Q: I’m confused about when I should arch. I was re-reading some of your older articles, and noticed that in the Neanderthal No More series, you and Mike Robertson advocate posteriorly tilting the pelvis while performing some core exercises, yet when it comes to performing squat and deadlift technique, you encourage people to maintain the arch.
My back tightens up a lot when I arch strongly, but if I just bend over to touch my toes in flexion, it doesn’t bother me at all.
1. Could it be possible that I am arching too much during everyday movements and strength exercises?
2. What really constitutes a neutral spine? Is it different for each person?
3. When is it (if ever) appropriate to have a flat spine?
A: The main thing to consider – at least in my experience – is whether there is compressive loading on the spine. In compression, you want an arch - or at the very least, the natural curve of your lumbar spine. The discs simply don't handle compression well when the spine is in flexion (or flat). We do more of the posterior pelvic tilt stuff when you are on your back (glute brides, as the glutes posteriorly tilt the pelvis) or on your stomach (if you arch, you're slipping into hyperextension, which defeats the purpose of trying to resist gravity as it pushes you down to the floor).
Bending over is a LOT different than squatting and deadlifting (and comparable strength exercises). When you add load, the game changes. Cappozzo et al. found that squatting to parallel with 1.6 times body weight (what might be “average” for the typical weekend warrior) led to compressive loads of ten times body weight at L3-L4. That’s 7000N for a guy who weighs about about 150. Meanwhile, in a study of 57 Olympic lifters, Cholewicki et al. found that L4-L5 compressive loads were greater than 17,000N. It’s no wonder that retired weightlifters have reduced intervertebral disc heights under MRI! They get strong, but at a "structural price."
According to Dr. Stuart McGill in his outstanding book, Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance, the spine doesn’t buckle until 12,000-15,000N of pressure is applied in compression (or 1,800-2,800N in shear) – so it goes without saying that we’re always playing with fire, to a degree – regardless of the strength training exercise in question, as there’s always going to be compressive loads on the spine. That’s a laboratory model, though; otherwise, the Olympic lifters above wouldn’t be able to handle much more than 12,000N without buckling. In the real world, we have active restraints – muscles and tendons – to protect our spine.
If those active restraints are going to do their job, we need to put them at a mechanical advantage – and flexion is not that advantage. The aforementioned Cappozzo et al. study demonstrated that as lumbar flexion increased under load, compressive load also increased. In other words, if you aren’t mobile enough to squat deep without hitting lumbar flexion (because the hips or ankles are stiffer than the spine), you either need need to squat a little higher or not squat at all. That said, I don't think that you have to force a dramatic arch when you squat (or any strength exercise, for that matter); I think you need to brace your core tightly and create stability within the range of motion that you already have – and, indeed, “neutral spine” is different for everyone. For instance, females have an average of 5-7 degrees of anterior pelvic tilt, whereas males are more like 3-5 degrees - meaning that females will naturally be a bit more lordotic.
Having sufficient lumbar flexion to touch your toes with “uniform” movement through your lumbar spine is certainly important, and for most, it’ll be completely pain free (regardless of range of motion), but that doesn’t mean that a flat or flexed lumbar spine is a good position in which to exercise with compressive load.
So, to recap:
1. Neutral spine is different for everyone. What’s the same for everyone is the need to have stability within the range of motion that you’ve got.
2. Flexion is fine (and a normal functional task) when it isn’t accompanied by compressive loading. And, there is a different between subtle lumbar flexion and end-range lumbar flexion.
3. Arching (lumbar extension) doesn’t need to be excessive in order to be effective in improving tolerance to compressive loads. In most cases, that “arch” cue simply keeps a person in neutral spine as they go into hip flexion in the bottom of a squat or deadlift (or comparable strength exercise). “Arch” doesn’t mean “hyperextend;” it means to maintain the normal lordotic curve of your lumbar spine.
Looking to learn more? Check out Functional Stability Training, a comprehensive resource for assessment, programming, and coaching.
Sign-up Today for our FREE Newsletter and receive a detailed deadlift technique tutorial!
I've written quite a bit in the past about how one should always interpret the results of diagnostic imaging (MRI, x-ray, etc.) very cautiously and alongside movement assessments and the symptoms one has. In case you missed them, here are some quick reads along these lines:
Preventing Lower Back Pain: Assuming is OkayWho Kneeds "Normal" Knees?Healthy Shoulders with Terrible MRIs?
While some of these studies stratified subjects into athletes and non-athlete controls, not surprisingly, all these studies utilized adult subjects exclusively. In other words, we're left wondering if we see the same kind of imaging abnormalities in asymptomatic teenage athletes, which is without a doubt our most "at-risk" population nowadays.
That is, of course, until this study came out: MRI of the knee joint in asymptomatic adolescent soccer players: a controlled study.
Researchers found that 64% of 14-15 year-old athletes had one or more knee MRI "abnormalities", whereas those in the control group (non-athletes), 32% had at least one "abnormality." Bone marrow edema presence was markedly higher in the soccer players (50%) than in the control group (3%).
Once again, we realize that just about everyone is "abnormal" - and that we really don't even know what "healthy" really is. So, we can't hang our hat exclusively on what a MRI or x-ray says (especially since we don't have the luxury of knowing with every client/athlete we train). What to do, then?
Hang your hat on movement first and foremost in an asymptomatic population. Do thorough assessments and nip inefficiencies in the bud before they become structural abnormalities that reach a painful threshold.
Sign-up Today for our FREE Newsletter and receive a detailed deadlift technique tutorial!
Today, we move forward with more strategies for correcting bad posture. In case you missed it, be sure to check out Strategies for Correcting Bad Posture: Part 1. We pick up with tip #5...
5. Don't overlook a lack of glenohumeral (shoulder) joint internal rotation. When it comes to bad posture, everyone thinks that the glenohumeral joint is only a "player" when it's stuck in internal rotation; that is, the ball - or humeral head - is rotated too far forward on the socket - or glenoid fossa - meaning that the individual just doesn't have adequate external rotation. And, this is often true - especially in non-athletic populations.
However, you'll also very commonly see poor posture folks who present with big glenohumeral internal rotation deficits (GIRD), particularly on the right side (for very legitimate reasons that go well beyond the scope of this article). This is much more common in athletes, particularly overhead throwers (read more: Static Posture Assessment Mistakes). When the posterior rotator cuff is stiff/short and there is an internal rotation deficit, we have to substitute excessive scapular protraction (winging) or thoracic flexion/rotation each time we reach for something.
So, for many folks, posterior shoulder mobility and soft tissue work is an important inclusion in cleaning things up in terms of appearance, function, and shoulder health. If - and only if - you've been assessed and it's been determined that you have an internal rotation deficit that compromises your total motion at the glenohumeral joint, you can integrate some gentle sleeper stretches (scapula stabilized!) to get a bit more ROM in the posterior cuff.
6. Don't overlook a lack of glenohumeral (shoulder) joint flexion. The shoulder is a tremendously mobile joint, so we need to appreciate what goes on outside the transverse plane as well. In particular, I see shoulder flexion limitations as a big problem. These limitations may come from the lat, teres major, long head of the triceps, or inferior capsule. Another overlooked cause can be posterior cuff restrictions; it's not uncommon to see both GIRD and major shoulder flexion limitations on the same side. As the picture below shows, the infraspinatus and teres minor run almost vertically when the arm is abducted a mere 90 degrees - which means that they're struggling to lengthen fully to allow full shoulder flexion (and abduction, for that matter).
These restrictions that can contribute to both faulty compensation patterns in certain positions, as well as overall bad posture chronically. Let's have a look at what these issues look like in the real world. First, in someone with a shoulder flexion limitation, you'd first want to check them in the supine position, with the knees flexed and back flat (to avoid substituting lumbar extension for shoulder flexion). Ideally, the arms should rest flat on the table - so this would be a "not-so-hot" result (especially since the arms "fall" to the sides a bit instead of staying in "attempted flexion"):
Next, let's take this same shoulder flexion limitation, and look at what would happen actively. In the first three reps of the video below, take note of the position of our subject's head at the start and finish of each rep; you'll see that as he "runs out" of shoulder flexion, he substitutes forward head posture. On the next three reps, after I cue him to keep his cervical spine in a more neutral posture, he has to arch his back excessively (lumbar hyperextension) to complete the movement.
Now, imagine taking this walking disaster (only kidding; I had Dave fake it for the video, as he's actually a finely tuned trained killing machine who can't be stopped by conventional weapons - and he's single, ladies) taking up overhead pressing, Olympic lifting, or just reaching for a glass on the top shelf. Then, imagine him doing those tasks over and over again. Obviously, the posture will get worse as he reinforces these compensation schemes - but something is going to surely break down along the way; it's just a question of whether it's his low back, shoulder, or neck!
Correcting these issues is easier said than done; as I noted, there are several structures that could be the limiting factor. However, for those looking for a relatively universal stretch they can use to get a bit of everything, I like the wall lat stretch with stabilization, one piece of a comprehensive (but not excessive and boring) static stretching program included in Show and Go.
7. Don't ignore the thoracic spine. The previous two examples focused exclusively on the glenohumeral joint, but the truth is that it is tremendously dependent on thoracic spine positioning. Ask any physical therapist, and they'll tell you that if they can get the thoracic spine moving, they can instantly improve glenohumeral joint range-of-motion without even touching the shoulder (this is incredibly valuable with folks who may have stiff glenohumeral joints that can't be mobilized aggressively following shoulder surgery; they need ROM in any way possible). And, truthfully, you can substitute a lack of thoracic spine extension for the shoulder flexion problems and compensation schemes above, and a lack of thoracic spine rotation can work in much the same way as a GIRD (substitute excessive scapular protraction with reaching tasks).
If you ever want to quickly check to see what limiting thoracic extension does to someone's upper body posture, just put them in supine position and push the sternum/rib cage down - which will bring the thoracic spine into flexion. Watch what happens to the position of his chin, and the size of the "gap" between his neck and the table:
Now, just consider what kind of "yank" this puts on the sternocleidomastoid chronically...
...and you'll understand why a lack of thoracic spine mobility can give people enough neck pain and tension headaches to make Lindsay Lohan's hangovers look like a walk in the park. And this doesn't even consider what's going on with scalenes, suboccipitals, levator scapulae, subclavius, and a host of other muscles that are royally pissed off! Also, think about all those folks in your gym doing hours and hours of crunches (especially while tugging on the neck). Ouch.
For that reason, we need to get our thoracic spine moving - and more specifically, we need to get it moving in both extension and rotation. I've mentioned in the past that the side-lying extension-rotation is one of my favorites (assuming no symptoms); remember that the overwhelming majority of the range-of-motion is coming from the upper back, not just the shoulder:
Here's another we're using quite a bit nowadays in our folks who have good internal rotation (which we want to keep!):
8. Watch your daily habits and get up more frequently. I'm at 1,140 words for this post right now - plus several pictures and videos. In other words, some of you might have been hunched over your computer screens trying to figure out what I'm saying for over 20 minutes now - and that's when "creep" starts to set in an postural changes become more and more harmful (both aesthetically and functionally).
With that in mind, make a point of getting up more frequently throughout the day if you have to be sitting a ton. Likewise, "shuffle" or "fidget" in your chair; as Dr. Stuart McGill once said, "The best posture is the one that is constantly changing." Now, shouldn't you get up and walk around for a few minutes?
Here are a few blasts from the past that you definitely ought to check out:
Lower Back Pain and the Fitness Professional - It's amazing how many fitness professionals know NOTHING about lower back pain even though it will occur at one point or another in every single one of their clients.
Can Little Leaguers Strength Train? - It's a question I get all the time - and this was my first response to the inquiry a few years ago. I updated this and got a bit more detailed and geeky in a follow-up, The Truth about Strength Training for Kids.Solutions to Lifting Problems - This T-Muscle article is a must-read for anyone who wants to be able to stay the course even when setbacks occur along the resistance training journey.
Lastly, for those who are looking to shed some pounds over the holidays while everyone else is packing 'em on, check out these two free Holiday Fat Loss special reports from Joel Marion. Joel's got some quick and easy to apply tips you can put to use right away.
Sign-up Today for our FREE Newsletter:
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.
