutrition/supplementation. Rather, coaches and athletes need to understand both individually and, more importantly, the synergistic effect of the two. The old adage that success is "90% diet," while admirable in verse, really does send a bad message. Coaches and athletes need to treat training and nutrition/supplementation like they're both 100%. In fact, we ought to also include factors like restoration, motivation, and education in this equation.
KB: Well said, in short, coaches need to put their prejudices and preconceived notions aside and look to the end goal: taking an athlete from A to Z even if that means stepping away from tradition. Let performance and needs determine the optimal focus. Learn how to initiate individualized training prescriptions. Learn how to analyze strengths and weaknesses. Learn what training methods are best for a given goal. Optimize the training economy and don't get cute just for the sake of being different.
EC: Okay, let's delve into strength training programs for athletes. I'd like to start by getting your perspective on testing athletes. First off, how often? I think that some coaches waste way too much time with testing-only weeks because they test too many different things and get hung up on testing improvements rather than performance improvements in the sport in consideration.
KB: Yes, you're exactly right about this. Too many schools spend an entire week or more getting everybody tested and a large part of that time is spent messing around. I don't see any real need for a testing-only week unless part of that week is also going to be used as a regeneration week. It shouldn't take longer than 2-3 days to test everything, anyway. What I have always liked is to incorporate testing into part of the workout or program. This is very similar to what Westside guys do. Those guys are really "testing" every week on their max effort days. All you'd have to do is cut down on volume in the days prior to the testing workouts and do everything nearly the same - that way the testing doesn't become a distraction to the main goal: improving performance.
Also, as a coach, I feel the athletes are constantly being tested and evaluated. When I work one-on-one with someone, there is rarely any definite need for testing because during every session I'm observing and usually always know what's going on. Likewise, I can learn a lot and reduce the need for testing just by analyzing someone's training log. If I see a guy improves six inches in two weeks on his depth jump or reduce his times in a sprint drill, I don't need him to run a week of testing to tell me that his sprint times have improved and his vertical jump has improved. If a guy increases by 20 lbs in a strength exercise working in a lower rep range, I don't need to take time off and have him test his 1RM to show he's improved.
However, I should note that the one time that can be an advantage is when it used to show an athlete how much he's improved and to boost his confidence, or when a player absolutely needs to be evaluated in the test. For example, if you're preparing for an NFL combine, you have to get used to the testing procedures and learn how to peak at the right time. Times like that are when it's necessary to run a complete battery of tests and train for the tests because they'll be the main focus. I feel as a coach you should be able to tell where your athletes stand just by observing them and their performance in training and what they do on the field. Look for improved function rather than just numbers.
EC: I couldn't agree more. In Part II, we'll pick up where we left off with strength testing, and move on to discuss the future of sports training and how to tie all this together for performance and physique enhancement. Thanks for dropping some knowledge bombs on us, Kelly.
KB: My pleasure. I look forward to Part II.
In the meantime, for more information on Kelly's methods, check out the product he created along with Alex Maroko, The Truth About Quickness. It's a fantastic product that I highly endorse.
Q: I know that you're a proponent of DB Isometric Split Squats for extended periods of time. I can only manage 15 seconds on both legs with no weights. I feel that this is pretty pathetic in light of my performance on other exercises, which tends to be quite good. So, to get that time up more and to start using weights, should I simply hold the position as long as I can and look to get up to 60 seconds? Or would I be better off doing ski-squats against the wall more often until the hold strength builds up?
Also, when I'm doing the exercise, I feel the exercise more in the elevated leg in the quads. It's not up that high ,but I am sinking pretty low to get the required angle. I'm 6' 2".
A: Definitely stick with the Bulgarian EQIs; your endurance will pick up in no time. Remember, although muscular endurance is an added bonus of the exercises, this is more about working on active flexibility. I work with several guys each week that are 7-feet tall or very close to it, and they can all get it done; at 6-2, you shouldn't have a problem once you find the right position. You should feel it in your hip flexors on the elevated leg; if you're feeling it in the quad of that leg, it means that you're exerting too much force on the foot on the bench instead of allowing your hips to sink down while keep the back leg extended (or close to it). Drive your front heel into the ground and contract your glutes hard, pulling the chest up and shoulder blades back and down. Make sure that your knee is directly above your foot and your weight is on the heel.
Q: Thanks to your advice on taking care of primary subacromial impingement, my pain is gone and I'm ready to get back to work on my pressing strength. I'm not sure how to reintegrate benching and overhead pressing. I definitely don't want to reaggravate the injury; any suggestions?
A: You're correct that it isn't a good idea to jump right back into things with full range of motion and loading. I favor the following progession (although slight medications in rapidity of progression are always made based on symptoms):
Body Weight Push-up > Weighted Push-up > Cable Crossover from Low Pulley > Cable Crossover from Hip Height > Neutral Grip DB Floor Press > Neutral Grip Decline DB Press > Pronated Grip Decline DB Press > Barbell Floor Press > Decline Barbell Press > Flat DB Press > Incline DB Press > Barbell Bench Press > Barbell Incline Press > DB Military Press > Barbell Military Press/Push Press > Behind the Neck Presses
Note: Some trainees don't even need to go as far as the end, as the cost:benefit ratio for loaded behind-the-neck exercises is way out of whack for some people post-injury.
The rationale for these progressions are:
a) The scapular and humeral stabilizers are most effective in closed chain positions.(justifying the push up).
b) Impingement symptoms are most likely to be aggravated with flexion and/or abduction of the humerus beyond 90-degrees.
c) Traction (pulling the humeral head away from the glenoid fossa, as with a cable crossover) is less traumatic to the previously injured muscles than approximation (forcing the humeral head into the fossa).
d) Internal rotation (as seen with pronated grips) mechanically decreases the subacromial space, increasing the risk of re-injury.
With this progression, I like to start recovering trainees off with long eccentrics in the 6-8 rep ranges. In many cases, high-speed movements like speed benches and push jerks can be the most problematic, so I avoid these early on. It's important to pay attention to not only how the shoulder feels during the exercise, but also what you feel in the 12 or so hours afterward. If you're hurting, you've likely jumped the gun on your rehabilitation.
During this time, keep up working hard to strengthen your scapular retractors and depressors and the external rotators of your humerus. In fact, your volume on these exercises should still be greater than that of internal rotations and protractions. Ice post-exercise and don't do too much too soon, and you'll be back on track in no time.
Q: I'm working my back from a shoulder injury, and wanted to know if you think it would be feasible to do a little external rotation and scapular retraction work each day? While I'm not feeling any pain, I can still tell that my stabilizers are pretty weak.I have been alternating between rowing movements and face pulls each day as of late along with doing some sort of RC work each day (external rotations, 90 degree prone rotations, prone trap raises, band work, etc). Is this too much in your opinion or is it fine?I'm talking like 3x15 of rowing/face pulls and maybe 3 exercises of 3-4x15 of RC work per day (light weight obviously). Or would it be better to just do everything 3-4 times per week. I just figured I would divide the volume up throughout the entire week.
A: I think it would definitely be advantageous to do some every day, although your loading and set/rep parameters could use some revisions. Try loading the movements in the 6-10 rep range once a week, and then hitting them with lighter weights in the 12-15 rep range on another day. On the other five days, just do some work with the theraband and/or light dumbbells to get the blood flowing. These are really small muscles, so you have to go out of your way to promote bloodflow and, in turn, healing. It certainly won't hurt to get them "activated" so that they're firing on all cylinders when you get back to your compound movements down the road.
Q: After reading your article in the October issue in Rugged, I have a question or two.In healthy individuals, are you saying you do NO "direct" local (deep) ab work. i.e. plank, "thin tummy?" It seems as if the trainee gets plenty of local ab work w/ exercises like the DL, squats etc, but I don't know if "direct" ab work is mandated. I am still confused about this, even know I've read countless articles relating to this topic.
A: Be careful with your classification scheme; I wouldn't classify tummy sucking with plank exercises. The cues I give to my athletes on plank exercises are to brace as if someone is about to kick them in the stomach (much like you would push out when squatting and deadlifting). The training effect is markedly different with this approach than with sucking in the tummy. In short, bracing makes you strong, and tummy sucking makes you look and perform like a wanker.
You are, however, correct in saying that I think attempting to isolate the TVA in healthy individuals is a bad idea from both a training economy and potential harm standpoint. This training time would be better spent on other things, most notably multi-joint exercises and mindlessly gawking at gorgeous women in sports bras and spandex shorts.
Q: First of all, let me tell how much I enjoy your no-nonsense, information filled articles. It's great that people like you are writing about various posture related, biomechanics issues.I have a problem to which I have not been able to find a solution here in India. I have over-pronation in both feet, resulting in low reactive force output plus patello-femoral pain if I run long distances. Aside from getting orthotics, is there anything else I can do about this over pronation.
A: It really depends on whether the cause is structural or functional. You state that you have over-pronation in both feet, but don't allude to whether the feet have been flat for your entire life or if it's something that's kicked in as a result of movement dysfunction.
From a structural standpoint, orthotics are really your only bet; the structural abnormality will dictate how the orthotic is shaped.
From a functional standpoint, you need to determine if you have weakness in a decelerator elsewhere that's forcing the extra pronation in order to compensation. The external rotators of the hip (especially the gluteus maximus) and quadriceps are notable possibilities. Don't forget the dorsiflexors, either.
EC: Let’s face it, Alwyn: everyone on this newsletter list knows who you are, so we won’t waste time with me asking about your background or favorite color. Let’s get to the meat and potatoes – or lack thereof – with respect to fat loss.
You’ve become an authority on getting people lean fast – and continued success along these lines has led to the release of several fat loss products (in the form of the Real-World Fat Loss Packages) that have gotten thousands of people leaner and healthier.Conversely, we all know that there are a lot of trainers out there who aren’t getting the job done in this regard; you’ve even noted that less than 0.5% of personal trainers are financially independent, an indirect sign of them not satisfying a booming fat loss market. Where, in your mind, are they failing?
AC: It’s essentially a complete misunderstanding of how fat loss even occurs. Ask a trainer how to burn fat and they’ll reply with “aerobics”. They have been brainwashed to think that aerobic exercise = fat loss. It doesn’t. It simply means that your energy needs are being met by the aerobic energy system.
Currently in the early part of the 21st century we are in the middle of an obesity epidemic. In the United States alone approximately one-third of the adult population is estimated to be obese. People are finally turning to the fitness industry for help.
However, despite fat loss, body composition and physique transformation being the number one goal of most people who enter into the gym, this type of exercise programming is actually a new concept; to be honest, it just wasn’t needed in the past. People were leaner. People moved more. The purpose of an exercise program twenty years ago was to enhance your already active lifestyle. Now, in an almost completely automated time-crunched society, we have had to create exercise programs specifically to induce fat loss - and we weren’t ready.
Despite the overwhelming amount of research on aerobic training and exercise for health – none of it had the goal of fat loss. In fact, the very thought of training solely to produce a loss of fat was an alien concept just a few years ago.
So, the fitness industry has failed. We recognized the need to create fat loss programs. We just didn’t know where to start. We originally designed fat loss programs by copying what endurance athletes were doing, and hoping that somehow the training program of a marathon runner would work for fat loss for an obese lady, even when we cut it down to 20 minutes, three times per week. But fat loss was never the goal of an endurance athlete; it was a side effect.
Then the fitness industry turned to bodybuilding for ideas. This was the height of the Body-For-Life physique transformation contests. And we failed again. To take the programs of drug using full-time professional genetic freak bodybuilders and use them to model fat loss programs for the general population was nonsensical.
But we tried.
And the supplement companies jumped right on board, to try to convince us that taking Brand Rx-o-plex would provide the same benefits as the drugs that bodybuilders were using.
We failed again.
But we were getting closer. Fat loss, at least was a goal for bodybuilders, but the low levels of body fat percentage a contest bodybuilder achieved was largely a result of their increased muscle mass and therefore their metabolism. However it would be naïve of us to ignore the impact that steroid use has had on bodybuilding physiques. There is very little information a drug-free trainee training three to four times per week can take from the program of a drug-using professional bodybuilder and apply that effectively to his own efforts.
It is my belief that before we start to program fat loss, we have to understand exactly how it occurs. Then, we design a program based on those principles and not on tradition, junk science, or outdated beliefs.
The biggest mistake that trainers have made, Eric, is that - despite advances in the methods of training - the fitness industry has yet to truly provide a complete fat loss solution. We have regurgitated programs for other goals, recommended the wrong diets and ineffective exercises plans, all the while never questioning where this information originated.
If you look at the research, you’ll be struggling to come up with much research that shows aerobic training to be effective, and NONE that shows it to be more effective than intervals or resistance training.
It’s time to think about fat loss as a separate goal in itself – instead of a side effect of other training.
EC: That's a great new paradigm that you've obviously applied with great success, but what about gender specificity? For instance, you’ve spoken in some detail about the different psychological approach you have to take with males and females with fat loss approaches; can you elaborate a bit for our readers?
AC: There are differences, of course, but in general, males will respond to comparison to “norms” or to other males – e.g., "good for a male is x% body fat and you are at Y," "The average client loses X per week," etc. Males are driven to be the alpha male. They respond well to comparisons.
That will destroy females. DESTROY them.
I only ever compare females to their goals and their progress. And it’s always positive. I don’t mean that you need to “baby” them – you can train them hard – but you have to keep positive reinforcement at the forefront.
Overall, females want to train hard and not feel intimidated. They want to look great, but almost as a contradiction – they don’t want to stand out in the gym. We joke that most females show up to train the first time in an oversized sweatshirt and baggy pants. It’s like they are hiding.
Males – just want to be one of the boys – with the underlying desire to be number one.
Once you master that – and more importantly understand it - you're a master coach.
EC: Those are fantastic points - and it even carries over to elite sport. Having worked with national championship squads in both men's and women's basketball, I can say without hesitation that you're right on the money. Female athletes are all about getting the job done; it's one of the reasons that they tend to race through programs (and we actually need to make a point of slowing them down a bit). Male athletes, on the other hand, won't hesitate to drag their heels a bit if it means they can talk some smack to a buddy between sets in order to get each other fired up. But let's move on...
“Metabolic disturbance” is a term you’ve thrown around for quite some time; what do you mean, and how do you integrate it in your programming?
AC: The goal of a serious fat loss program is to optimize energy expenditure. In other words – it’s STILL about calories-in vs. calories-out in the big picture.
So we are trying to burn as many calories as possible. This occurs in two ways: directly and indirectly. Direct energy expenditure is obvious; that’s the calories you burn running on the treadmill, for instance. Perform X amount of exercise to burn X amount of calories.
Indirect energy expenditure, on the other hand, isn’t quite as obvious – but for simplicity’s sake – it’s governed by your lean muscle mass and is commonly referred to as “resting metabolism” and includes EPOC – the recovery of metabolic rate back to pre-exercise levels.
The important thing to consider is that your indirect expenditure is the bigger contributor overall – getting the “metabolism up” is the key.
For example – aerobic training can burn a lot of calories – but it doesn’t really create much in the way of EPOC or raising your metabolism outside of the exercise session.
Resistance training and interval training may not burn many more calories while you are doing it – but they both create that metabolic disturbance that burns more calories the “other 23 hours” of the day. Every study that ever compares interval training to steady state training shows an enhanced effect in terms of fat loss with the higher intensity group – even when they actually burn less calories during the session. It’s that powerful a tool.
EC: As a mobility geek, I was intrigued when I heard you mention that you felt that corrective exercise - especially in the form of mobility and activation work - had merits with respect to utilizing compound movements to create a metabolic disturbance. Could you elaborate?
AC: If you think about the fiber recruitment potential, the answer is pretty obvious. Even if you're using compound movements to create that metabolic disturbance, if your muscles were not activated like they should be, you still are not creating as big as a disturbance as you could.
For example, squats and deadlifts will give you more bang for your buck if your glutes are active than if they aren't. Many of the movements from your Magnificent Mobility DVD - supine bridges and birddogs, for example, with respect to the glutes - are great pairings for more of these compound lifts if you're looking to create more of a metabolic disturbances. In the upper body, you might pair chin-ups with scap pushups, or bench presses with scapular wall slides.
And, to add on the above points, you can ignore the value of that mobility and activation work when it comes to preventing injury. Many times, form will start to break down with some of the longer time-under-tension prescriptions in more metabolically demanding resistance training protocols. When you get things firing the way they should, you immediately make these complexes and circuits safer.
EC: Great points. Now, you bust my chops for being a guy that reads the research on a regular basis, but we both know that you’re as much of a “research bloodhound” as I am. As such, I know that you’ve got some ideas on the “next big thing” when it comes to fat loss. Where do you feel the industry will be going along these lines in the years to come? Here’s your chance to make a bold prediction, you cocky bastard.
AC: Ok – you’re putting me on the spot here.
If you don’t drink water – what happens? Your body immediately tries to maintain homeostasis by retaining water – doing the opposite.
Does weight training build muscle? No. It destroys muscle and the body adapts by growing new muscle. The body adapts by homeostasis – trying to regain balance by doing the opposite.
If we look at aerobic training – and look at fat oxidation – we can see that fat oxidation increases at 63% V02 max. We burn fat during the activity. How does that EXACT SAME BODY respond? Hmmmm...
What cavemen survived the famine in the winters? The cavemen that stored bodyfat efficiently. We have evolved into a race of fat storing machines.
We are aerobic all day. If aerobic training worked – then we wouldn’t need to work harder would we? When we work harder we see a trend – we lose fat – but is it because we are moving towards anaerobics?
My prediction is that as we understand more and more about the science of losing fat (which in reality we haven’t really studied in any depth) I think we’ll find that excessive aerobic training may retard fat loss in some way.
I’ve been saying for years that I don’t think it helps much. And the studies support that. I’m now starting to feel that it may hurt.
How many more studies have to come out that show NO effect of aerobic training to a fat loss program before we’ll recognize it?
DISCLAIMER – I work with endurance athletes. I work with fighters. I am recovering from an autologous stem cell transplant and high dose chemotherapy. I think aerobic training is extremely helpful. But not as a fat loss tool.
EC: Excellent stuff as always, Alwyn. Thanks for taking the time.
I can't say enough great things the fat loss resources Alwyn has pulled together; I would strongly encourage you all to check them out: Real World Fat Loss.
I figured that you were probably getting sick of hearing from me, so this week, we’ve got a new interview for you. If you haven’t heard of AJ Roberts yet, consider this interview your introduction to one of the future stars of the strength and conditioning world. I’ve interacted with AJ via email for several months now, and we finally had the chance to meet up and talk some shop at APF Seniors in Las Vegas last weekend. To say that I was impressed with his knowledge, passion, and enthusiasm for lifting and coaching would be an understatement; this guy is wise beyond his years. Watch out for him in the years to come.
EC: Thanks for being with us today, AJ. You’ve really opened some eyes in the powerlifting community over the past two years. Could you please fill our readers in a bit on your background?
AR: I am 21 years of age and am currently attending the University of Idaho, where I’m seeking a bachelor's degree in Sports Science. I have always been involved in athletics. From an early age, I played various sports and in high school I was a three-sport athlete with football, basketball, and track and field. In my senior year, I was ruled ineligible, and this is when I began my powerlifting career.
In February of 2004, I began training with (now University of Washington strength coach) Matt Ludwig and (world squat record holder) Brent Mikesell. Under their guidance I have set state, national and world records in multiple federations and have accumulated a 950-lb. squat, 661-lb. bench press, and a 700-lb. deadlift, with my best total being 2300.
EC: You just got back from the APF Senior Nationals; could you tell us how that went?
AR: I competed in the 308-lb. class despite only weighing in at 284 lbs. I'm not a big fan of cutting weight, so I just lift in whatever weight class into which I fall. I had high expectations going into the meet and knew that it was going to take a 2400+ total to win. Unfortunately, I only managed to get my opener in the squat (935) and after seeing so many people bomb out, I lifted conservatively to make sure I finished the meet. I did manage to get an 11-lb. personal record in the bench (661) and finished with a 2295-lb. total, which was good enough for second place. Hopefully, I can put it all together at the World Championships in November.
EC: Big numbers – especially at age 21! You’re also involved in coaching at the collegiate ranks right now; please tell us a bit about that. What are you doing? How do you like it? What are you learning from the experience?
AR: I have been a volunteer/intern in the Vandal Athletic Center at the University of Idaho now for almost two years. In this time, I have been lucky enough to work alongside several different strength coaches, assisting with football, basketball, swimming, and soccer. I really enjoy the hands on experience of getting to run drills, coach, and watch the athletes develop over the years. The biggest thing that I will take away from my experience is that is not what you do, but the way you do it that is important.
EC: You’ve said that you’ve got the world’s best squat coach in Brent Mikesell.What is it that makes Brent such a tremendous squatter and coach?What insights can you pass along to our readers that will take their squats – and the rest of their lifts – to all new levels?
AR: There aren't too many people in this sport that love it and are as dedicated to it, or the lifters involved, as Brent is. He works harder in the gym than anyone else I know, and even when he is hurt or sick, he will be there to help spot and load. There are so many little things that I have learned from him it would be impossible to summarize it all here.
EC: How has being a competitive powerlifter impacted you as a coach?
AR: The biggest trait that I have carried over into coaching is the emphasis on perfect form. I'm constantly working with the athletes to make sure they are not sacrificing form for strength, which is common due to the competitive atmosphere that is often created in a varsity weight room.
EC: I have to say that when we were talking at Seniors, you reminded me a lot of, well, me! You’ve got that way about you; you’re always thinking that there is a better way to do things. And, more importantly, you’re thinking about what that better way is. With that said, randomly throw some idea out there that will really make our readers say “Oh, shit, that really makes sense!”
AR:
You must always seek knowledge from those who are more knowledgeable than you and who know what it takes to be strong!
Speed is more important than your ego!
Full range of motion work is the most important part of training; lifting big weights to a high box or a 3-board in the gym is not going to help you hit the numbers you want in a meet!
Your upper back is just as important as you lower back!
Being strong and being technical are just as important as one another!
Simple is still best!
Nothing beats hard work!
EC: I know that I’ve been sending a ton of resource recommendations your way, so fill me in on the ones that have impacted you the most; which would benefit our readers the most?
AR: I would say the following are must buys for anyone who is serious about strength and conditioning:
EC: Ha!You already got the interview, AJ; you didn’t have to butter me up with that last one!Anyway, fast-forward five years; where is AJ Roberts going to be?
AR: Hopefully, I have established myself as one of the best strength coaches in the nation and will have opened up my own sports training facility.
EC: I’d put money on it.Hell, just from chatting with you, I’d hire you just to keep you from becoming one of my competitors!Thanks for taking the time, AJ.Where can our readers find out more about you?
With a Diesel interview, you'll not only learn from the leaders in the industry about current trends and their strategies about performance enhancement, you'll also learn something about them on a personal level.
Eric Cressey, a top 100 Powerlifting USA athlete, has hit the ground running in 2006. Unveiling Magnificent Mobility (with Mike Robertson) and his latest solo venture, The Ultimate Off Season Manual to the masses, this prominent strength coach has already made a huge impact and there is no limit in sight.
Continue Reading...
If you needed an expert on Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, you might contact Professor Daniel Mahoney at Assumption College.
For an expert on squatting, there’s Fred “Dr. Squat” Hatfield of the International Sports Sciences Association.
For an in-depth discussion of deadlifting, I contacted Eric Cressey, M.A., C.S.C.S.
Continue Reading...
- Myles Kantor
Thanks for taking the time out for this interview Eric. No doubt many of our readers will know about your background and profile, but why don’t you take us through where you’ve come from and your professional background.
Continue Reading...
Chris Mohr: Hi Eric, and thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer a few questions for our readers. Eric, for those who don't know you, tell the readers a little about yourself and your background in this field, both professionally and personally.
Continue Reading...
