Periodization[1]

www.ExerciseCertification.com

Periodization: A Critical Analysis By Brian D. Johnston Copyright 2001 Special thanks to William J. Ambruzs for his challenges on various points

International Association of Resistance Trainers

1


Introduction Everything has a reason for its existence. Anything of worth must have validity. The application of ever-changing exercise modalities, for example, is beneficial in order to keep the body progressing and from stagnating into over-adaptation to the stimuli. The demands must also be properly cycled to prevent mental burnout from too intense training performed too often. The general concept of periodization is 100% valid in that respect – allowing both easy and intense training periods as well as variety to sustain motivation and to best disrupt homeostasis. Similarly, the I.A.R.T. promotes the concept of ‘cycling’ training demands, exercises, and methods of execution, etc., all for the same fundamental reasons. It is the internal structure of (USA-based) Periodization, however, that is flawed with gross vagueness – mystical terms and application that have never been validated, nor can be validated. It contains potentially dangerous recommendations as well, from plyometrics to explosive lifting. Periodization includes variable application that does not reflect reality – that unless trainees were told ‘what’ they were doing (by the authors), would not know the difference (i.e., you’re now training for strength, power, or hypertrophy). There are several models of Periodization, ranging from the works of Bompa, Koch, and Poliquin, among many others. Consequently, and to focus more narrowly on the subject, this report deals solely with the book Periodization Breakthrough! by Steven J. Fleck, Ph.D., and William J. Kraemer, Ph.D., two world-renowned ‘experts’ in exercise science, past associates of the NSCA, writers for Muscular Development magazine, contributors to peer reviewed research journals, etc., etc. It is the problems and weaknesses within their version of Periodization that will be critiqued (along with the many characteristics that also reflect other versions of Periodization).

2



Many Russians think negatively about the artificial classification of various micro- and meso-cycles in the form of exact number of days, or weeks, as per Western periodization ideology. They also disagree with linear succession of arbitrary, non-linear, non-discrete building blocks of subjectively chosen exercises, weight load percentages, et al. Zhelijazkov indicated that the technology of periodization modeling, application, and management exhibit certain serious qualitative limitations. Verkhoshansky has criticized any text that extols so-called ‘periodization breathkthroughs’. He states, “the body is not an exact, controlled, deterministic system... but its subsystems are attracted to and deviate from approximate states of balance which show continual variation to ensure longterm efficiency and health, as is being confirmed by more and more research into the nature of fractal, fuzzy, and chaotic processes in biology.” Having studied chaos theory (the study of orderly disorder), at least at the level of an amateur scientist, it became apparent to me that it is impossible to prescribe accurate long-term training for any individual or athlete based on a rigid mental model. So many factors can occur and disrupt protocol, causing peaks and valleys in response and performance. Although continual change of protocol is necessary, application must be established in accordance to individual needs at the time and not simply to produce peaks at specific junctures, i.e., to coincide with competitions. To better understand the concept of chaos theory, in the book Chaos, James Gleick states: “...physiologists have also began to see chaos as health. It has long been understood that nonlinearity in feedback processes serves to regulate and control. Simply put, a linear process, given a slight nudge, tends to remain slightly off track. A nonlinear process, given the same nudge, tends to return to its starting point. Christian Huygens, the seventeenth-century Dutch physicist who helped invent both the pendulum clock and the classical science of dynamics, stumbled upon one of the great examples of this form of regulation, or so the standard story goes. Huygens noticed one day that a set of pendulum clocks placed against a wall happened to be swinging in perfect chorus-line synchronization. He knew that the clocks could not be that accurate. Nothing in the mathematical description then available for a pendulum could explain this mysterious propagation of order from one pendulum to another. Huygens surmised, correctly, that the clocks coordinated by vibrations transmitted through the wood. This phenomenon, in which one regular cycle locks into another, is International Association of Resistance Trainers

3


now called entrainment, or mode locking. Mode locking explains why the moon always faces the earth, or more generally why satellites tend to spin in some whole-number ratio of their orbital period: 1 to 1, or 2 to 1, or 3 to 2. When the ratio is close to a whole number, nonlinearity in the tidal attraction of the satellite tends to lock it in. Mode locking occurs throughout electronics, making it possible, for example, for a ratio receiver to lock in on signals even when there are small fluctuations in their frequency. Mode locking accounts for the ability of groups of oscillators, including biological oscillators, like heart cells and nerve cells, to work in synchronization.” It is the disruption through training that causes alteration in homeostasis. It is the constant regularity of the same training stimulus (or disruption) that permits the body to remain in stasis, never to change or improve in actual function or lean muscle mass (see Heavy Duty: A Critical Analysis). Chaos Theory is proof that training needs to constantly change in order to optimize and allow for improvement (and to allow for recovery when necessary). However, the change must be logically prescribed in accordance to individual requirements, on both a physical and psychological basis (accounting for mental and physical stress, needs, and goals) and not a fixed treatise on paper that cannot account or predict those factors.

4



Periodization Defined Fleck and Kraemer define periodization as “a training plan which changes your workouts at regular intervals of time.” This is a bit weak since altering your workouts monthly to coincide with the latest muscle mag workout would constitute periodization. Regardless, the authors’ direction is the manipulation of variables such as the number of repetitions and sets, the exercises you perform, the amount of weight lifted, and the rest periods between sets. Apparently everyone can benefit from periodization, although the focus constantly shifts to the preparation of some ‘competition’ and competitive athletes. Typical Periodization Concept Phase 1

Phase II

Phase III

Phase IV

Phase V

Hypertrophy

Strength

Power

Peak

Recovery

Also, the authors claim you won’t get bored and give up on exercise if you follow their recommendations – “That won’t happen with a periodized plan.” The phrase “won’t happen” means exactly that... it will never happen to anyone... ever. Is this an accurate statement? Boredom refers to the dullness perpetrated by tedious repetition. This can transpire although a resistance training program constantly changes since certain factors do remain constant in any routine including the existence of: • • • • • •

Repetitions, Sets, Workouts, Frequency, Muscular contractions, and Exercise movements.

...regardless of their measure.


5


What also remains constant are the regular trips to the gym, putting forth effort, sweating, experiencing fatigue and deep muscle burn, aches, and soreness. All these factors can wreak havoc on an individual’s motivation and ability to sustain an exercise program. The authors then define periodization models “to variations in training that have yielded proven results in increased strength, power, muscle hypertrophy, and athletic performance.” Many training modalities that do not fit neatly into Fleck and Kraemer’s ideology of periodization have also proven to enhance those particular aspects among athletes. Simply ask one of the many high-intensity strength coaches, including Mark Asanovich, Matt Brzycki, Ken Mannie, Dan Riley, Tim Wakeham, Tom Kelso, Jim Kielbaso, or Mike Gittleson. Or ask the successful sports teams that train or have trained in a highintensity, non-periodized manner, including the Arizona Cardinals, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Minnesota Vikings, Cincinnati Bengals, Philadelphia Eagles, Carolina Panthers, San Diego Chargers, Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Washington Redskins. And don’t forget the Pittsburgh Penguins when they won the Stanley Cup from 1990-1992 or the US women’s basketball team when they won the gold medal at the 1996 Olympics. Or how about the very successful long distance runners from Africa, particularly from Kenya whom never implemented periodization. Moreover, the Soviet and British runners pre-1980 did not improve performance based upon periodization and actually declined in performance when basing their loading on Matveyev’s block periodization plan.

6



Application of Periodization Although the authors claim anyone can undertake periodization, the focus is constantly on phases that lead up to a competition. It is vaguely suggested that a ‘competition’ can be replaced with a ‘goal’ of any kind, but the goals would have to follow the goals of the authors and not of the individual. Periodization, as we have come to know it in North America, consists of 4-5 stages, being • • • •

Hypertrophy Strength/Power (these may be two distinct stages) Peaking Active Rest (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

What if the individual only wanted to train for ‘hypertrophy’? Sorry, that’s not periodization and you must alter YOUR goals to coincide with Fleck and Kraemer’s ideals as to what proper training should be (to also focus on phases of strength, power, and peaking... and recovery—whether you need it or not or are ready for it or not). More will be said about each individual phase later in this report. In essence, the concept of periodization mentally conditions and psyches the average individual into believing they too can be like star athletes by undertaking a similar regimen (of extreme volume). Athletes, however, are not representational of the average population. They are athletes because they are unusual and above average. They have superior ability, in both function and recovery. They can tolerate form of exercise that would ‘break’ the average individual. Does this archetype represent you? Many athletes also take drugs to enhance these abilities. Many others succeed in spite of their training regimen and would likely do better on a more rational and abbreviated strength-training program than what many strength coaches advocate.


7


Variation Principle A principle is a fundamental primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend. A principle is an abstraction that subsumes a greater number of concretes. In other words, principles are very general and describe the nature of what must exist for a concrete concept to exist. For example, for an exercise program to exist you must take into account certain factors (which make up the Theory of Prescribed ExerciseTM ): 1. Intensity of effort 2. Volume (repetition, tension time, sets) 3. Frequency (rate of occurrence of training the same and other muscle groups) 4. Specific adaptations to imposed demands (SAID) 5. Overload (an increase in weight, repetitions, or tension time) 6. Diminishing Returns (cost-benefit ratios and concomitant variables, which has a bearing on the next principle) 7. Individualism (the tolerances, preferences, needs, and goals of a person) People often use the term ‘law’, ‘principle’, or ‘fundamentals’ to give credence to their plight – to create an aura of authenticity to avoid having to validate their ideas. Consider the myriad of Weider Principles and you will see that many are not actual principles at all (viz., they do not need to exist for a properly structured exercise program to exist), but are training modalities of derivative aspects, such as: • • • •

8

Forced rep principle Pre-exhaust principle Retro-gravity (negative rep) principle Flushing (pumping) principle... ad nauseum.



Similarly, Fleck and Kraemer bastardized the term principle to support the notion of constantly changing application, via variation, within a periodized plan (of course). Hence, the Variation Principle, which supports the change of training goals from hypertrophy, to strength, to power. These factors do not need to exist for proper exercise application to exist. The manipulation of weights loads, reps, and sets are derivative factors that make exercise more interesting and more effective (if properly implemented). But change of these factors need not exist to produce an effect or for practical exercise to exist as a concept. Relative to the Principle of Individualism (see next), the authors’ concept of variety remains within a ‘canned’ structure. Although always dictating variety (which is important), variety remains within their confines, from rep and set prescriptions, frequency, and even modality of training. They state, “Little or no plyometric training would be included during the beginning of a training phase. As the end of the phase approached, a greater volume of plyometric type training would be included.” They base this recommendation, so it seems, on “strength power sports and team sports” to perform more power-oriented exercises. Yet they do not indicate what the ‘average’ person or non-strength power sport athlete should do. Even the term ‘strength power sport’ is redundant. Every dynamic activity you perform requires the use of power. Every activity requires strength, even standing, sitting, and lying down (certain muscles constantly remained fired during ‘rest’, which is the demonstration of strength within a limited capacity.


9


Also, how does one differentiate or determine when a sport is strength and power oriented and when it is not? There are times when a short burst of maximal effort is required in tennis, hockey, soccer, and nearly every other sport that may be viewed as having a large component of ‘endurance’. Moreover, the specificity of power and demonstration of strength within sports is highly specific and unto itself and are not specific to plyometric exercises. How can one non-specific activity improve the skills and ability of a different set of neuromuscular movement patterns? Compare this to the skills of walking, then to running, and running to dodging back and forth in a zig-zag fashion. Each must be trained specifically and exactly in order to obtain maximum proficiency. Performing explosive power cleans and plyometric jumps will not enhance running or dodging abilities. You will simply become good at power cleans and jumping (and to a limit). Training specificity is later addressed in more detail.

10



Individualization Principle “Periodization is all about meeting specific training needs.” If this is the case, as it should be, then consider the following statements: The peaking phase “is undertaken right before a major competition. The volume is very low and the intensity very high (1-3 repetitions per set). The goal is to prepare the athlete for the truly maximal efforts needed for an actual competition – including epic struggles like Olympic weightlifting and grueling throwing events in track and field.” “...the typical training pattern is to increase intensity and decrease training volume as a competition nears.” When planning a one year training schedule, “Write the month in which any major competition of the year occur...” ...then, “Working backwards from the major competition, fill in the dates and names of the minor competitions – or if the sport has a season fill in the starting date and ending date of the season.” Does this sound like your training? Does it reflect you in any way? Do you plan on competing in any athletic event, either in the long-term or several times leading up to a major competition (as if we’re all headed to the Olympics)? Do you desire to perform sets of only 1-3 repetitions with maximum effort? Do you enjoy increasing your training poundage RM or want to decrease volume below ‘x’? If you answered no to any of these questions, then you won’t be able to experience the epiphany of periodization. But you’re not alone... even athletes are left in the dark. The authors state: “...the number of sets per exercise, repetitions per set, choice of exercise, and training sessions per week would be varied to meet the strength, power, and local muscular endurance needs of the particular sport.”


11


How is this to be done? What effect will the removal or addition of only one set be to a sporting event that does not demonstrate the lifting of weights? No answers, no strategies and no clues are provided. It’s a hit-and-miss strategy at best; a vague philosophy the authors hide behind like a shield against any criticism to their approach. Do whatever you think is right. From alpine skiing to bobsledding, from archery to field hockey, do whatever you think is best for you regardless of your lack of knowledge in proper exercise prescription (which likely accounts for 99% of athletes and most strength training coaches). And, again, what about those not involved in athletics or competition? No answer is given, although it is concluded the ‘average’ person can draw parallels – some how. Fleck and Kraemer then include bodybuilding (i.e., regular gym training as most of us perform) as a sport in order to fit it neatly into their periodized model. However, why would a bodybuilder be focusing on strength and power phases if his or her focus is on mass building? (Yes, additional mass does lead to greater strength and power, but the argument is being limited to the authors’ vocabulary and proposed phases of training). Or how about a bodybuilder not interested in peaking or entering a competition – what use is a ‘peaking phase’? What of athletes who don’t want to gain any more muscle mass (to stay within a weight category): Should they not avoid the hypertrophy phase and always work for maximal strength and power (with the odd week off for systemic recovery)? This is not considered with Fleck and Kraemer or any model of periodization currently in vogue.

12



The authors continue, “The training plan outlined consists of three major training cycles separated by two-week recovery periods. Each major training cycle consists of four training phases, each four weeks in length. The major goal of the first two phases in each of major training cycles is to increase muscle size.” Etc. No need to understand what they are saying. The point is: Individual needs and differences (and preferences) are not taken into account for optimization. Fleck and Kraemer’s recommendations are ideal for clones, not unique individuals – unique factors that vary across a broad spectrum. Variables such as stress levels, catastrophic events, and other factors that change from day to day and week to week amongst individuals. Nor is optimization a key with pre-planned periodization structures. This is concluded by the authors when they said, “This plan should meet the goals of the general fitness weight trainer in more than adequate fashion.” How do they know? What is “adequate fashion”, and why is the concept of optimization avoided and substituted with that of adequacy – of mediocrity? If a program is to be truly ‘individualized’, it must take into account that some people (including non-athletes) are aiming for optimization and that the best plan possible should be in place to reflect not only the goals, but the NEEDS of an individual. A person may have a goal to bench press 300 pounds, but they may need to work on specific weak links, past injuries, etc. This direction is avoided by the authors entirely – perhaps because it takes into account too much complexity and individualism, making it too difficulty to offer up canned programs so trainees don’t have to think for themselves.


13


Then there is the statement that “Choosing to do two to five sets of an exercise per training session allows the individual to tailor the regimen to meet their needs. If the trainee prefers to emphasize maximal strength development in one or two exercises such as the bench press and squat, then they might want to emphasize these heavy-duty exercises by going for five sets, and doing as few as two sets of other exercises less optimally related to their strength training goals.” There are a few problems with these recommendations: Primarily, it is not a recommendation but a vague assertion that people will know exactly how many sets to perform based on goals. Most people will likely pick the higher number since many believe ‘more is better.’ To squirm their way out of the dilemma, they offer a broad recommendation. (Barring only one set per exercise since that more closely reflects high-intensity training. Ironically, on page 93 of their book, and as stated in this report on page 50, the authors do suggest as little as one set during the ‘power’ phase). The number of sets must be based not only on goals but tolerances, needs, and intensity of effort. Rather than have the trainee focus more effort in two sets, for example, they recommend performing more sets to produce an effect. For those whom train extremely hard, five sets of an exercise may be overkill, but the volume is (apparently) appropriate based on the philosophies of Fleck and Kraemer – and not on their knowledge of your body. These factors do not exactly point to the principle of individualism although the authors endorse the concept. In fact, the authors’ direction is very similar to so many personal trainers who claim to design ‘custom’ programs for each client, but who end up dishing out the same canned routine based on the trainer’s philosophy and preferences (with a few irrelevant modifications to make it appear unique and individualized).

14



Injury Prevention Fleck and Kraemer state “Another major reason to switch to periodized training is to prevent injuries. Were you ever at a stage in your training where you were making good gains, and continued to train to the point of injury? A main reason the injury may have occurred was because you continued to push as hard as you could and your body couldn’t take the stress. It was clearly a time for a less intense training period... With periodized training, intense and less intense training periods are planned so the stress does not accumulate to the point of adversity.” They also state, “The goal of the in-season program (peak phase) is to maintain all the gains made during the previous training phases and to prevent injury in competition circumstances.” These paragraphs are loaded. Fundamentally, injury refers to either macro (acute) or micro (chronic) trauma to the soft tissues. Micro trauma (constant tissue degradation) can often lead to macro trauma, slowly weakening the tissues until the forces exceed structural integrity (forces that normally could have been tolerated if the tissues were allow to remodel). Doing too much, too often will usually lead to microtrauma, such as tendinitis – a common affliction among those who exercise regularly and intensely or too much. Periodization is no exception; it does not prevent micro trauma from occurring, regardless of the change in intensity of weight load from one ‘phase’ to another. One periodization phase even has the trainee performing up to 60 sets per workout (remember, it is the volume and frequency that causes overuse injuries just as much as the intensity of effort or the magnitude of the weight). And once you get tendinitis, reducing volume and workloads in the next phase will not permit the malady to retreat or heal. It can sometimes reduce in severity, but complete rest will be necessary (or at least working around the injury).


15


Exerting too hard, as with heavy repetition maximums, or performing explosive or ballistic movement, can exceed tissue integrity and cause macro trauma, such as tissue sprain or strain. Both Fleck and Kraemer endorse heavy maximum lifts, plyometric movements and explosive actions, such as power cleans and jump squats. These movements guarantee the highest rate of force possible and the greatest likelihood of injury. Moreover, you don’t need a heavy weight to produce high forces; lighter weights (or body weight) at fast speeds (viz., speed training) can do the trick quite nicely. When is explosive training safe and not safe? Unfortunately, it is impossible to know when an injury will take place until it is too late – when you exceed the structural integrity of the soft tissues. Many world-class athletes, including Olympic lifters, injure themselves by performing explosive plyometrics and Olympic lifts. A trainee does not hurt him or her self (i.e., acute injury) by moving slowly, with a moderately heavy weight and while remaining in the confines of proper mechanics. Certainly many athletes undertaking ploymetrics and explosive movements do not intentionally train to become injured. They believe they are training within safety constraints (not thinking they would become injured). The focus of contention is these are EXPERIENCED athletes who had years of knowledge and application with this training methodology and often under the guidance of a coach. But that is the risk they decided to take, as many plyometric and explosive experts conclude; a risk that is necessary for Olympic lifters (since they must practice Olympic lifts), but unacceptable and unnecessary for Joe Average. Now Fleck and Kraemer want Mr. Average to read their book and undertake the same hyperbole!

16



Intensity It is important to understand that Fleck and Kraemer define ‘intensity’ as “the average weight lifted” (which is somewhat confusing as it relates to the term ‘intensity) and “a percentage of the maximal possible weight that can be lifted for one repetition (1 RM) or any other number of repetitions.” The latter definition is different from how the I.A.R.T. defines intensity, being the percentage of possible momentary muscular and volitional effort exerted – or the magnitude of effort (both physical and mental), regardless of the weight load. The I.A.R.T. refers to the amount of weight lifted as the magnitude of the load. Consider a trainee performing one repetition with 100 pounds, although he can perform three reps. Next, he performs eight repetitions with 85 pounds to muscular failure, shaking and straining on the last possible repetition. The first set, according to Fleck and Kraemer, was more intense because the weight was heavier. Intensity, according to Webster’s dictionary is defined as “the degree or extent to which something is intense” with intense being defined as “strenuous or earnest, as activity, exertion, diligence, or thought”. (Look back to their first definition and try to draw a correlation!) Hence, would it take more mental and physical exertion to complete one repetition when three reps are possible (or completing the prescribed three when four or more reps are possible), or completing any number of repetitions to utter failure? It’s the latter, of course, and regardless of the weight load. Interesting, you will find that if training to muscular failure on both three and eight repetitions, eight repetitions are more demanding since they make greater metabolic inroads into function. A heavier weight for three repetitions certainly feels ‘heavy’ and taxing, but the muscle will weaken even more as you increase repetitions (within reason and up to the point of avoiding a focus on endurance).


17


Regardless of semantics, and how you choose to define intensity, a common theme throughout the entire book is lack of recognition of effort. Fundamentally, how hard one exerts is never addressed by Fleck and Kraemer, or many other periodization proponents, which has a significant bearing on exercise tolerance (ability to sustain sets and frequency), the magnitude of muscular inroading, and exercise prescription. It appears that to address ‘intensity of effort’ would bring about a conflict in their definition of intensity as it pertains to how much weight one lifts. By avoiding the issue, Fleck and Kraemer do not have to provide a dual definition – a term to mean two different concepts. The best one can conclude is that once reaching a rep goal (that the authors dictate) you increase the resistance. It may happen that you will sometimes reach muscular failure in an attempt to complete the final repetition within the rep goal, but not always. Neither is it considered that if a person were to train really hard on a handful of sets that not all 24-60 sets (!) per workout can be completed; a set prescription as established by the authors. It is highly unlikely that anyone can perform 60 sets to muscular failure on a regular basis, thus necessitating reduced and lower quality effort. What should a trainee do if he or she does, in fact, train very hard or like to train as hard as to achieve muscular failure? No answer is provided, and the Principle of Individualism is once again ignored. Moreover, as Mel Siff stated, “A big issue is that periodization (being so complex a system) uses only the volume and intensity of load to calculate its training system. This does not recognize the interdependence lifting skill and technique has with load.” Certain aspects of training do not exist within a vacuum. If you base training prescription on two factors, you must further base it on all factors that affect the stimulus, pre- and post-workout response, short-term and long-term adaptation (days, weeks, months), etc. Why wouldn’t you? Doing so makes the process of concretizing a plan much more complex, demanding than Fleck and Kraemer seem to realize.

18



Physiology of Training Phases The phases of periodization include Hypertrophy, Strength/Power, Peaking, and Active Rest. These phases do not make physiological sense, although devised by proclaimed exercise scientists with a Ph.D. The authors state, “The goal of (the hypertrophy) phase is to develop muscle mass and size (or hypertrophy) to support the development of strength and power in subsequent training phases.” Suggesting “to develop muscle mass and size” is redundant, as if muscle mass and size were two different entities (assuming the authors are not focusing on fat increase during the hypertrophy phase). It’s obvious that if you increase the mass of a muscle, you also increase the size of the muscle. Moreover, a larger muscle is a stronger muscle due to its greater crosssectional area. It does not “support the development of strength and power” but produces it. More muscle produces more force. This does not mean a more muscular individual will be stronger than a smaller individual (pound for pound, at least), but that both individuals will increase strength if they increase muscle size. An increase in muscle size will likewise increase power. In the next two phases, being Strength/Power, there is a suggestion that the emphasis is placed on these two aspects rather than hypertrophy although the authors conclude that hypertrophy can exist, but not as much – how they make that conclusion is unknown, nor is it detailed. Some people do respond better (i.e., the acquisition of muscle) by training with heavy poundages. Regardless, they state, “The goal of any strength phase is not only to increase strength but, to some extent, muscle size as well.” The authors further conclude, “The goal (of the strength phase) is to develop basic strength and serve as a transition between the hypertrophy phase and the power phase.” What is ‘basic strength’? Is that different from ‘strength’?


19


Likely, Fleck and Kraemer are drawing differences between strength of the body in general and the strength demonstrated or developed by performing specific athletic skills. This does not make sense since strength is strength... being the demonstration of the force generated by muscles despite a specific action or skill. The power phase “was designed to optimize the development and expression of true maximal strength and power.” True maximal strength as opposed to false maximal strength? What happened to ‘basic strength’? Power is defined as force x distance ÷ time, or the time rate of doing work. In other words, how much force you can generate (strength) in as little time to cover distance ‘x’. For example, if you could lift a 100-pound barbell in two seconds, then later lifted the barbell in one second that would demonstrate greater power. Your strength did not change – only the demonstration of strength and how much force you physically and volitionally generated in each instance. The distance remains the same, so it is force (strength) that must alter in order to change the time value (to balance the equation). How do you generate greater force? Obviously by increasing lean muscle mass. Remember, the larger a muscle becomes, the more FORCE it generates. You can also increase strength without increasing lean mass, but this has more to do with improving lifting proficiency within a skill (neurological skills that do not transfer over to other exercises or activities) as opposed to the force generated by a greater cross-sectional area of muscle. But, then, there is also volitional effort, or mental focus. Quick reaction and the neurons that fire off muscle fibers are controlled by the central command center (the brain). Being explosive is more mental than physical, although improving upon specific physical skills can improve that aspect. (This factor refers to skill acquisition, or the constant practicing of a particular neuromuscular pattern; the more ‘conditioned’ you become to an activity or exercise, the more confidently you can push the envelope in force generation.)

20



Hence, the more you focus, the more you practice, and the larger your muscles become, the stronger and more powerful you become (within reason, and relative to one’s genetics and the activity in question). Consequently, why wouldn’t an athlete simply focus on hypertrophy (if weight category is not a concern), together with the actual skills of the sport, rather than arbitrarily altering repetition, volume and weight load values to coincide with obscure ‘phases’? No answer was provided. Moreover, and this extends to the ISSA and other organizations and individuals whom promote ill-defined terms such as: • • • • • • • • •

speed strength explosive strength explosive power anaerobic strength aerobic strength general strength maximal strength reactive strength strength endurance, ad nauseum...

...what happens physiologically to a muscle during activity and rest (compensation) during any one of those training modalities that is different from the other modalities? How does a muscle contract differently during hypertrophy training than during power or speed training? How do the neurons fire differently in any of the above ‘types’ of strength or power? If you look at any number of scientific studies on strength training or bodybuilding, you will notice one commonality: Although various modalities are compared (such as explosive movement versus slow movement) NONE of the above modalities have actually been studied. They can’t, simply because there is no way to quantify their existence. How do you isolate and measure speed strength versus starting strength? These are simply descriptive terms that have no bearing on actual performance or exercise as a science.


21


Now, it can be argued that there is a difference between generating force and the speed of muscle contraction, viz., f = m (g+a) vs. its inertia or f = ma. The problem with using formulas to ‘prove’ something is that the formulas exist within a vacuum, not taking into account other physical phenomenon (i.e., many experiments ignore the effect of friction since it is impossible to measure in most dynamic instances). Nor can they be isolated from each other (all matters of physics are inter-dependent and intertwined). Regardless, some periodizationists claim that training must include "context dependent strength" (e.g., demonstrating strength with speed, i.e. speed strength, or strength-speed [when loads are heavier]). For example, consider a pitcher throwing three balls: • wiffle ball • baseball • 10-pound lead shot Of all three, the baseball will travel fastest since the shot-put is so heavy (difficult to generate force quickly enough), whereas the wiffle ball is so light (insufficient opposing force) that insufficient force is generated by the body to produce sufficient acceleration. This reflects Newton’s third law, as addressed on page 37. Now, it is further argued that in the case of the lead shot, the degree of strength has importance since not much speed can be generated against such a heavy weight (i.e., strength-speed). Conversely, speed (the rate of muscle contraction) has importance when throwing the wiffle ball since it is so light and strength is not a huge factor (i.e., speed-strength); thus technical skill of activating the muscles is the critical factor. Although these factors are true, there is a problem in its application toward resistance strength training – primarily, the bifurcation of force and how the force is applied. They are not separate entities, particularly considering that one must generate force to even consider speed or the nature of said force!

22



Second, the application of any weight training movement is non-specific to any athletic (or non-athletic) activity. You cannot blast a light barbell quickly, expecting it (greater speed ability from practicing that movement) to transfer over to a baseball, wiffle ball, or shot-put throw. The velocity of ball throwing is different and unique to a particular weight of ball. The mechanics and skills are also much different, and any ‘specific’ application of weight training will not improve ability (i.e., speed) outside the ‘specific’ application of said weight training. It’s no different than suggestion focusing on speed with the wiffle ball and focusing on strength with the lead shot will transfer over quite nicely to the baseball. Another question is: How is supercompensation amongst the modalities different aside from greater function and adaptation to the activity in question (i.e., practicing plyometric jumps will make you good at jumping)? Consider the inability to quantifiably state: “You have improved in explosive strength... here is ‘that’ type of strength under the microscope, and it is larger than before... but your starting strength and aerobic strength seems to have remained the same size.” Any concrete existent can be measured... except, apparently, the various (and nebulous) forms of strength and ability in the human body. Adaptation to the activity in question is vital to understand. The skills of weight training do not cross over to the skills of other activities. Being a good guitar player does not make you a good violin player, although both are stringed instruments. Or, for you guitar players out there, play an electric guitar for a few years, then lend your hand to a classical guitar. The width of the neck, thickness of the strings, and ‘action’ of the instrument makes it difficult to extend your skills until you get used to the new instrument and develop those skills. Analogously, being explosive at power cleans will not make you explosive at sprinting or tackling in football (unless also practiced). You must practice those skills and use the muscle tissue that exists (while optimizing mental focus) to demonstrate explosiveness in any particular activity.


23


Some periodizationalist conclude that power cleans are ‘very’ similar in execution to rising off the line and blocking in football... almost identical. ‘Almost’ and ‘very similar’ are not exact, and the skill patterns are, likewise, different. The practice of safer, lower force exercises, together with the practice of actually and specifically exploding in football (i.e., generating power from the upper and lower body) will produce the intended results. However, for the sake of argument, assume that performing power cleans produces a better ‘explosive’ effect than slow and strict bench and shoulder presses. For the average person, being explosive from a squat to near standing position is irrelevant in every day life. Consequently, only a handful of athletes could benefit from the specificity of power cleans, such as football players. Considering the repetitive injuries Olympic athletes incur from such lifting practices (experts in the lifts), is it worth the risk of injuring a valuable athlete in the hopes being 5% more explosive? This point is especially noteworthy if considering skill (and how force is applied on the playing field) has greater importance than the optimum explosive force ability by the athlete. The strongest, fastest, or most powerful athlete does not necessarily mean the best athlete on a team or at a particular playing position. It is interesting to note that athletes whom undertake explosive weight training (to build power) likewise practice the skills of their sport, becoming more efficient at those skills in question. Many also perform traditional weight training with moderate to heavy loads while moving slowly. Strength coaches then conclude that it was the explosive weight training that improved the athlete’s ability to be explosive without considering the concurrent mental and physical skill training of the sport, hypertrophy through traditional weight training modalities, etc.

24



If it is impossible to determine the cost-benefit ratio of plyometrics and other explosive exercises, and their effectiveness compared to other modalities, or the actual mechanism that triggers growth, how can the ‘experts’ conclude that plyometrics were effective when performed concurrently with sportspecific skills and other training methods? It would be further interesting to test athletes who give up completely on sport skill training and traditional weight training and do nothing but explosive weight training and plyometrics THEN conclude how effective the cross over is! James J. Dowling, Ph.D., is an explosive and plyometric proponent. Yet he concludes that: “Exercise scientists still do not know the exact mechanisms that cause increases in performance and are even less sure of the training stimuli that trigger these mechanisms into action. I believe that the benefit is real (with plyometrics) but the degree of its superiority over other training methods for jumping, sprinting, and throwing have not been quantified.” In the first statement, Dowling confirms that we are not certain of the mechanisms that increase performance, yet he chooses to endorse a potentially dangerous method of exercise, indicating the benefit is real. (Any method of overload and specificity can enhance ability. Consider that the testing measurement of plyometrics is jumping... the exact same skill that is being trained. Doesn’t it make sense that jumping ability would improve? But that skill is far removed from the skill of sprinting, or dodging tactics in basketball, for example.)


25


Both Fleck and Kraemer likewise choose to include explosive and plyometric exercises in their philosophy. And they are so bold as to suggest altering reps, sets and weight loads will have near-isolating effects on hypertrophy, strength, and power – as if they were separate entities that can be developed almost independent of each other. If the mechanisms cannot be isolated, how can it be determined whether an alteration in a program of a few reps, sets, and weight load percentage will focus more on strength or power or that strength and power is not a concern or possible during hypertrophy? Dowling states this about plyometrics (as well as most whom endorse the activity), “All athletes and coaches are responsible for selecting a level of acceptable risk. When the benefit is not clear and the risk is also not well known, it makes the decision even more difficult.” Exercise for the vast majority is about enhancing function, not running the risk of injury or increasing that risk. Weight training is about injury prevention and physical improvement. Should Joe and Jane Average incorporate explosive and plyometric exercises if it means increasing the risk of injury to (supposedly) increase power? Should athletes worth millions of dollars do likewise? Ask baseball professional Alex Rodriguez (Mariners’ shortstop) that question after he injured his left knee in 1999 while performing box jumps under the guidance of a ‘qualified’ strength coach who believed explosive training to be ideal. *** ***

26



When addressing the power phase, Fleck and Kraemer state, “Most multijoint sporting activities require the development of power. This would include jumping, throwing, and running. It follows that mostly multi-joint power type exercises are used in this phase. The emphasis is on accelerating the weight throughout the entire range of motion of the lifting phase of every exercise (where this can be done safely).” There are a number of problems with these statements: It does not “follow” that one must perform NON-SPECIFIC multi-joint weight training exercises in order to increase the power of SPECIFIC athletic activities. It is uncertain how they came to that conclusion except to suggest that multi-joint movements are more time and cost effective (they offer the biggest bang for the buck). But in regards to specificity, squatting is not the same as jumping. Overhead presses are not the same as throwing a baseball. And lunging is not the same as running. Heck, even the improved ability of the flat barbell bench press does not cross over very well to machine or incline dumbbell presses. And there is a lot more similarity between execution and speed of movement, etc. amongst those movements than between free-weight exercises and sporting skills. To be good at a machine press or dumbbell incline presses requires you to practice those movements specifically. Further, how can an activity that is much slower in acceleration and speed (e.g., plyometric jumps) improve the explosiveness, acceleration and speed of a sporting activity (e.g., sprinting)? In order to become faster and more explosive at throwing a baseball, does it make sense to explode a barbell or dumbbell that moves much slower? The athlete should be focusing on the skills of throwing a ball while building strength and muscle ‘generally’ and ‘safely’ in the weight room. Next, consider the last phrase “where this can be done safely.” Again, as stated previously, the ‘safe’ limit is unknown when attempting to take your muscles to the edge, by optimizing force output with explosive action. How can a trainee know when these practices are safe? Have you ever injured yourself and was surprised that you did injure yourself (believing it was safe to push that hard)? Most of us have been down that road, and may take another walk down that road repeatedly whenever challenging the upper limits of the body. The upper safe limit is never known until it is too late.


27


Fleck and Kraemer then state, “All the exercises performed during this training phase (strength/power) are multi-joint power or multi-joint strength type exercise.” Huh? Why can’t a single joint exercise increase power or strength (which they can)? What function would a multi-joint exercise have if not to increase function (i.e., hypertrophy, strength, and power)? – in other words, these are unnecessary neologisms. And if you consider that a muscle cannot be trained throughout a full range of motion without the inclusion of single-joint exercises (for reasons based on mechanics, see Prescribed Exercise), it should be evident the importance of single-joint training and the erroneous statement made by Fleck and Kraemer. Some periodizationalists may offer up the ‘quality versus quantity’ argument. Primarily, single joint exercises impose extra sets, extra time, and extra recovery requirements. The goal is to build a basic foundation of strength with time, energy, and recovery to spare for other sport specific activities. Multi-joint movements give the biggest bang for the buck. All right, that is a fair argument, which has nothing to do with the average trainee (since they don’t perform sport-specific activities), but athletes. The same argument, however, can be applied in favor of single-joint movements. If your goal is to optimize the effect, development, and function of ‘a’ specific muscle group, it is not an issue of quantity, but quality, which brings us back to the benefit of single-joint movements – to better isolate a muscle that requires optimum loading, inroading, development, etc. Moreover, not all muscle groups need be subjected to single-joint movements (only those you wish to focus attention). Adding 1-2 sets of single-joint movements (in a program already based on a minimum of 24 sets) will not suddenly lead to overtraining. And there is nothing stating that you cannot delete a multi-joint movement to make room for a single-joint movement if doing so increases the quality of the workout goals in question.

28



Regardless, to give such ‘titles’ as ‘multi-joint power’ and ‘multi-joint strength’ to exercises is pointless and endeavors to show the authors in a favorable light of authorities (viz. using impressive sounding terminology). Dazzle them with BS. Moreover, the act of making up names (and meaningless names at that) helps to instill confusion, poorly defined terms, and vagueness in the sciences, which also helps to cloak the authors’ mysticism and errors in reasoning. What is strange is that the authors claim “Power training must be performed at relatively high intensity to be effective.” Yet, a heavy weight (high intensity) can only be moved slowly since it is so heavy. You can move a lighter weight much faster, obviously. Consequently, how can the slow moving heavy weight of the bench press transfer to greater power in throwing a ball, for example, at much faster velocities? If the connecting (physical) factor is relative to the overload of the weight (and the increase in strength/force output), does that not indicate the importance of overload in general, regardless of the speed of movement – that building strength and hypertrophy are the governing factors behind power? An elementary understanding of physics should dictate as much. Yet Fleck and Kraemer promote moving a weight (during the concentric/positive phase of a movement) as quickly as possible. Doing so magnifies the forces and potential for injury.


29


More on Training Phases Vagueness does not stop with the concept of hypertrophy versus strength or power. Fleck and Kraemer define ‘General strength training’ as “weight training that develops all the major muscle groups and bolsters overall strength capabilities”. This type of training begins during the offseason and early pre-season (or preparation phase of competition). It falls just after the ‘hypertrophy’ phase. What is perplexing are the prescriptions offered within the book. Hypertrophy requires 3-4 sets per exercise whereas strength and power requires 3-5 sets. Why can’t hypertrophy include a fifth set, or stop at two sets per exercise? What is the physiological reason for an extra set for strength and power? No explanations are provided except the possibility of keeping total work numbers up, i.e., reduce reps and increase sets. The repetition counts are also arbitrary, suggesting that hypertrophy training should be 8-20 repetitions, whereas strength is 2-6 and power is 2-3. Why can’t power also include repetitions four and five? No answer is given. In fact, no answers can be given for any of these assertions, only that ‘something’ had to be different in order to differentiate one phase from the others, so let’s choose reps and sets! Then there is the issue of weight loads, wherein hypertrophy training is low in intensity (between 60-80% of a 1 RM). Why not 85% or 95% in a rest-pause fashion (a highly useful training variable used amongst high-intensity enthusiasts, including the late Mike Mentzer and Ray Mentzer)? No answer is given. The recommendations for arbitrary repetitions, sets, and weight loads do not take into account an individual’s cadence choice (how fast or slow the resistance will move) or an individual’s tolerance to stress. For example, if you were to move 4 seconds up and 4 seconds down (nothing too slow, but far from explosive), a set of 8 repetitions would last 64 seconds. But a set of 12 repetitions would last over 90 seconds – far too long for muscles that have an abundance of fast twitch fibers and are quick to fatigue (a tension time that can eventually lead to overuse atrophy if abused). And some muscle groups may respond optimally to only 1-2 sets, so why perform 3+ sets? 30



Although Fleck and Kraemer indicate the value of tracking data by including an entire chapter on the topic, they neglect precision of record keeping by ignoring repetition cadence relative to the number of repetitions performed. Then you have Charles Poliquin, another periodization proponent, on the other side of the fence, suggesting impossible cadence measurements such as 2.1 seconds! How do you measure that? Fleck and Kraemer’s inexact approach is further exemplified by suggesting: “You can determine any RM weight from 1 to 25 RM by following these steps: 1.

Warm up with five to 10 repetitions using 50 percent of an estimated RM (How do you know what 50% is? No answer. If you pretty much knew this information you wouldn’t need to continue the experiment).

2.

After a minute or two of rest and some stretching, use 70 percent of that estimated RM to perform the desired number of repetitions – i.e., if you’re looking to find your 1 RM, do one rep; if you’re looking to find your 10 RM, do ten reps (Same problem arises).

3.

Repeat step two, only now you’re using 90% of the estimated RM.

4.

After two minutes or so of rest, repeat step two, this time using 100 to 105 percent of the estimated RM.

5.

If step four is successfully completed, repeat step two, rest included, this time using one to five percent more weight than you used in step four.

6.

If you successfully completed step five, repeat the entire cycle after at least one full day of rest, starting with a heavier weight in step one.

There’s a better way... simply get into the gym and fake it. If you’re looking to complete a certain number of repetitions, you will quickly discover your goal weights within a few workouts. About as much time to estimate the periodization way.


31


Moreover, this ‘testing’ does not take into account a muscle’s rate of fatigue or the relationship of various muscles within a multi-joint movement. Triceps that are quick to fatigue, for example, would produce a test that concludes a much lower RM than what actually exists – yet the pectorals and deltoids may not be optimally fatigued. This scenario easily happens with any muscle with an abundance of fast twitch since the more sets you perform trying to find your RM, the faster you fatigue and the more skewed the data becomes. The test, simply, is a waste of time for beginners and irrelevant to those who have been exercising for some time and have been tracking data (as they should be). Then the authors move onto ‘sport-specific weight training’, indicating that such exercise trains “the muscles in a fashion similar to how they’ll be used during the actual competitive situation. Thus, for many sports this would mean power-oriented training.” And this is where they make a fundamental error believing moving explosively or using heavy weights in an exercise will make the muscles more explosive in a particular sporting skill. And that attempting to duplicate a sporting skill in the weight room under different conditions will improve an athlete’s ability.

32



Sport Specificity Including specific resistance training exercises to enhance sport specific movements is utter absurdity, regardless of the recommendations of Fleck and Kraemer. There are no degrees of specificity... either something is entirely specific or it is not – either a physical movement is completely specific or it is not. Specific means explicit, particular, or definite, not ‘sort of’ or ‘similar.’ For example, throwing a baseball that is ounces heavier than the ball you are used to and then eventually returning to the original ball weight is no longer specific and will definitely hinder the accuracy of your pitch if continued. This phenomenon occurs since the nervous system controls the muscles, producing a particular pattern and firing rate participation of the motorneurons and skill acquisition in accordance to the practiced movement in question. The inter-task transfer, or the ability for the skills of one activity to improve that of another unrelated activity, typically finds that the transfer is small or negligible. If the tasks are more similar, the transfer tends to be higher yet still typically small. An example would be a badminton player taking up tennis. Because of this athlete’s past experience, the skills of badminton may help in learning the game of tennis. However, a proficient tennis player will not become a better tennis player as a result of learning badminton skills. Never has a world-class tennis player become a world-class badminton or table tennis player. The skills may appear similar, but they differ greatly as a result of play area, racket weight, air resistance, ball/birdie weight, and kinetic characteristics such as speed, delivery, and return. Strength training is analogous in this regard but to a much greater magnitude. The skills of a power clean cannot transfer to the skills of sprinting and dodging in football, or a slap-shot in hockey, although many strength and conditioning coaches believe otherwise. Strength is general and contributes to any activity. The applied demonstration of strength is specific, however, and applying strength to any activity, such as football, requires skill training. And the only way to produce specificity in a sport is to practice the sport skills themselves – not something that appears to be similar.


33


Being more explicit, in football there are many positions, including running back, quarterback, and wide receiver. Being good at one position does not make that athlete good at all positions. If this were the case, a running back could take the quarterback’s place if the quarterback became injured during the game. It should be obvious that the skill acquisition is much different from one position to another. Likewise, Olympic lifting is even more far removed, not offering any direct transference of skill nor producing any better gains in strength or power than a sound program of strict, hard exercise characterized by safe, low-force, non-ballistic movement. Since resistance exercises (regardless of their apparent duplications) are not specific to the speed, gait and force produced in athletic events, they are useless for increasing a specific skill and an inappropriate way to contribute to a skill. Even the use of parachutes during sprinting has not been proven to optimally improve running speed since it is non-specific to the speed, mechanics, and gait of sprinting without a parachute. Those who make modest gains from such training do so because the stress overload on the muscles caused muscular strength and growth to occur. They could have received better results from a sensible strength training program and without disrupting the specifics of their natural gait (requiring even more practice under ‘normal’ conditions in order to sustain or improve in those skills). Negative Transfer Attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with unaccustomed movements and loads results in the athlete learning two methods or styles of performance, thus causing a negative transfer. Multiple motor memories adapt, which inevitably leads to confusion. Competitive performance will either suffer or not benefit in any manner as a result. Similarly, it is not uncommon for a strength athlete to be very strong in the bench press, yet be relatively weak with the incline or decline bench press (if s/he did not also practice those movements) due to different motor learning patterns. Try it yourself, utilizing a totally new exercise, and you will discover a comparable weakness to that of a seemingly similar exercise movement.

34



Arthur Jones relayed an excellent example of a small stone or grain of sand in a sock. Did you notice how your gait changes in order to accommodate the discomfort? That small grain of sand, although it felt huge, was enough of a change to alter the specificity of your gait. Can you imagine what attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with added resistance could do to your learning curve? To relay another example, operating a transport truck will not affect your ability to operate a small compact car since the two particulars and characteristics of these vehicles are so far removed. But drive a small compact for several years, then suddenly a Lincoln Continental, and you will find the task more arduous, especially when parallel parking or moving in tight spaces. The close relationship between the two cars makes observation and perception more difficult than that between a small car and the transport truck. Furthermore, and as Arthur Jones personally observed, piloting a plane and driving a car is even more non-specific, having no detrimental effect on the two skills. The ideal strength training routine for an athlete is to simply select common exercises, such as the bench press, squat, calf raise, bent row, chin-up, etc., and leave the skill training to the sport in question. Despite the importance of including exercises that are geared toward the primary muscles of your sporting event (e.g., squats for sprinters, deltoid work for tennis players), exercise movements designed to be specific to a muscular movement found within a sport is a grave error.


35


Explosive/Speed Training For the past few years, speed and explosive training has become the new rave within the fitness industry; neatly fitting into the periodization model for supposed optimum conditioning. Whether you’re talking about speed training or explosive training, the concept is to move or accelerate the resistance as quickly as possible (speed training usually implements lighter weights, around the 60% of a 1RM, for example). Questions remaining include: 1) Will moving quickly develop quicker muscles? 2) Will moving quickly produce better results, i.e., the ability to mover faster, than moving slowly? 3) Is it safe to move quickly? Quicker Muscles Consider that some authorities whom promote speed training also contend slow movement (e.g., 3-4 second concentric or slower) makes you slow, or at least will not improve speed. There are several problems with this reasoning, some of which were addressed previously but deserve reiteration. Primarily, it is force that enables you to move faster. Simply try to move faster without exerting greater force. If you discover a method to the contrary, share it with the automobile industry and become wealthy. Now consider elementary physics – that moving a resistance from point A to B (distance) requires force and a magnitude of time to complete the lift. Add it all together and you have the prescription for power, which is force x distance ÷ time, or the rate of doing work. By increasing force (i.e., muscle strength), and not speed, you become more powerful and faster. Speed is merely the result of force. As Isaac Asimov stated in his book, Understanding Physics, “...a force is that which can impose a change of velocity on a material body; (a force is) that which imposes a change in speed of a body, or its direction of motion, or both; without a continuous force, there would be no continuous acceleration.”

36



It is a fact that a stronger athlete (relative to his or her own previous ability) is a more powerful and faster athlete but within reason and limitations. Those who compete with light implements, i.e., tennis or Ping-Pong players, increase the speed of their swing and delivery by skill practicing, mental focus, and drills to increase reaction time. Exerting against a light implement such as a racquet, air resistance, and a ball cannot provide sufficient opposing force (Newton’s Third Law) to allow greater muscular force up to a certain limitation... no matter how strong you become. As an analogy, try throwing a small pebble versus a stone 3-4 times the pebble’s size. The stone can be thrown much further since it is heavy enough to produce a sufficient and greater force against the working muscles (again, a reflection of Newton’s Third Law). But too heavy, and the opposing force of the stone will exceed or challenge the muscles in excess. Hence, athletes who do require high speeds against low resistance are at the mercy of their reflexes or nervous reactions (factors that are genetically predetermined), as well as their volitional effort and focus. Speed weight training will NOT help. Next, consider the idea that regardless of how fast you move a resistance, it is nowhere near the potential speed that is possible. For example, a rapidly moving barbell (e.g., 50+% of your 1RM) may travel at 200° per second – perhaps a bit faster. However, a sprinter’s limbs, unobstructed by a resistance (excluding gravity, ground friction, and air), can move and accelerate several times faster. How can a slower speed, while using resistance, increase the speed capability of muscles that contract much faster and under 90ms – especially considering one ‘pro-speed’ argument is that moving slowly in weight training will not build speed and that you must move quickly or explosively? If lighter resistance is more specific to increasing maximal speed, as so many coaches advocate, then why not train with air resistance for maximal speed development? It may be argued that some resistance is necessary, which suggests the importance of muscular inroading via an overload to build strength/force. This, then, contributes to greater speed development and that the speed of movement during exercise is irrelevant – or at least the speed of any weight training activity is non-specific to an athletic activity.


37


Realize that the speed you demonstrate power is with specific and dependent on the sporting activity or movement. The speed of movement at which you build power, however, is unrelated and independent of the speed at which you demonstrate power. If you play a particular sport requiring fast movement, you should attempt to move quickly when practicing the particular sporting skills, thus demonstrating power, but not when exercising to build power. Better Results If you consider the reasoning above, fast movement is not superior to slower movement in producing quick muscles, power or explosion. Moreover, the faster you move, the greater the acceleration and momentum. That means a quick blast out of the starting gates resulting in high forces at the commencement of movement. What follows (if not injury) is muscular unloading for part of the range of motion as the resistance propels upward and until gravity slows the weight down. How can muscular unloading be beneficial if the concept of strength training is to train (not relax) the muscles? Also, what mechanically transpires during fast movement that does NOT transpire during slow movement? Speed proponents are unable to respond rationally – often substituting mystical terminology, gut hunches, beliefs, and hypotheses for fact. Muscles contract – period. Whether you move quickly or slowly, their job is to generate or resist force (resisting force via contraction), regardless of speed. And, as stated, it is force that produces speed and acceleration. EMG studies do indicate a difference in the rate of fiber recruitment with faster speeds (within reason and before momentum takes over). However, on a cellular basis: • Fibers still contract, and they contract in the same manner regardless of how slowly or quickly you apply force. • The rate and quality of recruitment patterns are different with a weight training movement than a sport specific movement (and being able to turn on more fibers during an explosive lift does not automatically mean turning on as many or more fibers [or the same fibers in the same order] during an athletic activity that requires different movement patterns). • The issue of safety (and comparing cost-benefit ratios) must be considered with ‘explosive’ movements.

38



Safety The faster you move the greater the risk of injury. Moving a light weight explosively is just as dangerous as moving a 1RM slowly (although producing maximum force to move the 1RM as quickly as possible). Speed proponents, at least, concur that there remains risk of injury during explosive movement. Exercise, however, should not increase any risk. Rather, it should increase functional ability to help prevent injuries. It is understandable that Olympic lifters and powerlifters run the risk of injuries due to the high forces of lifting a 1RM, but that should not apply to the remainder of the population. Many professional athletes have injured themselves from high-speed training, and they are genetic superiors who can better sustain such rigors. If they run the risk of injury, what does that indicate about the norm? Most importantly, it is vital never to have the elderly lift explosively, regardless of what some NSCA proponents recommend (i.e., Mr. Juan Carlos Santana). There should be near-zero risk when training frail individuals. Obviously, the more haphazard the training approach with the elderly, the greater the risk of injury and possible legal action. Moreover, it is erroneous to propose that speed training will make the elderly faster, apart from the arguments presented thus far. The elderly are often slow in movement due to deconditioned bodies, crippling diseases, and sometimes laziness (they may not value exercise or have the motivation to do so regularly), thus further affecting condition, posture, etc. Their lack of speed in daily movements is unrelated to avoiding fast and explosive actions as they age. In that vein, how much speed does a 70-year old man or woman need? They require strength to live with dignity – to get out of bed or lift them selves off the toilet, not to wind sprint to the corner store. If you still believe speed training has value, keep it in perspective and prescribe it to those who can best tolerate high forces – the young and strong (and quick to heal), not your grandparents!


39


More on Specificity Consider that Fleck and Kraemer promote variations of the snatch, clean, jerk, and certain plyometric type exercises “to inculcate good technique in these exercises”, which makes sense. If you want to be good at those movements (endorsed by two past Olympic lifters), then you need to practice them – very important for OLYMPIC LIFTERS. Yet they continue by suggesting, “and in part to start to develop the power necessary to be successful in a power type activity such as shot-putting or discus throwing.” What’s wrong with practicing shot-putting or discus throwing? How will developing skill in the Olympic lifts help a person shot-put – two different skills with two different neurological patterns, rate of force production, speed, etc.? No answer is given. If you carefully read the preceding section on specificity, it should be ‘neurologically’ evident why performing Olympic lifting and other explosive movements will not enhance an athlete’s ability to shot-put or throw a discus. If those movements increased lean mass (which they can), then the ability to generate force improves. If explosive weight training helped these athletes, why haven’t any worldclass Olympic lifters broken any shot-put or discus world records? Because they don’t have the SKILLS necessary to execute those movements – and possibly not the proper mechanics, i.e., lever lengths. Shot-putters and discus throwers become explosive at their chosen activities by practicing those movements and building muscle and strength through strength training in general. Explosive movements in strength training are unnecessary – it is the explosiveness of skill specific activities that is vital, based on mental focus, quick reaction and a lot of practice of those skills.

40



Regardless, Fleck and Kraemer continue by stating, “Periodization is all about meeting specific training needs. As an example, if the sport being trained were not a true strength power sport, but a strength endurance sport -–such as the 400-meter event in track and field – the same general pattern of training intensity and volume could be maintained with changes in the number of sets, repetitions, and training days per week. For an event such as the 400-meters in track and field, the first mesocycle could consist of 15-20 repetitions per set and 2-3 sets of each exercise; then progress to 5-8 repetitions per set with 2-3 sets of each exercise.” It’s uncertain what the relationship is or why training needs to reduce dramatically from 15-20 repetitions to 5-8 repetitions or why the trainee should bother with 15-20 repetitions in the first place. Endurance of a sporting activity is acquired by practicing the sporting activity! Being good at endurance weight training will not allow you to run a 5K race or complete a triathlon. Consider one Super Slow Exercise training advocate who reported to me being winded running bases in softball although he regularly performed full body, high-intensity workouts 1-2 times a week, while getting his pulse rate up to 180 or greater. The endurance and ability he acquired did not transfer to another activity. The neuromuscular skills required in softball (sprinting) were new and made great metabolic demands. He had to practice 40-yard dashes to become efficient at the required demands. The same holds true for any sport in that practicing 15-20 reps of an exercise will not produce greater endurance for a particular activity other than performing 15-20 reps of that exercise. Moreover, Fleck and Kraemer recommended 15-20 repetitions during the hypertrophy phase; now the rep range has become the endurance phase (?). What happens if these endurance athletes build too much muscle, thus affecting the cost-benefit ratio of ability versus size? No answer is given.


41


Another factor that must be considered is: If the demands (set and rep requirements) remain constant during a periodization phase, but the training poundages increase and muscle mass remains constant, it is lifting proficiency within select exercise movements that are improving. This does not mean greater power or strength that can be demonstrated in a sporting activity. The reason ‘strong men’ practice stone lifts, odd lifts, etc. prior to the World’s Strongest Man competition is based on specificity and that the strength they build bench pressing, squatting, etc. does not carry over. They are limited by the amount of muscle they obtained through traditional weight training (i.e., bench pressing and squatting), followed by skill practicing (i.e., stone lifts) to obtain lifting proficiency in the lifts in which they are to be tested. Hence, in order to increase strength and power that extends to any activity, muscle cross-sectional area must increase (and the skills specific to the sport must be practiced so the strength and power that does exist, via the muscle development of the person, can be demonstrated). Just as the skills of one sport do not transfer to the skills of another sport, neither will the proficiency skills of lifting weights transfer to football, hockey, or any other activity. It is the actual architectural change of tissues (hypertrophy) that results in greater function relative to any activity.

42



Rest and Recovery “There are three recovery periods within the total training year.” Why is this? No reason is given. It is not the individual’s needs and goals, nor his or her schedule and ability to coordinate ‘recovery periods’ that are taken into consideration. Perhaps more recovery periods are required – maybe less. Rather, the fixed program forces each individual to train in accordance to the schedule created by the authors, as if our biological clocks and cycles run in accordance to the (their) calendar – regardless of individual stress levels and experiences. If you recall at the beginning of this report, the authors claimed you won’t get bored and give up on exercise if you follow their recommendations – “That won’t happen with a periodized plan.” However, they never considered the dropout rate based on the inability to adhere to a fixed regimen that does not coincide with the trainee’s schedule, preferences, conveniences, or tolerance to exercise. “...rest and recovery is vital to optimal progression,” states the authors. Few would argue with this sentiment, although Fleck and Kraemer’s concept of rest and recovery is far removed from what the terms actually mean (to be addressed shortly). The power phase “allows the individual to recover physiologically from the previous high-volume training and to prepare psychologically for the maximal and near-maximal efforts necessary for this mode of training.” Moreover, “The goal of the recovery periods is to allow the athlete to REST UP from the previous training phase and prepare their body for the next training phase. All the recovery periods are comprised of moderate volume and low-intensity training. There is little weekly variation in either volume or intensity in any of the recovery periods.” (Emphasis mine).


43


What is a recovery period? If you thought relaxing on the beach, think again. Fleck and Kraemer are advising 16-30 sets (a broad range, indeed), performed 2-3 times per week. The individual obviously won’t be getting much rest. However, considering this phase proceeds double the volume per workout at three times per week during the hypertrophy phase, there is little wonder why a trainee would welcome as few as 16 sets per workout. Stress Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand. Whether you perform one set or 60 sets, whether with a light or a heavy weight, and whether for 20 reps or one rep, you make inroads into recovery ability and function. You stress the endocrine and lymphatic systems and depress your immunity until recovered. Light, moderate and heavy intensity (weight load) workouts affect the body in the same general way (as far as stress is concerned); the weight variances are different merely on the basis of quantification, but not the generalized effect stress has on the body. Regardless, the authors conclude that, “Variation of training intensity will result in sufficient rest between sessions and sufficient intensity stimulus for continued gains.” If the stimulus is sufficient to produce gains, it is sufficient to disrupt homeostasis. If it is sufficient to disrupt homeostasis, it is not rest or recovery. Consequently, to suggest ‘active rest’ is absurd, particularly since the authors promote more weight training rather than something more relaxing, such as walking, bowling or some other light activity to give both muscles and MIND a break.

44



As per the authors, “In general, high intensity or high-volume days should be followed by days of complete rest, or days comprised of low-to-medium intensity and volume. Light training days are necessary to allow recovery from heavy days. Other common changes made on a weekly basis include variations in exercises and exercise order.” What is necessary (if the heavy days are that strenuous) is actual rest, not the replacement of more exercise based on a quantitative change of weight load. Moreover, if the ‘heavy’ days were that effective, better regulation of volume and frequency would dictate constant implementation (or for at least as long as desired in accordance to one’s needs and goals). You wouldn’t have to be concerned with ‘lighter’ interspersed workouts between ‘heavy’ days. A need for such indicates fault within the program (i.e., doing too much). This is not to suggest that there is no value in cycling or periodizing light and heavy loads, but its function or purpose is not one of rest or recovery with alternating heavy and light workouts. Conversely, some research shows a delayed effect present in the face of decreased loading, but not necessarily non-loading. The reasons may be neurological (viz., constant skill practicing?), but no one knows. Nor are the quality standards of many of these studies controlled (using tools that cannot measure functional strength versus net strength).


45


Regardless, the ability to constantly lift greater weights does not take into account two factors: 1. The increase in strength does not necessarily mean an increase in lean tissue or an increase in actual strength production (see Heavy Duty: A Critical Analysis, Apex, and Metamorphose Optimus). Consequently, is there benefit to focusing merely on weight progressions (rather than making exercises harder with the same weight) considering the everincreasing strain on the soft tissues that bring about an increase for injury? 2. The ability to be more proficient in lifting more weight does not necessarily transfer to greater athletic ability in sporting skill specifics. Rather than perform additional ‘lighter’ workouts, that time could be utilized for mental imagery work, skill specific work, etc., thus producing a better cost-benefit for the athlete. *** *** Fleck and Kraemer waste no time in overtraining the average Joe. To ‘break in’ a person gradually, they recommend only 8-12 exercises of one set each to be performed during the first week. That equates to 8-12 sets. Not bad. However, trainees are then instructed to increase that number to two sets per exercise during week two, then three sets during weeks three and four! That’s a climb all the way up to 36 sets per session, or triple the volume in only three weeks. Primary reasons for terminating an exercise program are lack of motivation, lack of results, and inability to cope with the stress (fatigue), even if modest results are forthcoming. The intensity of effort would have to be quite low to tolerate this much volume in a workout, which means reduced progress (you don’t get something for nothing – and you can’t build a good physique by not trying hard). Poor results reduce motivation, and reduced motivation (from fatigue or frustration from doing so much) reduces the magnitude of results.

46



Individual tolerance to stress is not addressed, as usual, not taking into account what magnitude of volume and frequency may cause a person to become fatigued over the course of ‘x’ days or ‘y’ months based on his or her intensity of effort and set quality. The authors assume a change in regimen will ‘fix things.’ But a change is not always enough. One problem with canned programs, as per Fleck and Kraemer, is the inclusion of a wide array of sets and exercises that may still be far too much for some people, even at the low end of prescription.


47


Set Rests Fleck and Kraemer conclude that the heavier the weight used, the more rest required between sets. This is an old powerlifting myth. Extra time is often required for mental reasons (to psych up prior to lifting a heavy weight). Many of these athletes also carry a fair amount of fat weight and are not geared (nor have they adapted to or require) good endurance. Energy-wise, a set of 8-10 repetitions makes greater metabolic demands on the body and takes longer from which to recover. If you have the ability to sustain peak mental focus, try bench pressing a 1 RM and only take a minute rest. Unless you have an unusually high rate of fast twitch (and are quick to fatigue) you will execute that 1 RM once again, or pretty darn close. Now, try that after completing eight repetitions to muscular failure on the bench press – and after using much more ATP, together with glycogen and greater lactate and metabolic waste build-up. Only those with an unusually high rate of slow twitch will be able to duplicate that set, if at all (and if carried to muscular failure). The length of rest also depends on the quality and intensity of effort. The authors recommend only 30 seconds between sets during the hypertrophy phase. Training to muscular failure, however, makes it extremely difficult to perform 5-6 sets for a muscle group all in a row with only 30 seconds rest between (unless the set’s tension time is rather brief, i.e., under 40 seconds). Imagine performing 30+ sets at that rate. Racing the clock and focusing on endurance will have a negative effect on maintaining mental focus to optimize training results. The point is, however, Fleck and Kraemer recommend such short rests to accommodate a reasonable workout time. If a person were to rest 90-120 seconds between sets (typical rest time), at 12-20 reps per set during the hypertrophy phase, the workout would easily exceed one hour, and few people want to stick around the gym that long, or have that much available time to exercise.

48



Volume The authors suggest that if you want to produce more strength in a particular muscle group, you need to perform more volume (sets). This is true, but in a limited sense, based on the foundation of practice makes perfect, i.e., lifting proficiency. Performing any more sets beyond a critical point (and that upper limit will differ from person to person and possibly from muscle to muscle) will not continue yielding results. This phenomenon is known as the Principle of Diminishing Returns – of cost-Benefit ratios or concomitant variables. The critical point has much to do with the quality (effort) of each set. The authors presume (since no reference is made to the contrary) that everyone will train in an equal manner of execution, in regards to cadence, quality of movement, and intensity of effort. Also, they recommend reducing rest periods to 30-seconds when trying to optimize hypertrophy. No reason is provided (what’s wrong with 45-60 seconds?), suggesting such manipulations (increased volume and decreased rests) “should, over time, result in greater hypertrophy...” Not ‘will’, but ‘should’. Take your chances... cross your fingers... and hope for the best. Rest periods are contingent on an individual’s level of conditioning. But it is also dependent on: 1. Personal ability (ability to mentally gear up for the next set that quickly). 2. The quality of training (reaching muscular failure is much more taxing than simply pumping the muscle sub-failure or lifting a heavy weight for a few repetitions). 3. Preferences (preferred rest values result in better quality work, as well as long-term program adherence). 4. Rate of fatigue (a fast twitch muscle requires more recovery time than a slow twitch muscle). Ironically, if more sets, more reps and less rest equates to more hypertrophy, and more hypertrophy means an increase in strength (force), which increases power, why train with less sets and more rest with heavier weights (if not a power or Olympic lifter needing to demonstrate heavy lifts)? International Association of Resistance Trainers

49


Interestingly, during a power phase Fleck and Kraemer recommend only 1-3 sessions per week, 3-4 exercises per session, 1-3 sets per exercise, and 1-3 reps per set. With the exception of the rep range, this protocol is very similar to high-intensity training – the same method of training many periodiziationalists (including Fleck and Kraemer) contend is bogus due to lack of sufficient volume and frequency. This finding is particularly true if you contemplate the lower level of their recommendation, being: • • • •

One workout a week Three exercises One set per exercise One rep per set

The authors further state, “...if more than one training session is performed on the same day, a greater number of exercises and/or sets can be added, resulting in greater total volume, if such is your desire.” This is truly open-ended. They provide no guidelines as to how to determine what the increase should be, only that it can be greater. Greater (in the context of the word ‘great’) is defined as unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions. In other words, is double ‘great’ enough? It appears as such, since less than double is not all that much ‘greater’ or unusual. But assume only 50% more, so as not to exaggerate the author’s position, making it ‘comparatively large’. If you were to undertake the lowest volume prescribed (24 sets), you would be completing 36 sets of exercise in one day. If you were to undertake the highest volume prescribed (60), it would then become 90 sets over the course of a day. Time to get a life and buy some Bengay. This is utterly ridiculous – again, not taking into account greater quality of effort per set and exercise per session but increasing metabolic and endurance demands on the basis of volume only. An increase in volume can have a profound effect on results, but it must be implemented sparingly and on occasion – not as a regular part of a program. If you think periodizing training loads will save you from overtraining and stagnating, give their ‘greater’ experiment a try.

50



Moreover, the authors conclude that, “If you do a lot of lifting in your routine – or plan to get involved in competitive bodybuilding or powerlifting – then multiple training sessions (each training day) become even more appealing.” No reason is provided as to why this would be appealing or even necessary. They must assume people don’t have jobs, family, spouses, hobbies, or other interests in life and should consider training in this manner to be ‘possibly more’ successful. It may be argued that a person can better tolerate ‘x’ volume divided into two workouts, than ‘x’ volume in one workout. And if fatigue becomes too great, as a result of too much volume within one workout, then it would seem logical to divide the demands. The problem, however, is ignoring the fact that the volume was too great in the first place, a magnitude of volume that indicates the tolerance cut-off level of an individual. Although an athlete (or everyday person) may perform better under two training sessions per day (until the systemic inroads produce a negative), three factors must be considered: 1. Is so much volume required (to produce an optimum effect) that two training sessions must be implemented to perform all the sets in the necessary quality of standards? Perhaps – depending on the magnitude of application (how long you do so) and the desired effect you are attempting to achieve based on that magnitude of work). Accordingly, would you know how to determine a proper prescription? 2. Is it possible that greater intensity of (mental and physical) effort in fewer sets within one workout could produce the same results than progressively more sets divided into two workouts each training day? Or consider that heightened arousal and visualization methods (mental training up-regulation) counter the need for more physical work since doing so increases the quality of physical work.


51


3. If two sessions per day (done three times a week) is so beneficial for optimum performance of all sets, why not only one session six times a week? If systemic inroading is not that great of a concern (as to perform two sessions in one day for three days a week), then the latter prescription should be as effective. Obviously Fleck and Kraemer see a problem with doing so since they avoid such frequency. However, they base their conclusions on the measurements of weekly schedule units (that it must be limited), yet ignore the connotations of daily schedule units. They continue by saying, “But whatever your reason for favoring multiple sessions, it should be remembered that sufficient time must be allowed to adapt to an increase in training intensity or volume.” How much time? They do give an example that is fundamentally wrong in application: “...when first starting your two training periods per day, only one or two training days per week should incorporate the two sessions for a period of two to three weeks. Additional two-session days can be slowly incorporated until the desired number of multiple training days are achieved. For each additional twice-a-day session added to the program, an adaptation period of two to three weeks should be allowed.” In essence, the authors are claiming that the more demanding exercise becomes (from completing more sets more frequently) the longer you should adhere to the program in order to adapt. This flies in the face of basic stress physiology, that the more demanding the stressor (i.e., more sets), the less an organism can tolerate it before encountering negative consequences. You cannot ‘eventually’ adapt to something that will ‘eventually’ cause you to overtrain if it exceeds your long-term tolerance (I’m unaware of any natural athlete that can train twice a day for up to 60+ sets per day for very long). Nor do they contemplate the effects of metabolic inroading and the effect intensity of effort has on this factor.

52



But Fleck and Kraemer do have proof that multi-training sessions per day are effective, basing their opinion on a series of sport science studies using elite Olympic weightlifters as subjects. They state, “It is apparent that when Olympic-style weightlifters perform a training session in both the morning and afternoon of the same day, strength decreases after the first training session. However, it is recovered by the second session.” The facts that not considered are: • Elite Olympic weightlifters do not reflect every individual or athlete (and the authors do indicate that it works “at least for Olympic-style weightlifters”, but erroneously suggest that it can be appropriate for nearly anyone). • If you are an ‘elite’ athlete of any kind, you have superior genetics for both recovery and making progress. You may be able to tolerate training twice a day in spite of a program of reduced volume and frequency being superior. • It is likely that a large minority or small majority of elite Olympic weight lifters use anabolic steroids (they are certainly rampant at the Olympic and World Games level). • Olympic weightlifting is primarily explosive, ballistic, sub-failure training, which does not make nearly the inroads into muscular function as slow, controlled, to-failure training; especially with the long rest periods Olympic lifters commonly take between sets. Olympic style weightlifting is as much neurological (skill based) as it is muscular, with fatigue existing more so at the moment and shortly after exercise, and not hours or days later (as many experience with controlled and more intense [effort] training). • It is not indicated how long even elite Olympic weightlifters can sustain such rigors, and no guidelines are provided for the ‘average’ trainee.


53


The authors also reference the fact that the two sessions within the study were simply a split of one session – that the volume and number of exercises were not “greater.” How they previously came to the conclusion that the demands can be “greater” are not addressed. Why they ignore the fact that the generalized stress effect of two training sessions with heavier weight is more of a hindrance than one session (even with the same volume) is likewise not addressed. Next is a major contradiction. The authors state that you know when you are overworking when the “lifter starts to use improper exercise technique in order to finish a workout; cannot complete a training session that previously had been completed; or shows any other indication of overwork – the intensity and/or volume should be decreased so that an overtraining syndrome does not occur.” Yet later they claim, “ that you should not “plan the second half of a training session based entirely upon how you feel after the first half of a session." If you feel terrible, you had difficulty finishing the initial half of the workout, and the weight loads are not what they should be, what other factors should be considered? Should you attempt the second half of the workout in hopes that you won’t further ignite an overtraining syndrome? Overtraining may not occur, but it stands to reason that the authors’ second statement contradicts the first.

54



Goals “... all changes in your regimen should be made with concrete training goals in mind.” No indication is made as to how this should be done, what constitutes a reasonable and concrete goal, how to reevaluate and change a routine if the goal is not met or easily met, etc. – only that the ‘hypertrophy phase’ should have the goal of hypertrophy. No kidding. When planning a one-year program, the authors suggest, “Designate terms such as increased muscle size, hypertrophy, local muscular endurance, basic strength, recovery, power, maintenance, peaking, etc., to describe the major goals of the strength training program through various months and training phases. Indicate them in the mesocycle training goals space.” Goals must be specific and measurable (otherwise, you cannot determine whether or not you achieved them). To simply state you want more hypertrophy is pointless. You must state how much hypertrophy you want and base that conclusion on past experiences (if any exist). You cannot claim to want another inch on your arms if, the past year, you produced only a half-inch (unless you plan on taking anabolic steroids). Being that much closer to your genetic limitations, the size increase may very well be less than a half-inch unless: • Your training is better structured and more suitable for YOU – not what Fleck and Kraemer think you should do, or • If entering maturity wherein testosterone levels increase. Does this describe you?


55


People generally do not understand how to establish goals and, most importantly, reasonable goals that reflect their individualism. It is common to hear that Jane Doe wants to lose fat, but: • How much fat? • How will she get there (what factors of training and dieting will allow the fat loss)? • What are the sub-goals (daily and weekly objectives that will allow her to reach a monthly or yearly goal)? • What if she does not make a daily or weekly goal? • Will she know what to do in order to get back on track (to make up for lost time and effort), or will she need to restructure the long-term goal to make it more reasonable in light of current developments? Goal setting is a complex issue. It’s not so simple as to say “I want hypertrophy” (while the authors leave you to figure out the rest on your own as if it’s no big deal). For details on goals setting, see Apex. The authors also state, “Overall, the two most vital questions to ask are: What are the goals of the training session? And, what are the needs of the trainee?” If these questions are so important, as to uphold the Principle of Individualism, why create concrete guidelines of hypertrophy, strength, power, and peak phases? Why dictate how much volume, repetitions, weight RM, and frequency – particularly if precluding other measurements or magnitudes, i.e., 8-12 exercises and not 1-7 or 13+ exercises? No answer is given.

56



Keeping Records The authors rightfully conclude that maintaining records is vital to sustaining training productivity. They state that, “The information contained in a training record is invaluable for: • having an accurate record of a training program that did not work so that it is not repeated and can be corrected; • making small changes in a previously successful program to make it even more successful.” Sounds reasonable. However, there is a problem with the prescriptions they advocate while attempting to cross-reference these goals. The lowest number of sets recommended in a workout is 24, with the highest being 60 (unless you decide to do more than one session a day, wherein the volume can be much “greater” as the authors suggest). Because the quality of each set directly depends on the individual performing said set, Fleck and Kraemer’s recommendations may be off by quite a bit. Those who are used to pushing each set to the max could not tolerate 24 sets in a workout (not for long), let alone 60! Consequently, what small changes can possibly be made if the previous program wasn’t successful? Should the person try 23 or 25 sets? What if 15 sets per workout were optimal over the long-term (with possible short-term increases in demands on an infrequent basis)? What if a trainee’s effort was lack-luster and the recommended 24 sets during a specific phase was wholly inadequate to make sufficient inroads to produce a result of overcompensation? No answer is given. The dilemma should be evident. One cannot analyze data if the data is randomly helter-skelter and way off in left field in the first place. One cannot fine-tune a program that is not prescribed in accordance to his or her tolerance to stress, but it is rather a canned program spewed out by ‘authorities’ whom don’t know your body nearly as well as you do.


57


Logic dictates that a training stimulus initially be as low as possible (i.e., one set of one exercise per muscle group at most) with the demands slowly increasing to monitor the effects. Of course, the process is more complex than this, depending on whether you’re addressing a beginner, intermediate or advanced trainee (see Prescribed Exercise)... or if focusing on long- or short-term application (see Apex), but the reasoning should be obvious. Fundamentally, you cannot undertake 24+ sets 3+ times a week in the hopes that something wonderful will happen. You may make progress, but perhaps not optimum progress or the same progress that could be obtained with far less work (in terms of volume or frequency). Proper exercise is about achieving your goals and making the best progress based on the least amount of work possible. Who would logically conclude that doing more work than is necessary is ideal? Would you extend that same philosophy to education, work, or other areas of life wherein time is short and efficacy a priority? Unlikely. Some people do so, but due to lack of focus or ignorance and not knowing better. Few, however, would knowingly do so (unless addicted to the activity). Neither is recording the number of repetitions and weights sufficient for accuracy, as the authors claim. Precision is based on knowing all details (within reason and ability). And unless you can determine the quality of each repetition, it is impossible to determine the quality of progression. Primarily, the cadence of each repetition must be timed, as well as the tension time of the set (among other data). Consider the potential effects and differences if completing: 10 repetitions with 100 pounds in 60 seconds ...versus 10 repetitions with 105 pounds in 54 seconds in a subsequent workout.

58



Did you improve? Most trainees would think so if they were not privy to the fact that the cadence changed and the tension time reduced in order to accommodate the additional five-pound weight load (for details on workout measurement, see Prescribed Exercise and the I.A.R.T. training journal, Strategic Analysis Tracking System). Apparently the authors unknowingly agree with these sentiments by stating, “We can see that it is important not only to keep a record of what was intended to be performed during a training session, but also to keep an accurate training record of what was actually performed” (emphasis theirs). *** *** The blank, sample workout card in the book is perplexing, wherein they allow enough space for 10 exercises of three sets each. Yet, at times, the authors recommend up to 12 exercises of 4-5 sets each. Unless the reader can actually photocopy and use the template, it’s uncertain why a blank form was included in the book. The filled in sample (on the following page in their book) would have sufficed. However, that is a moot point.


59


Exercise Knowledge Although not an important issue, the following statement concludes the knowledge and expertise of the authors: “The stiff-leg deadlift is considered to be a lower back exercise.” Apparently the authors agree with this comment by not challenging its content. Here are some points regarding this exercise: • The low back muscles have a range of motion of 72 degrees, from flexion to extension. • During the stiff-leg deadlift, the low back muscles primarily maintain a fixed, static position, producing little movement. • Most movement and muscular emphasis occur around the gluteus and hamstrings. • Without mechanical knowledge, the soreness and tightness in those latter muscle groups the day following exercise is evidence to this fact.

60



Conclusion There is great value in altering training demands, and doing so exists across the board and in various walks of life. Whether you refer to it as periodization or cycling, competitive bodybuilders and athletes change up routines from in-season to off-season all the time; even amongst strength coaches who do not follow periodization in the traditional sense of the word. Weekend warriors also cycle in accordance to the various stressors in their lives (i.e., when feeling fatigued or when they have other things on their minds, they take a layoff or gear down in training demands). Physique transformation people do it, based on a 12-week plan of assault, followed by a regression to allow for mental and physical recovery. This list goes on and on. However, in all these instances the cycling takes place around the goals, needs, and preferences of the individual and not according to a fixed plan of vague protocol (i.e., hypertrophy, strength, power, peaking, and active rest). If Fleck and Kraemer meant for their book to be a recommended guideline only, it certainly was not explained as such; nor would a reader come to that conclusion. Others who consider themselves ‘pro-periodization’ promote similar concrete and fixed guidelines and are guilty of the same absurdity. To reiterate all the negative factors espoused by the authors would create further redundancy, so there is little value in summarizing what has been stated thus far. I ask that you objectively think about (Western) periodization (as it stands) in terms of rationality, individuality, and accuracy of measurement in accordance to specific needs and goals, safety, and relativity of the protocol, and you will come to similar conclusions.


61

I.A.R.T. Resource Library Prescribed Exercise -- This 300+ page manual is the most concise resource available. Includes fundamentals of exercise science, using logical analysis in designing exercise programs, discovering the exact dose/response of exercise for each individual, application of intensity variables, program cycling for long-term gains, discussions on stress physiology and more. Manual for Level I Certification. $75

Nutrition Protocol -- learn to create eating plans based on fundamentals and in accordance to individual preferences. Contains easy to understand biochemistry and physiology, hands-on application and methodologies. The best quick source on micronutrients, the most pertinent weight loss information and more! Bonus appendices includes A-Z supplement listing and an extensive glycemic index table. Manual for Nutrition Certification. $75

Technical Excellence covers over 30 key exercises in spectacular detail, clearly explaining every aspect from hand placement to spinal alignment. Text also includes an introduction on proper lifting and biomechanics. Ideal quick reference for all personal trainers and coaches. A must study guide for the I.A.R.T. Practical Exam. Part of Level II IART Certification. $22.50

Rational Strength Training: Principles & Casebook is no ordinary reference. Here you will find step by step procedures for determining the ideal dose/ response of exercise, on expose on the fitness industry and periodization research, how to prepare for longevity in strength training, the mechanism behind growth, plus over 20 real case studies of successful highintensity training advocates. Part of Level II IART Certification. $37.50

The Stress of Life -- This landmark book is a major contribution to stress and exercise science. Easy to understand, Stress of Life is a must for those who want to clearly comprehend the effects of how stress inroads our recovery ability. Part of Level II Certification. $20.50

Problem Solving: Tools for Active Minds and Bodies -Jeff Shaw has presented some of the finest and most useful techniques for discovering the optimum program for each individual. Learn what problems could occur before they occur, and how to redesign programs based on brainstorming and various engineering analytical techniques. Easy to follow, and essential for any personal trainer who desires to be the best. $30

Apex -- The psychology, training and nutrition behind physique transformations and cycling methods for advanced trainees. Includes discussions on obtaining peak arousal, ultimate goal setting strategies, Chaos Training, Cycle Blasting, cycling supplements with training requirements, carb depletion and loading for photos, and much more. Course material for Physique Transformation Specialist. $37.50

Bodybuilding Competition Guide -- A guide for competitive bodybuilders and their coaches. Details on individual and couples competitions, posing tips, tanning tips, choosing the right trunks and bikini, contest accessories, precontest journals, physique photography, and more. Free with Level I certification. $22.50

SATS. The ultimate training journal takes personal training into a new dimension. Provides data entry for date, time, sleep in hours and quality, resting heart rate, body weight and composition, days rested, parts trained, motivational notes and rating, warmup procedures, aerobic training, weight, reps, cadence, time under load, time under tension, heart rate, set rests, intensity variables, plus an ample notes/observations section for each exercise. Plus the SATS journal offers various blank charts/templates so you can track your variables. $22.50 Logikos. The application of logic, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, a n a l o g i e s , logical fallacies, definitions, t r u t h i n claims, s y l l o g i s m s , t h e argument, and much more. All presented with a focus on rational strength training. $37.50


Maximum Technique video -To obtain the ultimate in muscle stimulation, you have to know how to properly contract the muscles under tension. This video provides the details of easy-to-understand physics for safe and effective lifting, plus detailed demonstration of the most common exercises. Also includes techniques to maximize isolation, and a HIT demonstration. Part of Level I IART Certification. $37.50

No Turning Back -- An autobiography by Brian D. Johnston. Includes stories and insights over the last twenty years plus his most current thoughts on rep cadence, training instruction, strength vs. size training, a philosophical approach to training, and more. $37.50

Arthur Jones’ RehabBook -- This vital reference discusses muscular friction, type S and G strength curves, stored energy torque, muscle fiber type characteristics, strength testing, and more. Part of Level II Certification. $20

Maximize Your Training - Over 25 authors covering 25 topics with a focus on brief, intense training. Topics ranging from research bias, multiple-set myth, high intensity vs. high volume, analyzing the repetition, overcoming the strength plateau, balanced training, fiber types and repetition ranges, avoiding low back injury, powerlifting HIT, and much more. $29.95

SOMA: Resistance Training Injuries and Rehabilitation & Special Populations. New for 2001, SOMA covers a wide range of diverse topics, including tissue injury mechanics, proper movement, forms of rehabilitative exercise, general assessment and measurements, and much more. Plus there’s over 75 pages on exercising special populations, from A I D S t o v i s i o n problems, from brain injury to pregnancy. Course material for Certified Physical Therapist. $37.50

Annihilation -- This 78 minute video demonstrates and teaches you how to properly apply intensity variables, including forced reps, forced overloads, negatives, stripping, 21method, static holds, preexhaustion and supersets, trisets, up-and-down resistance, and many more. Also included are two full-body workouts utilizing a mix of intensity variables. Part course material for Physique Transformation Specialist. $37.50

Blitzkrieg -- This 45 minute video interviews various individuals and includes demonstrations as to how they apply ultra-intense training, including Brian Johnston and several I.A.R.T. instructors. Also included is more than 15 minutes of footage with IFBB Pro, Casey Viator. Certainly to motivate and inspire. Only $29.95.

Full Range of Motive: The Psychology of Lifelong Lifting. Dr. Vost, a psychology professor and competitive strength athlete, explores psychological research and survey material from 15 I.A.R.T. participants, addressing training and motivation, adolescent develop-ment, selfconcept, self-esteem, body image, aging, and more. Includes a chapter on mental strategies for maximum strength enhancement. $37.50

High Intensity Marketing -Only available to I.A.R.T. students, this book is indispensible if you want to be successful. Chock full of business and marketing tips including designing a strategy, creating a niche, setting up a website, to several form letter templates. If you are an independent fitness professional, you NEED this book. $50

Prescribed Exercise Operations Manual -- Free and available only to those who operate a Prescribed Exercise Center. Topics range from what to do when you get into work, furnishing and equipment, employees, staff attire and conduct, approach, working guidelines, interpersonal procedures, roles of the facility, general maintenance, working hours, supplies and stock, training procedures, marketing and advertising, legal liability, pricing, client loyalty, networking, and more. Exercise Protocol Annual (2001) -- Dozens of articles, including defining exercise, strength training for teens and athletes, a closer look at creatine and protein, the ACSM’s position on explosive strength training, the ultimate workout tool, training and nutrition for physique transformation contests, and much more. $37.50 + $5 s/h in Canada, $7.50 s/h in the USA, and $11.50 s/h overseas.

Praxis -- Free and available only to those who sign up for Level I certification, Praxis is the most indepth and logical method to teach bodybuilding and strength lifting skills. Includes systematic application, transferring techniques, manual resistance application, and more.

The Works -- On CD: Prescribed Exercise, Nutrition Protocol, Technical Excellence, Master Trainer, Rational Strength Training, Problem Solving, Logikos, No Turning Back, Soma, Fitness Fraud, Apex, Full Range of Motive, Metamorphose Optimus, Stress & Recovery, and Nautilus Bulletins #1 and #2; (IART Students also receive High Intensity Marketing); $259.95 - pricing includes shipping anywhere.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY ALL ITEMS IN CANADIAN FUNDS. Credit card orders (VISA only) outside Canada will be adjusted accordingly and to that day's exchange rate. To pay by US check or money order, divide the total amount by 1.5 (e.g., $75 = $50).

Metamorphose Optimus. 21-page bulletin on optimizing muscle mass versus optimizing lifting ability through skill proficiency. Topics include how the CNS patterns movement to utilize the least amount of muscle fibers; how skilled movement optimizes energy efficiency through tension transfer between body parts; evidence as to why standardized training protocol results in muscle stagnation due to over adaptation of the stimulus, and much more. $22.50 includes s/h in North America; outside NA add $5.

Stress & Recovery. 24-page bulletin on overreaching and overtraining in exercise application. Topics include optimization and why it is necessary in order to reach a genetic peak; the concept and application of overreaching and how to apply it; how you can use overtraining data to establish future protocol; how you can apply mental status to better determine overtraining; and much more. $22.50 includes s/h in North America; outside NA add $5.

Special shipping rates: In Canada include $5 s/h for the first item and $2.50 for each additional item. In the USA add $7.50 ($5 US) s/h for the first item and $5.00 ($3.50 US) s/h for each additional item ONLY IF ordering the Technical Excellence, Bodybuilding Competition Guide or Arthur Jones' Rehab Book. Outside North America include $15.00 ($10 US) for one item and $7.50 ($5 US) for each additional item. If ordering any of our videos or The Stress of Life book, in Canada add $5 s/h for the first item and $2.50 for each additional item. In the USA add $11.50 ($7.50 US) s/h for the first item and $5 ($3.50 US) for each additional item. Outside North America include $22.50 ($15 US) for one item and $7.50 ($5 US) for each additional item. The Works CD Collection includes shipping. For shipping costs on all other items add $10 in Canada for the first item and $2.50 for each additional item. In the USA add $15 ($10 US) for the first item and $7.50 ($5 US) for each additional item ($5 Canadian or $3.50 US if including one of the above noted items). Outside USA add $22.50 shipping ($15 US) for the first item and $10 ($6.50 US) for each additional item ($7.50 Canadian or $5 US if including one of the above noted items). Courses subject to additional costs due to size of package. If placing a large order, e-mail for discount rates.

Most materials available on CD. In Adobe Acrobat (PDF format). Prescribed Exercise and Nutrition Protocol $50 each; High Intensity Marketing $35; Fitness Fraud, Rational Strength Training, No Turning Back, Soma, Apex, Logikos, and Full Range of Motive $25 each. Problem Solving $20; Bodybuilding Competition Guide and Technical Excellence $15 each. Regardless of CD order size, Add $7.50 postage and handling. All items shipped air/insured. Expect 2-10 weeks delivery depending on destination. We do not return phone calls to provide total cost or location of shipments; costs are clearly indicated on this site and we have no way of tracking orders since they are mailed via the postal service. You must wait the full 10 weeks before reporting a potentially lost item since we must wait that long to put in a claim. Credit card orders call (705) 476-6058 or order from our on-line secure server (click on any item below for order form link). You can also mail a check or money order to I.A.R.T. 2545 Trout Lake Road, P.O. Box 24016, North Bay, Ontario CANADA P1B 9S1. Items returnable within 30 days of receipt and only in new condition (subject to 25% restocking fee; shipping costs not reimbursed).

Periodization[1]

Recommend Documents