In any case now a days they start always with scapular health and movement first before doing the ever stressed "external rotations". That is very important because without proper scapular dynamics the rotator cuff would be unable to function and stabilize properly so that doing those rotation exercises would actually cause more harm than good.
So always remember the importance of the scapula in shoulder girdle health. It will make or break you. Most people completely focus and the delts and rotator cuff and that is very wrong.
As for as balancing pulling and pushing, that can be misleading also because of the relatonship of the scapula. People think of the pulling and pushing thing as a "delt" thing. But delt balance is easy to achieve. Big fucking deal. You do anything with the rear delts. You do pressing and bench pressing. Laterals, pullups, pulldowns. Basically if you have any sense of programming at all you're delts should be good.
But just balancing bench press and rows, for example doesn't actually address the important difference between shoulder retraction and protraction. Think about it, when you do bench press you keep your shoulder blades retracted the whole time. When you do rows you are training scapula retraction. They are the same in that regard! If you really wanted true balance between pushing and pulling you would have to do full pushups (with protraction at the end) coupled with rows. You see how this stuff is oversimplfied?
But it's still an improvement over someone just doing bench pressing all the time and nothing else so I'm not complaining too much.
I'll drop you an explanation of the bent over cuban press I like. DUMBELLS ONLY wiht HAMMER GRIP thumbs facing you! No barbell external rotations of any kind and absolutely no pronated (overhand, palms away from you) grip with external rotations!!!
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Sustainable Progression and Deadlifts
Quote:
| alright, i got all that down. but lets say i wanted to use double progression, alright? does this mean that since i did 265x3 this workout, next workout i do: |
Quote:
265 lbs x 5 reps x 2 sets ? does this equal double progression because if it does then ill do that (im assuming you'd want me to do that because we used to do something similar when i was on the upper-lower, right?) |
Ok, let's go over this again.
There are three main ways to progress we are looking at. Of course there are more than three ways to progress in general, but we are focusing on the three basic ways to go stronger, or at least somewhat stronger because there comes a point where everyone has to focus on that one "ingredient" in order to see changes in absolute strength. But for now you, and most everyone, will see great progression with double or triple progression.
So the three ways:
1. Add weight to an existing number of sets and reps
2. Add reps to an existing number of sets (call this increasing density/volume. Adding any number of reps to any or all sets is progression. Of course if you can barely add two or three reps to a given volume it begs the question whether you are plateauing, just like anything else.
3. Add sets. Remember that adding a set alone is single progression even if that added set isn't the same number of reps as the previous sets. Now, you have to use logic here. If you were doing 3x5 and you added one more set of two, that would be less progression, lol, than adding two reps to the first set of five. You see? Becasue of the rest and recovery involved. But if you added an entire set of 5 that would represent what? A 30% increase in volume? That's a big leap in volume. Just like adding a couple of reps to each set is a big leap in volume.
I'm not good at math. I think you are probably better at this but it's useful to just simply count the reps and then look at any added reps as a percentage of the starting reps. This helps keep you reasonable because in fact many times we are making very big additions in volume without even realizing it. It doesn't seem much just looking at it but in pure mathematical terms it is in fact very large.
If you started with one tough set of 5, say very near a 5 rep maximum and then next time tried to add another set of 5....it's not gong to happen. so we can talk about fatigue and nervous system this and that all day...but look at the simple hard math. If your set of 5 is a near maximal effort, meaning you couldn't do another set even after a good rest, then adding a second set the next time around represents a ONE HUNDRED percent increase in abiltiy, at least one aspect of ability. And as far as progression goes that ain't likely to happen. Now, I bet you've never thought of it that way.
That is just something to think about when the weights get very heavy. For right now, we assume you always have plenty in the tank so that big increases have much less impact.
However, with your example, going from 265x3X1(?) to 265x5x2 begs the question of why you would do so little with 265 the first time if you have the ability to do so much more the next. Chances are, leaving that much in the tank could be a detriment just as easy as it could be a 'conservative' approach. You need to look at ways to get a training effect, or in other words, actually challenge the body, but actually creating an environment of sustainable progression.
By that example, it looks like you still haven't let go of this "waved" idea. This is really, imo, something that looks like bodybuilder mentality. Let's "shock" the body and then rest the body. In order to progress you have to have progressive overload but not overload to the point where you overwhelm recovery. So what is "waving" then? Just a way of producing a training effect less often then you would otherwise be capable of.
Instead of doing very low volume one week (very little training effect) followed by a huge increase in volume the next (big training effect with big recovery deficit) why not do a moderate volume followed by just enough additinal stimulus to create a training effect without overloading recovery. Plus you use a mixture of stimulus over time so that you are not overwhelmed by one stimulus.
So, to make all that into a real world example:
If you did 265x3 this time. It would make more sense to do, say, 265x5 or 6 and then following that with another set of 265 with whatever seems reasonable. So basically add more reps...up to 8, i'd say before adding sets. That will actually create more of a challenge but at the same time it will increase density and volume moderately together instead of increasing volume alone much more than anything else. Low rep sets don't mean much with what you are doing because you are using "submaximal" weights.
I don't know if I'm making sense so let me just give you an example of what I would do based on your last deads session.
225 lbs x 5 reps
245 lbs x 5 reps
255 lbs x 5 reps
245 lbs x 3 reps
225 lbs x 3 reps
I’d assume the 225 was really nothing much more than an acclimation. So I’d start with 255 (I’m basing this on what you said you could do, if I remember it correctly), base my warm-ups and acclimation on that, and then do one set of 255 basing the reps solely on how it was moving. If 255 felt light I would add reps to it. So last time it was 255x5 and this time it may be 255x8. But whatever reps I do it will not be too close to failure. Then
Depending on how all that felt I would decide if I wanted to add one low volume set of 265 or if I wanted to stick with 255 for another set of whatever feels comfortable.
So, just sticking with the next few workouts I might do something like this:
255x8, 265x3 to 4, backoff set
265x6x2 (so see how it’s more weight and reps but a little less dense, this is the kind of thing that creates that “environment of sustainable progression”.
The reason I would do it that way is because you had so many sets going up and down. I have no way of knowing from that what the working weight should really be. So you of course would have a better idea, but this example I think represents a reasonable “idea” from which to proceed. I don’t see any point at all of just doing 265x3. Better to proceed based on what you did before. So that would be a way of establishing a starting point while still achieving a training effect, rather than just doing 265x3 which probably wouldn’t really accomplish much other than more or less giving you a place to build from. Also remember that you are at a place that shear quality and speed, density, volume, load…it is all going to help you get better.
I can’t begin to tell you how important I think this idea of sustainable progression is. I know that you are pretty dedicated to that concept but it is abundantly clear to me that 70 percent of more of the writers base everything on the fastest possible progression. If you are a seasonal athlete then that may be the only way to go. But for you or me, we are free to do whatever the hell we want to or need to. That even means that the concept of beginner, intermediate, and advanced is really completely unique to our individual training model. So keep that in mind…..those individual training models, such as Rips concepts of beginner, intermediate, and advanced, are really only at their most useful in explaining Rip’s way of programming, and even then the individual changes everything. Another coach could have the opposite approach in programming and this a whole ‘nother general training model which would be just as useful in explaining his programming and just as potentially effective for the audience it’s aimed at. That doesn’t mean that the models are wrong or right because we both know that there is not wrong or right there is only ‘works well for me’ or ‘doesn’t work well for me’.
Friday, December 28, 2007
OH Pressing question by Iron_Worker
Iron_Worker:
Well, it seems I'm slowing down real bad on my standing military press progress. The way my schedule works out, it gets worked out once a week on a non bench day and then the next week it gets worked twice but both on bench days.
I was wondering what you guys thought of switching the twice a week OHP to dumbells to try and change it up and stimulate some growth. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to go as heavy on those days if bench is first anyways. I would still be hitting the once a week day real heavy with BB to hopefully progress some more.
What do you think? Is it enough? Any other ideas?
Thanks,
Iron Worker
Eric:
If your shoulders are healthy and you are up to overhead pressing...explain to me how benching would benefit you more except for in a benching competition or pec size. As far as general strength and performence I'd look at overhead pressing over bench anytime. For that matter, I'd look at pullups over benching as a better general assessment. Don't forget that with bench you are laying prone and your body is stable. You don't have to stabilize you entire body against the heavy weight like you do in pressing. Bench pressing is easier than overhead pressing. Leverage is a very big deal with guys that can becnch a lot..not just true functional strength. You want to see who really has the most functinal strength then overhead pressing is going to really show it not that any one exercise is "the test".
There are just many reasons to promote it....including a better bench press. There is only one strenght athlete for which bench would be more important that overhead pressing and that is the powerlifter. Before that it mainly became popular because of the size it gave and because it was "easy". Strength guys used to not touch it because of how 'easy' it was compared to the stuff they normally did. Doing an exercise lying down? What are you lazy?
. That's the kind of attitude I'm talking about.
How much weight is on the bar is only one aspect of the benefit of a lift. The idea that the "heavier" exercise is always better is a misguided and ultimately self-defeating way to train. How heavy you can go on something has as much to do with favorable mechanics and leverage as anything else. In other words, it has to do with how "easy" it is compared to something else that uses the same amount or more muscle. Intensity doesn't always mean the same thing with different movements. Intensiveness, however, can tell you a lot about where your deficits are.
People likewise think that lat pulldown is "better" than pullups because you get the 150 pound dude handling the huge stack. But then that dude can barely do 1 or 2 pullups and would be hard pressed to find some functional benefit from the pulldowns like he would get from the pullups.
I'm not trying to say benching sucks and nobody should do it of course. I'm just trying to take it down a few notches to a more realistic level because there is really no reason anyone should be toture by a decision about what press to prioritize. If you want to improve your overhead pressing then by all means prioritize it in whatever ways are realistic for you. Don't let bench be the decding factor. A better press will likely lead to a better bench anyway and you won't be losing much in the long run by sometimes putting bench second.
Look at how Rip lists out exercises and you will see that he puts Press first in the list before bench pressing every time.
Well, it seems I'm slowing down real bad on my standing military press progress. The way my schedule works out, it gets worked out once a week on a non bench day and then the next week it gets worked twice but both on bench days.
I was wondering what you guys thought of switching the twice a week OHP to dumbells to try and change it up and stimulate some growth. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to go as heavy on those days if bench is first anyways. I would still be hitting the once a week day real heavy with BB to hopefully progress some more.
What do you think? Is it enough? Any other ideas?
Thanks,
Iron Worker
Eric:
If your shoulders are healthy and you are up to overhead pressing...explain to me how benching would benefit you more except for in a benching competition or pec size. As far as general strength and performence I'd look at overhead pressing over bench anytime. For that matter, I'd look at pullups over benching as a better general assessment. Don't forget that with bench you are laying prone and your body is stable. You don't have to stabilize you entire body against the heavy weight like you do in pressing. Bench pressing is easier than overhead pressing. Leverage is a very big deal with guys that can becnch a lot..not just true functional strength. You want to see who really has the most functinal strength then overhead pressing is going to really show it not that any one exercise is "the test".
There are just many reasons to promote it....including a better bench press. There is only one strenght athlete for which bench would be more important that overhead pressing and that is the powerlifter. Before that it mainly became popular because of the size it gave and because it was "easy". Strength guys used to not touch it because of how 'easy' it was compared to the stuff they normally did. Doing an exercise lying down? What are you lazy?
. That's the kind of attitude I'm talking about.How much weight is on the bar is only one aspect of the benefit of a lift. The idea that the "heavier" exercise is always better is a misguided and ultimately self-defeating way to train. How heavy you can go on something has as much to do with favorable mechanics and leverage as anything else. In other words, it has to do with how "easy" it is compared to something else that uses the same amount or more muscle. Intensity doesn't always mean the same thing with different movements. Intensiveness, however, can tell you a lot about where your deficits are.
People likewise think that lat pulldown is "better" than pullups because you get the 150 pound dude handling the huge stack. But then that dude can barely do 1 or 2 pullups and would be hard pressed to find some functional benefit from the pulldowns like he would get from the pullups.
I'm not trying to say benching sucks and nobody should do it of course. I'm just trying to take it down a few notches to a more realistic level because there is really no reason anyone should be toture by a decision about what press to prioritize. If you want to improve your overhead pressing then by all means prioritize it in whatever ways are realistic for you. Don't let bench be the decding factor. A better press will likely lead to a better bench anyway and you won't be losing much in the long run by sometimes putting bench second.
Look at how Rip lists out exercises and you will see that he puts Press first in the list before bench pressing every time.
Someone's question regarding Bench Press form
Teamfast:
Hi, sometimes when lifting i put my feet up on the bench to keep my back flat on the bench. Are there risks to doing this? should I keep my feet on the floor? I dont want to arch my back but some benches are a little too high to keep my feet flat on the floor.
Eric:
I'd recommend against the feet up benching. It is actually pretty complicated to explain because it's not a cut and dry situation (hardly anything ever is).
There are probably people who would be better off with their feet up due to lower back problems caused by etension/rotation problems. But those people may also be advised to limit flat bench pressing.
If you put up your feet it will limit your abilty to get in a proper position and provide a good stable "platform" with the upper back. It WILL limit the amount of weight you are able to push.
The problem is similar to the other side of the coin that you will see with powerlifters. They will really get their hips way up in the air and exaggerate their back arch a lot. Basically this makes it more like a decline bench and reduces stress on the shoulders and they can lift more. But as a general training technique this excessive arching should be avoided. What you want is feet firmly planted and a "neutral" lower back, which is one that is naturally slightly arched.
I noticed you said you don't want to arch your back. Can you explain what you mean by this and why?
When you put your feet up on the bench what you do is the opposite of the excessive arching thing. You flatten out your back. So it is no longer neutral. This impedes natural power transfer from the lower to upper body..a big part of benching. If you flatten out your lower back you also can't arch the upper back. Effective retraction of the scapula is impeded and this rouned back posture while lifting can cause the scapula to wing. Something you don't want.
So you want the knees bent, feet firmly planted, a good tight neutral arch of the lower back, shoulders down and back with scapula retracted (pinched) together...all this will lead to the best longer term "health". Especially at the shoulders. As well as the biggest numbers.
Maybe you can find something to place on the floor on both sides of the too high benches to place your feet on. Perhaps some extra plates or steppers. My bench is too high as well and I actually put my feet on gallon paint cans filled with sand So whatever works.
BTW, I was posting at the same time as Ross and Pity so if any of this is a repeat of anything they said, my apologies.
teamfast:
I think the less arch you have in yur back the better form you are holding since (as powerlifters demonstrate) arching your back enough causes flat to become more of a decline. Some times i see guys doing dumbbells with there feet in the airholding their legs up off the bench (hard to explain) . I guess maybe im thinking by having your legs up makes your core unable to be flexed during lifts.
Not really sure where im going with this one...
Eric:
A natural back is a slightly arched lower back. This does not mean you need to or want to exgerate it but it also doesn't mean you want a "flat" back which is equally bad. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying you agree or that you still want to keep your feet on the bench?
teamfast:
i think you answered my question that having your back flat on the bench is equally bad as over arching.
Eric:
So your saying, Monsta, that you don't want to have the 'advantage' of good form? To me, whatever short term mental advantage you may get is outweighed by the long term disadvantages. With either technique, as long as you are consistent and steadily progress, then the difference in the weight used is cancelled out. Given the choice, it is better to go with a somewhat safer technique and let the natural laws of progressive overload do their job. Anything else is overthinking it, imo.
Eric (continued):
Totally, agree. That picture you have up...i can just imagine what would happen if you suddenly lost strength in one side. You wouldn't have a stable position from which to recover and you could really end up getting hurt.
Well, I agree. That excessive arching, or basically lifting the butt off the bench can put a lot of compression on the discs and be very bad for the back. But you are taking something that is mental and making it more important then actual biomechanical considerations. Frankly, anyone, if they are disciplined can learn to avoid that reaction of the butt rising. It's hard, I admit because when the weight gets heavy the body just naturally seeks a mechanical advantage and that gives it one. But it can be overcome with discipline.
Let me go at it another way. I actually read one guy with a bunch of letters after his name talking about feet up benching just now. He brought up some of the points I already discussed about lower back problems and how it may be advantages for some. But then he brought up a point about how the upper body stabilizers will be more engaged with feet up benching because you take out the lower body. He didn't actually give his opinion on it though (so fuck em).
As soon as I read it I thought it was ludicrous. Your "upper body" stabilizers were not built to be "isolated". We are connected from head to toes and things going on at the hips can affect things going on at the shoulders. Ask youselve if your body was ever meant to bench press. Maybe if a rock fell on you and your hands were in the right position you may press it off, lol. But do you think isolating the upper body stabilizers would be a good idea? Course not. You would just be less stable and more prone to injury, most likely from being squashed by the rock.
First of all, you are not well anchored to the bench. Second of all, there are two types of stabilizers, active and passive. You don't want to overwhelm one to the disadvantage of the other.
It would be one thing if we were actively training 'stabilizers'. You know, like the bench pressing on a ball? But that is light weight dumbells, not heavy barbells. When you are benching even somewhat heavy, it is not a time to make yourself less stable and definitely not a time to put your shoulders in a more stressful position. But the only way you can properly set your upper back with the feet up, at least from what I have experienced is....to create an excessive and unnatural arch in the lower back.
But you are benching with your lower back flat, your upper back rounded and your chest down. You are basically unstable in a myriad of ways. Your body was meant to work as a unit. There is not any real disadvantage to allowing it to do so. You just have to control the pitfalls of anything you choose to do.
Hi, sometimes when lifting i put my feet up on the bench to keep my back flat on the bench. Are there risks to doing this? should I keep my feet on the floor? I dont want to arch my back but some benches are a little too high to keep my feet flat on the floor.
Eric:
I'd recommend against the feet up benching. It is actually pretty complicated to explain because it's not a cut and dry situation (hardly anything ever is).
There are probably people who would be better off with their feet up due to lower back problems caused by etension/rotation problems. But those people may also be advised to limit flat bench pressing.
If you put up your feet it will limit your abilty to get in a proper position and provide a good stable "platform" with the upper back. It WILL limit the amount of weight you are able to push.
The problem is similar to the other side of the coin that you will see with powerlifters. They will really get their hips way up in the air and exaggerate their back arch a lot. Basically this makes it more like a decline bench and reduces stress on the shoulders and they can lift more. But as a general training technique this excessive arching should be avoided. What you want is feet firmly planted and a "neutral" lower back, which is one that is naturally slightly arched.
I noticed you said you don't want to arch your back. Can you explain what you mean by this and why?
When you put your feet up on the bench what you do is the opposite of the excessive arching thing. You flatten out your back. So it is no longer neutral. This impedes natural power transfer from the lower to upper body..a big part of benching. If you flatten out your lower back you also can't arch the upper back. Effective retraction of the scapula is impeded and this rouned back posture while lifting can cause the scapula to wing. Something you don't want.
So you want the knees bent, feet firmly planted, a good tight neutral arch of the lower back, shoulders down and back with scapula retracted (pinched) together...all this will lead to the best longer term "health". Especially at the shoulders. As well as the biggest numbers.
Maybe you can find something to place on the floor on both sides of the too high benches to place your feet on. Perhaps some extra plates or steppers. My bench is too high as well and I actually put my feet on gallon paint cans filled with sand
So whatever works.BTW, I was posting at the same time as Ross and Pity so if any of this is a repeat of anything they said, my apologies.
teamfast:
I think the less arch you have in yur back the better form you are holding since (as powerlifters demonstrate) arching your back enough causes flat to become more of a decline. Some times i see guys doing dumbbells with there feet in the airholding their legs up off the bench (hard to explain) . I guess maybe im thinking by having your legs up makes your core unable to be flexed during lifts.
Not really sure where im going with this one...
Eric:
A natural back is a slightly arched lower back. This does not mean you need to or want to exgerate it but it also doesn't mean you want a "flat" back which is equally bad. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying you agree or that you still want to keep your feet on the bench?
teamfast:
i think you answered my question that having your back flat on the bench is equally bad as over arching.
Eric:
So your saying, Monsta, that you don't want to have the 'advantage' of good form? To me, whatever short term mental advantage you may get is outweighed by the long term disadvantages. With either technique, as long as you are consistent and steadily progress, then the difference in the weight used is cancelled out. Given the choice, it is better to go with a somewhat safer technique and let the natural laws of progressive overload do their job. Anything else is overthinking it, imo.
Eric (continued):
Totally, agree. That picture you have up...i can just imagine what would happen if you suddenly lost strength in one side. You wouldn't have a stable position from which to recover and you could really end up getting hurt.
Well, I agree. That excessive arching, or basically lifting the butt off the bench can put a lot of compression on the discs and be very bad for the back. But you are taking something that is mental and making it more important then actual biomechanical considerations. Frankly, anyone, if they are disciplined can learn to avoid that reaction of the butt rising. It's hard, I admit because when the weight gets heavy the body just naturally seeks a mechanical advantage and that gives it one. But it can be overcome with discipline.
Let me go at it another way. I actually read one guy with a bunch of letters after his name talking about feet up benching just now. He brought up some of the points I already discussed about lower back problems and how it may be advantages for some. But then he brought up a point about how the upper body stabilizers will be more engaged with feet up benching because you take out the lower body. He didn't actually give his opinion on it though (so fuck em).
As soon as I read it I thought it was ludicrous. Your "upper body" stabilizers were not built to be "isolated". We are connected from head to toes and things going on at the hips can affect things going on at the shoulders. Ask youselve if your body was ever meant to bench press. Maybe if a rock fell on you and your hands were in the right position you may press it off, lol. But do you think isolating the upper body stabilizers would be a good idea? Course not. You would just be less stable and more prone to injury, most likely from being squashed by the rock.
First of all, you are not well anchored to the bench. Second of all, there are two types of stabilizers, active and passive. You don't want to overwhelm one to the disadvantage of the other.
It would be one thing if we were actively training 'stabilizers'. You know, like the bench pressing on a ball? But that is light weight dumbells, not heavy barbells. When you are benching even somewhat heavy, it is not a time to make yourself less stable and definitely not a time to put your shoulders in a more stressful position. But the only way you can properly set your upper back with the feet up, at least from what I have experienced is....to create an excessive and unnatural arch in the lower back.
But you are benching with your lower back flat, your upper back rounded and your chest down. You are basically unstable in a myriad of ways. Your body was meant to work as a unit. There is not any real disadvantage to allowing it to do so. You just have to control the pitfalls of anything you choose to do.
Abbreviations
I was thinking it would be nice to have quick ways of saying things in your journal when we are discussing ways in which you can advance. That we don't continually have to spell out everything...which I get sick of doing, personally. I makes it look like I'm spoon feeding you stuff when in fact you understand how I work. We just don't have a quicker way of talking...
So I want to use abbreviations when it comes to all these different progressive tools. Here are some:
1. RE: repeated effort. That means I want you to do as many reps as possible for a certain number of sets TO failure. This will be usually at a percentage below 90.
2. MRE: modified repeated effort. If I say that it means that I want you to do as many reps as possible for a certain amout of sets at a given weight but NOT quite to failure. Percentage below 90.
3. SE: submax effort. This would be just like the 10x3 and the things that are to come after it. Meaning doing a certain number of reps at a given percentage of 1RM (and prob with specified rest periods).
4. ME: max effort.
5. SP: single progression. To be followed by R, W, or S for reps, weight, or sets respectively.
6. DP: double progression. Same thing. Followed by two letters representig what to add
7. TP: triple progression. Additional letters not needed
. On TP btw, as I had told you before, it will behoove you in the future to have a way to microload. I can't see you doing too much TP adding 5 pounds in addtion to everything else. But if you are able to do it, good on ya!
OK, that's all I can think of for now.
So I want to use abbreviations when it comes to all these different progressive tools. Here are some:
1. RE: repeated effort. That means I want you to do as many reps as possible for a certain number of sets TO failure. This will be usually at a percentage below 90.
2. MRE: modified repeated effort. If I say that it means that I want you to do as many reps as possible for a certain amout of sets at a given weight but NOT quite to failure. Percentage below 90.
3. SE: submax effort. This would be just like the 10x3 and the things that are to come after it. Meaning doing a certain number of reps at a given percentage of 1RM (and prob with specified rest periods).
4. ME: max effort.
5. SP: single progression. To be followed by R, W, or S for reps, weight, or sets respectively.
6. DP: double progression. Same thing. Followed by two letters representig what to add
7. TP: triple progression. Additional letters not needed
. On TP btw, as I had told you before, it will behoove you in the future to have a way to microload. I can't see you doing too much TP adding 5 pounds in addtion to everything else. But if you are able to do it, good on ya!OK, that's all I can think of for now.
Deadlift form critique post injury
Yeah. It's what I thought. I see this a lot.
The key is the bar against the shins BUT the shoulders slightly forward of the bar. You sometimes start out with the shoulders forward of the bar and sometimes don't but just about every rep you pull you shoulders back to initiate the lift. Don't do that. If your shoulders stay forward of the bar you butt should end up a bit higher, appropriately. You going to pull/push straight up. You are actually pulling slightly back on the bar.
Again, one the bar and legs are in proper position and the shoulders are forward of the bar...you MUST maintain that relationship as you lift. Think of it as the bar being lined up underneath the scapula. Then just do what you have been doing.
I could watch the other vids again to see if that was happening but it is easily corrected. Just pay attention. You lifting technique is so much better you just need to keep proper body position.
Let me stress that if keeping your shoulders forward of the bar means you back angle changes and the butt comes up a bit...THAT IS FINE. You have a tendency to want you but to be too low.
Doing this properly should eliminate the any shin drag. It's not like your legs are that very long.
The key is the bar against the shins BUT the shoulders slightly forward of the bar. You sometimes start out with the shoulders forward of the bar and sometimes don't but just about every rep you pull you shoulders back to initiate the lift. Don't do that. If your shoulders stay forward of the bar you butt should end up a bit higher, appropriately. You going to pull/push straight up. You are actually pulling slightly back on the bar.
Again, one the bar and legs are in proper position and the shoulders are forward of the bar...you MUST maintain that relationship as you lift. Think of it as the bar being lined up underneath the scapula. Then just do what you have been doing.
I could watch the other vids again to see if that was happening but it is easily corrected. Just pay attention. You lifting technique is so much better you just need to keep proper body position.
Let me stress that if keeping your shoulders forward of the bar means you back angle changes and the butt comes up a bit...THAT IS FINE. You have a tendency to want you but to be too low.
Doing this properly should eliminate the any shin drag. It's not like your legs are that very long.
"Quality Volume" on Military Press
Let's try something different next time for the MP's (the primary one not the second press exercise).
This time you did:
Military Press = 2 sets x 6 reps x 130 lbs, 1 set x 5 reps x 130 lbs, 1 set x 2 reps x 135 lbs
so 3x6x130 didnt go quite as well as planned. i needed help for the 6th rep on the last set so im not counting it. its moved up from last week which is a good thing. next week i will try for 3x6x130 and then 1x4x130 too. the 135 lbs set was just to see where i stand. im happy[/quote[
The fact that you were able to get a couple at 135 after all that tell's us a lot. What I want to do next time is to have you use slightly more challenging weights but not "maxing" out. This will be within the realm of what I call "quality volume". So it will be much like what you did with the low rep sets to practice technique. Except for this you will be trying to put on more weight and trying to do as much as reasonable.
But before I give you the "plan" I need to explain the mindset. This is very important because this is not like anything you've ever really done before. The fact is it assumes a little more advancement in terms of being able to judge things. Or more experience. I think you are there, at least with the MP's if not the rows
The first thing is the rest periods. We are not to worried about time here. At the end you will drop the weights and do some mre anyway (probably at 130 for 2 or 3 sets) so initially when you are doing the lower rep sets you don't need to be thinking "this is taking too long. At the same time, however, you wan't to keep the rest periods only as long enough as needed to prodcue 2 or 3 good reps on the next set.
Say if you start with 135 and 3. Or if 135 is incredibally light you could do 4 for the first set but no more. But probable 3. Remeber you are going for "quality volume". Alright so for the next set say you rest a minute to two minutes (I'd say two minutes for you). You try for another 3 at 135. If as soon as you pick it up you don't feel like it's going to be good then put it back down and rest more. Then try again.
If at that point you get another set of 2 or 3your recovery seems on target and you feel strong and confident then you move forward. You might put 140 on. Take a good rest which is as long as YOU think is needed and try 2 or 3 at that. When you have added weight it would make sense to take slightly longer rest that if you are just repeating weight. If 140 goes well and there is more in the tank then you can continue loading the bar (as small of increments as you please but no larger than 5 pounds).
Now the rest periods can be whatever is needed. The idea is to keep them as short as you can within reason but if you need even up to 4 minutes then do that. The idea here is a strength challenge, and getting quality volume, not a time thing.
You may end up doing up to 150 like this. I don't really know. When you're done and you feel like it's enought, or you feel like you are approaching failure too much then take a LONG rest of 5 or even 5.5 minutes. And then drop the bar down. Again the weight is up to you but you may end up repeating the 130. So these are like a couple of back off sets except they 'count'. You want to sort of finish off things. So do MRE work here as much as feels comfortable.
What you may find, if you are able to do it correctly and avoid approaching failure for the heavy sets is that those last MRE sets are much stronger than you would have thought. That is really what should happen. This would be what is called "neural facilitation". Similar to sometimes when you do speed work. BUT if you were to do the same thing with traditional "max" work you'd be more "fatigued" than "facilitated". So this should hopefully give you a lot of work with more weight without actually sacrifising your rep work.
For the second press exercise you could of course cut that down or even leave it out completely. Switch to a bench if needed. Whatever.
So the "plan" is much like I already described. Starting at 135 makes sense but you could do a test with 130 of course to see how things are on that day.
135x2-3
rest as needed
135x2-3 (it's important to repeat it once to see if you feel 'strong and fast' still)
rest as needed
140x2-3
rest as needed
145x2-3
rest as needed
150....
Etc. and so on. You could put on smaller increments if you have them and want to and of course you could stop at any point and just stick with that weight for a few more sets.
Then a long 5 or more minute rest and the MRE work which can be 130 or 135 depending on how you feel. As you see SO much of this depends on your judgement and how you feel. This ain't standardized cookie cutter shit. You could basically say it is "doing what you can". However it is doing what you can do WELL rather than shitty the way most people end up donig it. So if the bar moves super slow and you're grunting and straining, there is not use in continuing. That does NOT mean that it can't feel challenging. It's a tricking and fine line.
It should be very productive and fun.
Continued..
Go for 3 reps if doable. 2 reps is fine. This is about "quality volume" and not just about rest-pausing it although it is similar.
For instance a really good thing to do so you can basically lift the heavier weight more times is to take 90 or so percent and rest-pause it with one rep and 10 to 15 second rests. That's kind of a classic rest-pausing technique (without the drop sets) and it's emphasis is on taking that very heavy weight and instead of following one rep right after another so that you only do say 3 reps you rest pause and get maybe 6 reps plus every rep is potentially just as good as the first. This all having nothing to do with DC style rest pausing which is essentially post failure work with short rest.
So you look at the "quality volume" thing I've described and it's a lot like that rest-pause thing except you will end up using a slightly lighter weight and only focus on how many times you can get the weight up with a good rep. That entails at least doing more than 1 rep which would be counter productive since the rest periods arent restricted as much. So at least go for 3 but realize that we are emphasizing quality and staying fresh so 2 good reps is still better than 3 with the last being slow.
By the same token you might end up pumping out 4 good ones here and there but I find it's best to stay with 3. And if only 1 good one is in the cards then that is what will have to happen. You want to stay far away as possible from failure. That doesn't mean that you won't find it feeling a little tought here and there but you should expect a very good bounce-back if things are going well.
Whatever exapmple I gave you was just an example...this is a "feel" and a reactive thing.
More..
Reread the first explanation I wrote. I might have confused you by over-expaining. The rest periods can be anything and it is completely up to how thing are going. But most of them should be less than 3 I would think.
As far as the less weight comment don't worry about it. I'm comparing the classic rest-pause technique I described with this. It doesn't matter. You will put on as much weight as ends up working out for you. Everything you need is in the first explanation.
YES. It is all relative. That is exactly why I emphasized that there is not exact formula.
There is no pyramid. If you can ramp up the weight and end up with 3 reps then good.
This is not a max out attempt. The idea is not to build up to a max or something like that. Remember that you are going to do those "back off" sets. In a way this is just on top of what you have normally been doing.
Say that a person just did 130x6x3.
So he uses this technique keeping the rest periods as short as possible but as long as needed and he does
130x3 (70 second rest, just as an example)
135x3x2 (90second rest after first then 120 after second)
140x3 (3 minutes)
145x3 (rest longer)
150x2
150x2 or 3
who knows really....
Then if he hasn't gone too far and allowed enought recovery he takes 135 and knocks out two sets of 6. But even if he takes 130 and does 2 or 3 sets it's still great. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? And those backoff sets aren't even really necessary really.
This is something that is hard to explain. You just have to experiment with it. Most people have never done something so "freestyle" so it's an individual experience.
This time you did:
Military Press = 2 sets x 6 reps x 130 lbs, 1 set x 5 reps x 130 lbs, 1 set x 2 reps x 135 lbs
so 3x6x130 didnt go quite as well as planned. i needed help for the 6th rep on the last set so im not counting it. its moved up from last week which is a good thing. next week i will try for 3x6x130 and then 1x4x130 too. the 135 lbs set was just to see where i stand. im happy[/quote[
The fact that you were able to get a couple at 135 after all that tell's us a lot. What I want to do next time is to have you use slightly more challenging weights but not "maxing" out. This will be within the realm of what I call "quality volume". So it will be much like what you did with the low rep sets to practice technique. Except for this you will be trying to put on more weight and trying to do as much as reasonable.
But before I give you the "plan" I need to explain the mindset. This is very important because this is not like anything you've ever really done before. The fact is it assumes a little more advancement in terms of being able to judge things. Or more experience. I think you are there, at least with the MP's if not the rows
The first thing is the rest periods. We are not to worried about time here. At the end you will drop the weights and do some mre anyway (probably at 130 for 2 or 3 sets) so initially when you are doing the lower rep sets you don't need to be thinking "this is taking too long. At the same time, however, you wan't to keep the rest periods only as long enough as needed to prodcue 2 or 3 good reps on the next set.
Say if you start with 135 and 3. Or if 135 is incredibally light you could do 4 for the first set but no more. But probable 3. Remeber you are going for "quality volume". Alright so for the next set say you rest a minute to two minutes (I'd say two minutes for you). You try for another 3 at 135. If as soon as you pick it up you don't feel like it's going to be good then put it back down and rest more. Then try again.
If at that point you get another set of 2 or 3your recovery seems on target and you feel strong and confident then you move forward. You might put 140 on. Take a good rest which is as long as YOU think is needed and try 2 or 3 at that. When you have added weight it would make sense to take slightly longer rest that if you are just repeating weight. If 140 goes well and there is more in the tank then you can continue loading the bar (as small of increments as you please but no larger than 5 pounds).
Now the rest periods can be whatever is needed. The idea is to keep them as short as you can within reason but if you need even up to 4 minutes then do that. The idea here is a strength challenge, and getting quality volume, not a time thing.
You may end up doing up to 150 like this. I don't really know. When you're done and you feel like it's enought, or you feel like you are approaching failure too much then take a LONG rest of 5 or even 5.5 minutes. And then drop the bar down. Again the weight is up to you but you may end up repeating the 130. So these are like a couple of back off sets except they 'count'. You want to sort of finish off things. So do MRE work here as much as feels comfortable.
What you may find, if you are able to do it correctly and avoid approaching failure for the heavy sets is that those last MRE sets are much stronger than you would have thought. That is really what should happen. This would be what is called "neural facilitation". Similar to sometimes when you do speed work. BUT if you were to do the same thing with traditional "max" work you'd be more "fatigued" than "facilitated". So this should hopefully give you a lot of work with more weight without actually sacrifising your rep work.
For the second press exercise you could of course cut that down or even leave it out completely. Switch to a bench if needed. Whatever.
So the "plan" is much like I already described. Starting at 135 makes sense but you could do a test with 130 of course to see how things are on that day.
135x2-3
rest as needed
135x2-3 (it's important to repeat it once to see if you feel 'strong and fast' still)
rest as needed
140x2-3
rest as needed
145x2-3
rest as needed
150....
Etc. and so on. You could put on smaller increments if you have them and want to and of course you could stop at any point and just stick with that weight for a few more sets.
Then a long 5 or more minute rest and the MRE work which can be 130 or 135 depending on how you feel. As you see SO much of this depends on your judgement and how you feel. This ain't standardized cookie cutter shit. You could basically say it is "doing what you can". However it is doing what you can do WELL rather than shitty the way most people end up donig it. So if the bar moves super slow and you're grunting and straining, there is not use in continuing. That does NOT mean that it can't feel challenging. It's a tricking and fine line.
It should be very productive and fun.
Continued..
Quote:
| regarding the presses, u told me to try and do as many sets as possible of 1-2 reps increasing the weight each time by no more than 5 lbs but lesser than 5 if i want. if i feel like something is wrong (after unracking), i am to put the bar back, wait, and attempt it again. right? the pattern u gave me is; |
For instance a really good thing to do so you can basically lift the heavier weight more times is to take 90 or so percent and rest-pause it with one rep and 10 to 15 second rests. That's kind of a classic rest-pausing technique (without the drop sets) and it's emphasis is on taking that very heavy weight and instead of following one rep right after another so that you only do say 3 reps you rest pause and get maybe 6 reps plus every rep is potentially just as good as the first. This all having nothing to do with DC style rest pausing which is essentially post failure work with short rest.
So you look at the "quality volume" thing I've described and it's a lot like that rest-pause thing except you will end up using a slightly lighter weight and only focus on how many times you can get the weight up with a good rep. That entails at least doing more than 1 rep which would be counter productive since the rest periods arent restricted as much. So at least go for 3 but realize that we are emphasizing quality and staying fresh so 2 good reps is still better than 3 with the last being slow.
By the same token you might end up pumping out 4 good ones here and there but I find it's best to stay with 3. And if only 1 good one is in the cards then that is what will have to happen. You want to stay far away as possible from failure. That doesn't mean that you won't find it feeling a little tought here and there but you should expect a very good bounce-back if things are going well.
Whatever exapmple I gave you was just an example...this is a "feel" and a reactive thing.
More..
Reread the first explanation I wrote. I might have confused you by over-expaining. The rest periods can be anything and it is completely up to how thing are going. But most of them should be less than 3 I would think.
As far as the less weight comment don't worry about it. I'm comparing the classic rest-pause technique I described with this. It doesn't matter. You will put on as much weight as ends up working out for you. Everything you need is in the first explanation.
YES. It is all relative. That is exactly why I emphasized that there is not exact formula.
There is no pyramid. If you can ramp up the weight and end up with 3 reps then good.
This is not a max out attempt. The idea is not to build up to a max or something like that. Remember that you are going to do those "back off" sets. In a way this is just on top of what you have normally been doing.
Say that a person just did 130x6x3.
So he uses this technique keeping the rest periods as short as possible but as long as needed and he does
130x3 (70 second rest, just as an example)
135x3x2 (90second rest after first then 120 after second)
140x3 (3 minutes)
145x3 (rest longer)
150x2
150x2 or 3
who knows really....
Then if he hasn't gone too far and allowed enought recovery he takes 135 and knocks out two sets of 6. But even if he takes 130 and does 2 or 3 sets it's still great. Are you seeing what I'm getting at? And those backoff sets aren't even really necessary really.
This is something that is hard to explain. You just have to experiment with it. Most people have never done something so "freestyle" so it's an individual experience.
Tips on Row form
you do not need to have the torso completely parallel doing barbell rows. In fact this will just mess you up because it's close to impossible to get a PARALLEL position while keeping the lower back set. So bascially as low as you can comfortably get your torso which will really be at a slight angle with the shoulders higher than the hips.
And also, I didn't want you to think you need to have the shoulder held back all the time. You bring the shoulders forward at the beginning of the movement so there is some protraction of the scapula. My point is only that it need to be controlled. You never just allow the bar to pull on your shoulders in a completely relaxed state. I think you know what I mean be that.
Then you simply retract the scapula bringing the bar in. Exactly where your bring it is up to you but it's better to keep it at least at the sternum or lower. That way it's more a neutral postion as far as the back muscles are concerned. But of course you can vary this for different emphasis.
Continued...
Hmmmm....
Is some of your ideas about rows coming from Kethnaab? It sounds like him. I remember now we had a lot of discussions with him here about rows and he's got some weird "ideas" about rows.
There is no real rule that a "regular bent over row" is at 45 degrees. That's really high. 45 degrees is not the definition of it. It's just that ange if you choose to do so. Most people do it lower as long as they can maintain their arch.
Yates rows are done much higher and if you consider them somewhere between standing up and bending over they are really high. Maybe higher than 45 degress really now that I think of it...there hardly any range of motion since they are pulled into the stomach while at a very high angle.
I read over Kethnaab's description of rows in the Rippetoe thing and all the going on about how much better the deload is is completely pointless. As I said before the purpose of rows is not to lift as much on rows as possible. there are no rows contests. And doing them with being as explosive as possible in mind is, when your think about it, equally pointless. If you want to be explosive do olympic variations.
But in that description he repeats the importance of maintaining the lumbar arch about a zillion times.
If deloading on the floor is so important a person could still do it without all the thoracis flexion (rounding of the upper back). Now some people will be able to do the "JS" rows with very little of this anyway but I'll bet 90 percent of the people doing them are rounding the entire back.
More Row Stuff..
I've got a couple of things I pulled up I want you to look at as just a way of seeing different back angles but all with both with.
Yes, I know you know how to do it but I'm trying to dispell some of these "rules" about angles from your mind. Especially parallel vs. other angles. Basically you can do it at whatever angles you are comfortable with or use different angles from around 45 degrees all the way down to parallel. Most people have a bread and butter way they like to do it of course.
http://www.criticalbench.com/exercises/bent-over-barbell-rows.htm
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/criticalbench14.htm
Next I want you to look at these two articles and vids. The parallel row vs. the pendlay row.
One the pendlay row one tell me if it makes any sense what the article says and what the guy does in the video. I'm not going to tell you what I think
But mostly I want you to notice that they are BOTH deweighted on the floor. But in the first "regular parellel bent over row" the guy never rounds his upper back. He simply lets his shoulders come down. I suspect this is the deweighted row that Rip is talking about being a regular barbell row and the so called Pendlay, JS or whatever is a bastardized version of it with thoracic roundking added. I'm not sure if that's true but in any case a person could do a deweigted row without all the rounding bullshit. If they couldn't do it parallel or on the floor at all, like I said they could deload to something higher. Even some plates.
Btw, I realize I made a big deal about it not being an EXPLOSIVE lift. But that is not to say it is not done fast. In order to use the muscles of the back via scapula retraction you have to do it fast. Otherwise the arms end up doing a lot.
And also, I didn't want you to think you need to have the shoulder held back all the time. You bring the shoulders forward at the beginning of the movement so there is some protraction of the scapula. My point is only that it need to be controlled. You never just allow the bar to pull on your shoulders in a completely relaxed state. I think you know what I mean be that.
Then you simply retract the scapula bringing the bar in. Exactly where your bring it is up to you but it's better to keep it at least at the sternum or lower. That way it's more a neutral postion as far as the back muscles are concerned. But of course you can vary this for different emphasis.
Continued...
Hmmmm....
Is some of your ideas about rows coming from Kethnaab? It sounds like him. I remember now we had a lot of discussions with him here about rows and he's got some weird "ideas" about rows.
There is no real rule that a "regular bent over row" is at 45 degrees. That's really high. 45 degrees is not the definition of it. It's just that ange if you choose to do so. Most people do it lower as long as they can maintain their arch.
Yates rows are done much higher and if you consider them somewhere between standing up and bending over they are really high. Maybe higher than 45 degress really now that I think of it...there hardly any range of motion since they are pulled into the stomach while at a very high angle.
I read over Kethnaab's description of rows in the Rippetoe thing and all the going on about how much better the deload is is completely pointless. As I said before the purpose of rows is not to lift as much on rows as possible. there are no rows contests. And doing them with being as explosive as possible in mind is, when your think about it, equally pointless. If you want to be explosive do olympic variations.
But in that description he repeats the importance of maintaining the lumbar arch about a zillion times.
If deloading on the floor is so important a person could still do it without all the thoracis flexion (rounding of the upper back). Now some people will be able to do the "JS" rows with very little of this anyway but I'll bet 90 percent of the people doing them are rounding the entire back.
More Row Stuff..
I've got a couple of things I pulled up I want you to look at as just a way of seeing different back angles but all with both with.
Yes, I know you know how to do it
but I'm trying to dispell some of these "rules" about angles from your mind. Especially parallel vs. other angles. Basically you can do it at whatever angles you are comfortable with or use different angles from around 45 degrees all the way down to parallel. Most people have a bread and butter way they like to do it of course.http://www.criticalbench.com/exercises/bent-over-barbell-rows.htm
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/criticalbench14.htm
Next I want you to look at these two articles and vids. The parallel row vs. the pendlay row.
One the pendlay row one tell me if it makes any sense what the article says and what the guy does in the video. I'm not going to tell you what I think
But mostly I want you to notice that they are BOTH deweighted on the floor. But in the first "regular parellel bent over row" the guy never rounds his upper back. He simply lets his shoulders come down. I suspect this is the deweighted row that Rip is talking about being a regular barbell row and the so called Pendlay, JS or whatever is a bastardized version of it with thoracic roundking added. I'm not sure if that's true but in any case a person could do a deweigted row without all the rounding bullshit. If they couldn't do it parallel or on the floor at all, like I said they could deload to something higher. Even some plates.
Btw, I realize I made a big deal about it not being an EXPLOSIVE lift. But that is not to say it is not done fast. In order to use the muscles of the back via scapula retraction you have to do it fast. Otherwise the arms end up doing a lot.
Eric's Rule #1 about exercises
So here's my new RULE NUMBER ONE ABOUT EXERCISES:
When a guru has a "theory" about a new and innovative way to do something question it right away. I don't care how qualified said individual is. Untill you see it parroted in general by the biomechancis and exercise sciecne world in general IGNORE IT.
When a guru has a "theory" about a new and innovative way to do something question it right away. I don't care how qualified said individual is. Untill you see it parroted in general by the biomechancis and exercise sciecne world in general IGNORE IT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)