December 2009 - Happy Holidays Everyone!

With the holidays around the corner, and winter festivities ramping up, we hope you are still making time for yourself and your health and fitness.  It is easy to make excuses this time of year when the social calendar tends to fill and late night nights turn into sleep-ins instead of gym-visits.  It might a good time to unload your body if you have been working hard of late, or it might be time where we work harder to stick to our rituals.  Nevertheless, enjoy this time of year and most importantly, spend it with loved ones.

We have some very special guests in our edition for December, contributing their knowledge from different parts of the world. Human Motion re-posts articles by practitioners who share the same coaching philosophies and are on the cutting edge of the research.  We are thankful for the connections we have made in an industry we are so passionate about.



For our local audience:  Winter 2010 B.S.F.® and L.I.F.T. Camp™ classes are
now posted for January 2010. 
  1. L.I.F.T. Camp™ (our systematic and progressive antedote to the chaos of
    bootcamps) times can be found here:  Register Now >>
  2. BSF® Classes   We have added more Westside locations. 
    Register Here >>
If you have questions about these programs, please email us
at info@humanmotion.com

Yours in strength and health,
 
Carmen Bott  MSc.  CSCS
Editor in Chief, The Performance Advocate™ 
Sweat the Small Stuff
By Paul Hemsworth 
 
You may have heard the term intangibles if you've played any sports in your day: Your coach would say, "we need to do the intangibles right in order to win the game!"  If your coach was anything like mine, an upper case would have been more appropriate for that quote.  But what are intangibles and why do they matter?

In the case of the coach, intangibles refer to the little things that when added together make the difference in winning and losing (for a great speech on this, see Al Pachino in Any Given Sunday). Examples of these include blocking shots in hockey, diving after loose balls in basketball, or ensuring a quick transition in a triathlon. At the end of the day it is still the final score, time, distance, or weight - the quantity - that determines the outcome, however, the intangibles (quality) will most often lead to that desired number.

What does this have to do with weight training?

If we apply this concept of intangibles of sport to the ability to perform in the weight room, we can help the client focus more on the little things that will make a huge difference.  If we actually look at what the principle of progress means in the gym, we see that tiny increases in weight = big increases in strength/power. For example, let's say I increase my 3RM Military Press from 185 lbs to 190 lbs in 1 week. Now, this may not seem like a big increase, but when we consider this over a period of time, a weekly jump of 5 lbs equates to a big increase in strength throughout a year.  Even if I increase by ½ (2.5 lbs) for the following 2 weeks, I've just gained almost 10 lbs in a typical 3 microcycle phase.  My point is, we need to make sure we are doing the little things in order to get a gain in performance, because even the smallest gains can sometimes be the difference between attaining your desired outcome and not.

Intangibles have the uncanny ability to heighten other aspects of performance.  Here are three intangibles that I feel are among the most important and how they manage to bring other skills up in the weight room.

Focus

Imagine that you are Tiger Woods on the 18th hole at Agusta. As usual, you've just mounted another incomprehensible comeback, but still need this 10 foot birdie putt to win the Masters. Most people are already getting clammy palms...but not Tiger. He is so focussed that he doesn't even hear the five pre-mature camera flashes that just went off in his backstroke.  Of course he nails the putt and collects another funny looking green jacket.

Now, imagine you are about to enter a squat rack and need to lift a weight three times that you have never done twice.  For some strange reason, we don't seem to think that the same amount of focus is necessary to squat the bar. Focus while lifting is something that I feel is brutally lacking from the majority of the lifting population's tool box.  When you focus during your lift, you actually increase your intrinsic feeling of a lift.

If you are training a client (or even yourself), your job is to make sure they are focussed. If they come into a session flustered beyond belief because, "he did it again" or "I have so much to do today," this should be a wake-up call for you to change their mindset.  Try getting them to start their session with some balance drills. Start with simple ground based, single foot drills and progress to unstable surfaces. This is NOT a core exercise: This is merely a way to get them focussed on the task at hand - staying on this funny looking half-dome.  This now must transfer into the lift. When they enter the squat rack, have them first visualize the lift and then stare very very intensely at a spot about 5-20 feet away.  This is another reason why lifting in front of a mirror is not a good idea - too many distractions.  Not only is your own body moving but you may be distracted by other movements in the background.

Tempo

This might be the most important variable of lifting.  Too many times we get caught up in sets and reps and don't pay any attention to the speed of the movement. The tempo of the lift will determine the time-under-tension (TUT) - quite simply, the amount of time a muscle or group of muscles are under tension during a rep, set, session, etc.  The biggest mistake I see trainers make when starting with a client is getting them to perform new exercises without a care of what the tempo is.  If you have someone performing a plank rotation (front plank/side plank rotation) and you let them do it as fast as they can to get their "10 reps" in, I guarantee you will never get them to keep their hips level and rib-to-hip connection intact. Now, if you slow them down by even half the speed, you'll see that they have to focus (sounds familiar), and instantly their form will improve.  Obviously, not all lifts are created equal. For example, a deadlift - which is more of a slow, grind lift - is going to differ in tempo from a kettlebell swing.  Too often in a deadlift, the individual performs the lift as a tempo that is too fast.  You cannot create enough tension when a deadlift is performed more like a power clean.  In contrast, sometimes performing a kettlebell swing too slowly can have adverse effects to the individual.  Many beginners will have this problem, where they try to slow the kettlebell down as opposed to letting the bell do the work.  Once we try to slow the bell down, we are now putting a higher eccentric braking force (source of many injuries) on the rotator cuff, for example, causing a painful shoulder.  A swing should be performed as if you are about to explode off of the ground without actually leaving and then "pulling" the bell back to load your hip hinge.  Once again, when the individual focuses on the tempo of the movement, they instantaneously heighten their ability to focus, which we know enhances performance.

Breathing

If you've ever watched a boxing match, you'll understand the importance of proper breathing.  It sounds more like a back and forth spitting match.  Upon each punch the boxer will (usually) exhale upon impact.  This is done for a couple of reasons: The first is that it allows the boxer to put everything s/he has into the punch.  The second and most important reason - it creates maximal intra-thoracic pressure, or tension, which translates into the most powerful punch.  The same can be said for weightlifting.  Let's take an overhead press of any kind: If the individual presses a weight overhead while not getting proper inhalation (around 70% max lung capacity) and does not forcefully release the air upon moving the weight, they either won't lift the weight, or they will compensate and risk injury.  Take that same person and get them to inhale properly, hold their breath for a slight second (can't wait for the backlash from physiologists) and then breathe through their teeth (hissing sound), and it will make an immediate impact on their ability to perform the lift safely.  Martial artists call this "breathing behind the shield".  Many people will think this sounds stupid, so you give them two options: Sound stupid or get hurt. I'm sure they'll come around.  Plus, like all good intangibles, it improves the other aspects of a skill: In this case, intra-thoracic pressure, focus, and the safety of the lift.

So the next time you are training (yourself or a client), treat it like a competition - if you do the intangibles, chances are you'll win the game - improve lifting performance.
Death to Sport-Specific
By Isaac Payne
 
After listening to Mike Boyle's State of the Industry interview and his abolishment of back squats and aerobic conditioning, I started feeling a little trigger happy myself. So to keep the momentum going, I decided to pull out my double barrel fitness shotgun and empty the chamber on "sport specific" training. That's right, just like disco music it's dead and gone.

Training athletes and anyone in general for that matter, has evolved to a point where we now have either EFFECTIVE or NON EFFECTIVE TRAINING. For example, what's more effective for developing lower body strength, core and joint stability - squats or leg presses? What's more effective for improving conditioning and burning fat- high intensity interval training or a 3 mile jog? What's more effective for posterior chain development - glute/ham raises and deadlifts or seated leg curls? Do you see a pattern developing? The point is a good program addresses all of the weaknesses an athlete may have through appropriate exercise selection in combination with appropriate volumes and intensities REGARDLESS OF THE SPORT THEY PLAY! All you have to do is walk into a university weight room and you'll see a bunch of varsity athletes doing squats and hang cleans and three hours later you'll see a different group of athletes doing the exact same thing. You would never be able to tell what sport they play based on the exercises they are doing. All you could assume is that they are trying to get bigger, faster and stronger by using the most EFFECTIVE exercises to achieve their goals.

As trainers, there's no doubt that we definitely have to account for hectic practise and game schedules as our first priority is keeping our athletes off the injured list and not overtraining them. Simultaneously, strength, power, speed, agility, flexibility/mobility, and conditioning are all attributes that must be addressed. "Specificity" then becomes highly dependent on the attributes that need to be developed most. For example, if the athletes needs more explosive power then perhaps some olympic lifting variations or plyometrics may be in order; how that power is applied in a game situation is dependent on the athlete. When it's all said and done, if an athlete wants sport specific training, they simply need to go play their sport.

With the exception of Olympic Weightlifting and Powerlifting, nothing in the weight room can ever truly replicate the intensity and unpredictability of anything an athlete will encounter on the playing field. Having said that, one cannot deny the physical prowess of today's athlete, which is a testament to the advancement of strength and conditioning and sports nutrition. Fortunately, these more effective methods are slowly trickling down into the mainstream allowing the general public to reap the benefits of what has proven to work with some of sport's greatest physical specimens. The main thing is to not fool ourselves anymore by designing training programs that we think can only be useful to one type of sport or athlete and adopt a mindset that is only concerned withwith effectiveness. At the end of the day, that's all I care about. That concludes my eulogy. Rest in peace "sport specific".

The Death of Intervals?
By: Mike Roussell
Re-posted from: http://nickgrantham.com/the-death-of-intervals/

I nearly fell off my chair when I read this recent blog post from Alwyn Cosgrove and I wanted to share it with you. Alwyn recently spoke to Mike Roussell about why he thinks traditional interval training sucks!

Mike: Thanks for taking the time to do this interview. First so we all have some perspective, how long have you been a trainer?

Alwyn Cosgrove: I started training people in 1989. Actually 1987 if you count teaching martial arts classes. In 1995 (after college) I went full time. Since day one I've been very particular about what I do. I track and tweak everything. When we opened Results Fitness in 2000, we really started to gather a lot of data. We currently have 250 members and we track all their workouts and body comp changes week in and week out.

Mike: So it is like you run your own fat loss studies at your gym?

Alwyn: Exactly. We had read all the studies showing interval training to be superior for fat loss than steady state training. This confirmed what we were seeing with our clients. But I am a big believer in that there is no physiological limit to the amount of weight a person can lose in a week, month, or year so I kept tweaking and tracking the results.

Mike: What has been one of your biggest breakthroughs lately?

Alwyn: One day it hit me - cardiovascular programming is an ass-backwards concept.

I don't know when I first thought this - but it was confirmed to me when viewing Lance Armstrong's performance in the New York Marathon.

I'd been taught through my college education and countless training certifications and seminars that cardio vascular exercise was necessary to improve the cardio vascular system and subsequently aerobic performance.

But there seemed an inherent flaw in that argument....

Why didn't Lance Armstrong - with perhaps one of the highest recorded VO2 max levels in history - win the New York Marathon? Or beat people with lesser aerobic levels than himself?

The greatest endurance cyclist (and possibly endurance athlete) of all time - the seven time Tour De France winner - finished 868th and described the event as the "hardest physical thing" he had ever done.

Runner's World Magazine actually examined Lance's physiology (and VO2 max which was tested at 83) and compared them to the numbers of Paul Tergat (the World Record holder and defending NYC Marathon Champion at the time).

They concluded:

"This figure wouldn't mean much if it weren't for the pioneering research of famed running coach Jack Daniels, Ph.D., who first published his Oxygen Power tables in 1979- According to Daniels, who's rarely off by more than a smidgen or two, a max VO2 of 83 is roughly equivalent to a 2:06 marathon"

Based on his other physical qualities the magazine suggested that Lance was capable of running 2:01:11.

The world record at the time was 2:04:55

Lance ran 2:59:36 (and don't misinterpret me - that's still a great time). But it's clear that the physiology didn't transfer the way event he running community expected.
 
The flaw in this thinking was looking solely at aerobic capacity - VO2 max - the "engine" as it were. And it's fair to say that Lance had a "Formula One" engine.

But he didn't have the structural development for running. Lance was a cyclist - his body had adapted to the demands of cycling. But NOT to the specific demands of running (in fact Lance had only ran 16 miles at once EVER prior to running the marathon). Lance had developed strength, postural endurance and flexibility in the correct "cycling muscles" - but it didn't transfer to running the way his VO2 max did.

From this example we know that cardio training doesn't transfer well from one activity to another - and it only 'kicks' in because of muscular demand - why don't we program muscular activity first - in order to create a cardiovascular response. Makes total sense.

So how does this relate to fat loss? We have found that our most successful fat loss programs center around stimulating the muscles to burn more calories not ramping up and down the cardiovascular system. What matters is total calories burn and how much you can increase the person's metabolism. It is a total shift in thinking. 

Mike: Wow. So it is this the death of intervals and cardio? How to you put this into action with clients?

Alwyn: What we have found is so great about this approach is that you burn more calories, lose more weight, while putting a lot less stress on your joints.

Here's how I like to think about it. Let's look at traditional interval training which uses running.

Depending on stride length - walking a mile takes about 2000 repetitions and running takes 1000-1500 and will burn on average 100 calories or so.
 
So if we use an interval training model of running and walking - we're looking at around 1500 reps to burn 100 calories.

If we take traditional models of caloric burn - this means we'd need to do 35 miles to lose one pound of fat from our interval training efforts discounting the metabolic afterburn for now).

So we have a problem. It's a very poor "rate of return" on our "rep investment".

Additionally - running applies a vertical force of 2x bodyweight on the joints of the lower body.

So now we have a dilemma.

Let's choose a 180lb deconditioned overweight client.
1500 reps x 360lbs = 540,000lbs of force to burn 100 calories. (The 360lbs is 2x 180lbs)

That's a lot of stress on the joints. Now no one was getting injured, but it seemed like there had to be a better way.

So - we started to think of how we could use different interval training methods other than running to get the same metabolic effect without stressing the joints so much.

We used the airdyne bike, other bikes in order to create a training effect with less load. But whenever you take the bodyweight out of the equation in cardio - you have to work harder to burn the same calories. So this usually needs more reps. So that didn't seem like a much better idea.

At this point we started using metabolic training with weight training implements/kettlebells and bodyweight in the same interval format.

So a circuit of five exercises, performed three times round (15 total sets) would actually burn more calories than the same time spent doing traditional cardio. That was a plus.
 
But we could also do sets of 10-15 reps. So we're looking at 225 total reps (with a force LESS than your bodyweight) as opposed to 1500+ reps at double bodyweight. 

We gave it a try. Clients loved it (which was a plus), and actually started to get better results than we were getting with intervals.

So we get more fat loss, less stress on the body, and happier clients. It is a win-win-win. Currently we don't program traditional interval training our regular fat loss clients.

So, yeah...it is the death of traditional intervals.

It's actually a fantastic approach as it forces you to avoid any traditional thinking. You create new ways of doing everything.

This is what Mike Roussell and I did when we decided to redesign Warp Speed Fat Loss.  You can get a sample workout using this kind of training program at www.warpspeedfatloss.com.

Jonathan Lerner:
A new member of a powerful team

By Emily Beers

'What do you want to be when you grow up?' If I had a dime for every time someone asked me this as a child...
 
As a child, life was so open-ended and full of possibilities. A surgeon, an astronaut, a marine biologist: our society teaches children they can be whatever they want to be. The point is the reality is unfortunately much grimmer. Most people don't become what they dreamed they would as an 8-year-old, and many people are uninspired by their profession.
 
In my mind, this is what makes Human Motion's team members unique. If you watch them train their clients, it's obvious they're having fun. I've spent some time with them this fall, and every single day they show up with a smile. They look happy to be there. They genuinely look like there's nothing they'd rather be doing. Even at 6 a.m.
 
And Human Motion's newest team member, 23 year-old Jonathan Lerner, is no exception. When asked about his long-term career goals, Lerner didn't hesitate. "This. Basically what I'm doing right now is what I want to do...I want to be able to train people because I want to, not just because I need money to survive," he said.
 
Lerner said he loves helping people improve. "You can see it in their eyes that they're so excited when they reach a goal...and knowing that I had a part in that...it's so rewarding," he said.
 
Lerner has been with Human Motion for five months. His friend, and now colleague, Paul Hemsworth, told Lerner Carmen Bott was hiring. "I trusted Paul, and he had a lot of great things to say about Human Motion," said Lerner.
 
Like both Hemsworth and Bott, Lerner also graduated from the University of British Columbia with his bachelor's degree in Human Kinetics. Five months ago, he left his current job at Level 10 Fitness and accepted a job with Human Motion.
 
Despite his job change, Lerner has nothing but praise for his former employer. That said, Lerner was looking for something more. "I thought Level 10 was really good - they're a very good training facility - but Human Motion is 10 levels above," he said.
 
"Their attention to detail, their expertise, their philosophy and the way they train people is much safer than a lot of companies out there," said Lerner of his new team members. "We train everyone like athletes," he continued. What he means is that Human Motion's goal isn't about aesthetics. It's about performance: performance for life. "We train movements, movements that will help people in their day-to-day lives," said Lerner.
 
In his own day-to-day life, Lerner, who played college-level rugby, has his plate full. On top of his commitment to Human Motion, he also owns his own business, a boot camp company, which he runs out of a cheerleading facility in South Vancouver. He hosts his boot camps in the mornings, and then heads to Kitsilano to work as part of the Human Motion team in the afternoons and evenings.
 
Cliff Harvey, Human Motion's vice-president, has nothing but praise for Lerner. "Jono's been affectionately dubbed my apprentice...well, by me anyway. But in all seriousness, it is great to have him on board," said Harvey of Lerner. "We take people on for one reason more than any other, and that's attitude," he continued.
 
Harvey called Lerner more of a "quiet achiever." "You know, the 'water runs deep' kind of guy, and one who is keen to learn. He is fast on track to becoming one heck of a strength coach," said Harvey.

 





2010 Kettlebell Workshops will be posted in the New Year ~ after the Olympic games.

 
"You cannot build a house on a rock; Strength is and will always be the foundation of athletic performance. It is built with hard work and scientific practices, not gimmicks"
~ Carmen Bott




 
 
Issue Contributors:
Paul Hemsworth
Isaac Payne
Mike Rousell


Human Motion's Reporter and Columnist:
Emily Beers

Publisher:
Jackelyn Thompson




The Performance Advocate © 2009 Human Motion Inc.
This message generated by Human Motion Strength & Conditioning.
Published by:
Jackelyn Thompson