Advice to Doug

Drop the crunches. Crunches suck. Start in with prone planks instead. And do side planks. For flexion try ab pulldowns or janda situps if you can get someone to hold your legs or rig it somehow, saxon side bends (db overhead side bends), cable woodchops, russian twists. Not all on the same day, lol 

Bar rollouts or a regular ab roller would also be a good thing to do. 

Watch your shoulders. If it hurts so much it may be that you are holding the bar wrong during squats.

I would think about taking out the middle squat ("wednesday") and putting in a single leg variant of some kind. Maybe static split squats to start with. This will be of great benefit and allow some recovery, help train the hips and cut down the chance of injury. Also reduce some of the total stress to make it easier to handle the workload.

If you're doing the A-B-A format...I say don't. It's stupid to set it up so that the stress changes form week to week. Deadlifts are going to be the most draining. Deadlifting twice some weeks is just going to result in bad mojo. Just go A-B-C...

If I had my druthers, I'd want you to not even start the program right now but instead give yourself a honeymoon period with the lifts. The things a true beginner is going to get stronger pretty much no matter what. Just a few weeks of learning the movements, honing in the movement patterns, etc., will produce noticeable improvements in "strength". To say nothing of improvements in recruitment.

I would start out with what is called a "static split squat". So that is like being in the lunge position except you remain stationary..no lunge of any kind. That is still a very good exercise and allows you some time to work on balance, range of motion, etc..

Then from there there are options for progression. You can static and elevate the back leg a bit..working up to a "bulgarian split squat". Or you can go to reverse lunges then onto dynamic lunges. You don't have to do the same one the whole time. You can switch as you become more proficient and as you stop making progress. The good thing is that you can increase the difficulty without necessarily increasing the load. Step ups are also a great option for later on.

Heck, these changes are nothing. I would do something quite different if I were training a novice depending on the person.

BTW, it's important, I think, to think of the warmup stuff as MOBILITY rather than flexibility. There will be some flexibiltiy stuff in it but the emphasis in on movement and the range of motion of the joints.

I just added a video. If you start with that basic movement (that is good form, btw) you can go on to elevate the back leg, OR the front leg..or alternate it if you like. You can progressively elevate the back leg until you end up with what Wolf posted..a bulgarian. And then there are more dynamic movements like dynamic (forward lunges, reverse lunges (a bit easier at first), walking lunges..

You can change the way you load them. From dumbells to barbell on back to front grip barbell.

In the video, he's using a fairly long stride length which will be a little more hams and glutes (good). Closer stride length will increase quad contribution a bit more. He is pushing off the heel (good). Only go as long and low as you can control the weight, whether bodyweight or added weight. Don't let the load "pull" you down lower that that range of motion where you are in control. Add range of motion as you go and work on mobility separately as well.

As you see it's really the same exercise except with the back leg on the floor. That upright torso you see in the vid is crucial.

Well I meant an workout A then workout B then workout C instead of A then B then A then B. But you'd prob want to alternate the presses like Pity already said so it's not exacatly ABC. Or do pushups which can be progressed as well and are a very valuable alternative.

I would do...

A
Squat 
Press/Bench Press
Row/Chinup

B
Deadlift
Split Squat, etc..
Push ups (pushups can be progressed)
Light Face Pulls (optional)

C
Squat (or Front Squat)
Press/Bench Press (whichever isn't done on A)
Rows/Chinups (whichever isn't done on A)

Core stuff sprinkled in throughout the week. 

Assistance stuff to be added later on as needed.

On the press this is exactly why I advocated a honeymoon period with the lifts. As your are trying to get your form down and practicing getting under the weight you are also busy counting reps and sets. Sure it's lowish volume but the truth is you actually could have gotten better at doing them by, for instance doing only 2 or 3 reps at a time, if not less, resting, doing it again. Basically not letting a lot of fatigue creep in so you can really hone in the movement. A great option after practicing that way would be to take a much lighter weight and doing some slightly higher reps after you feel confident. To sort of grease in the movement. You do that a couple of times and you won't be saying things like "I'm having trouble getting under the bar" WHILE you're in the midst of a programming environment where you're trying to load the bar every workout. And to boot..you'd probably start the workout with heavier weights. Because you WILL get better this way. On the pullups you are good. It's normal for the reps to go down. If you want to take longer rest periods by all means go ahead and do so. You may get more reps per set that way and since the weight is being held constant, then right now pulling that weight MORE times is going to count for a lot. You could always progressively shorten the rest periods later on if you wanted to. When it comes to something that you are simply trying to get your reps up on, with the weight not changing then going to failure is a good way to go. You don't have to go to failure on every set but at least the last one. That's something that failure is good for, for the most part, increasing reps although it doesn't always have a big impact in terms of absolute strength and power. Just going to failure on the pullups won't be a problem for you. This is since you already are able to do a good bit. If you could only do one or so total pullups it would be a whole different ballgame but you are obviously already good at them. Good start on the training, Doug. Well I went into it a bit before. By no means am I saying take a break! I don't want to get into this long explanation of all this cuz i know you don't want to read all that right now but I'll try to put it in a different way and I will compare my view to the "starting strength" view so that it's clear what I'm saying, even if you choose not to take my advice. Lot's of time people like to use a concept but they refuse to take that concept to it's furthest extent. Because they are too busy making comprimises to "satisfiy" everyone. So here is the kind of thing Rip and others will say, but notice that they treat all these statements as isolated in a way. 1. When you're learning a lift, heavy and correct are mutually exclusive. So Rip says that. You need to 'start light', basically. 2 Beginners will get stonger at first pretty much right off the bat no matter what they do. This is a period in resistance training that is known as "general adaptation". Rip says this too. 3. You must use a weight that is heavy enought to require proper form while not being so heavy you can't do it properly. Rip and others say that also. 4. Such and such reps and sets are best for a beginner as they will cause the "fastest possilbe" strength gain while ensuring recovery between workouts. Rip says that. First notice that for any given individual there are some innate contradictions in all that. Heavy, and fatigued (even a bit fatigued) can equal to the same thing. In other words it is true that you can't learn a lift with a weight that is too heavy. But for many, using a weight that is "heavy enough" and then forcing them into a prescribed route of sets and reps is doing the SAME THING. To learn a lift you DO NOT emphasive volume PERIOD. You emphasize QUALITY. The more times you do it well, the faster you will get better at it. While you are learning the lift, if you chose the same weight but instead of emphasing 3x5, you did something like sets of 2, 3, 1, 1,2,3, 2, 2 or whatever felt right with the rest you need to maintain quality....your going to end up lifting that weight with more quality volume as opposed to just volume and you also may just be lifting that weight more times. Now the total workload may not be that different between what you did this time and what you would have done using my advice. BUT you could have concentrated more on getting under the bar. More rest would have facilitated more recovery therefore you could have practiced the lift MORE and still recovered. So on and so forth. Then when you have to start really counting the reps and sets and trying to load the bar every workout you at least feel like you have your form down. Although form is always something you have to work on and tweak. Is this making sense? I understand it goes again't many things that you've read. I know, I know that rip says learning these lifts is a ten minute thing, lol. Well, learning the verbal cues is a ten minute minute thing. Where all these people are who became bench and squat masters in ten minutes...I don't know . I'm STILL working on perfecting little things. So let me be clear. I am not talking about doing less. At least as much if not more. Just spreading out the reps more and allowing more rest in between. This will actually allow those beginning neural improvments to happen quicker.

Low Bar Squats vs. High Bar Squats

So, I did 315 lbs x 2 reps x 2 sets High Bar Squats. This bloke said something about them on another board:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiknskreem Have you considered switching to low bar squats? Looks like you've got a little bit of sitting back and hip drive going on, but its kind of a fruitless pursuit with the high bar. As well, looks like your wrists are pretty extended.... start with that thumb up on top of the bar, get those elbows up and back, get them wrists straight.

I asked the other members of the site and Eric what he thought...

ERIC:

I think most people don't know SQUAT about squat. The bar position is just the bar position. People have gotten SO damned confused with all the different powerlifting groups and their "styles". All this sitting back versus "something else" is SO beside the point. The basic squat technique doesn't change, wherever you place the bar. The torso incline changes, the mechanics change as a result, etc...but the technique, in it's fundamentals is the same. People change their squatting styles to get the most out of their gear but that is SO beside the point. You can do low bar squats sometimes, you can do high bar...you can do something in between. That will change the angles. How low you can go, etc. Different stance widths will play into that as well.

What you are doing at this point and time, for this program is fine. People just want you to do what THEY do. It makes them feel more sercure. LOL, I personally don't tell you to do everything I do because a lot of what I do wouldn't be appropriate for you (although that has nothing to do with low bar versus high bar).

Getting the hands all wide and the elbows back is not the way most people will want to squat.

You notice how when you are ascending you start to lose that thoracic extension and the shoulders come down with the thoracic rounding? Making it that much harder to keep that lower back straight? Well, you put the shoulders BACK that's going to get worse. Put the shoulders back more you shove the chest and head forward.

Now, it aint so bad to get that thoracic rounding a bit with the heavy stuff. That's one of the reasons we work on our T-Spine flexibilty and beef up our mid and upper backs. But you want to endevour to avoid it when you can.

People really need to stop thinking that everything that powerlifters do applies to everybody. That's a new trend that has become exceptable. Yet if you think everything that applies to PRO bodybuilders applies to you you'll have forum people setting you straight, lol. You're dong what Max Strenght calls for. Hey, tell them to e-mail EC with their recommendations. He loves to own people.

No doubt, of course, that now we will see some youtube videos posted.

Just to be clear I am not saying there is something evil about low bar squats. I DO low bar squats. As well as high bar. There is just no sense, however, in people running around telling everyone they need to "switch" to low bar. It's just silly.




There your three basic basic postions. They are kept at the same height for illustration purpose but you imagine that is the same guy doing all three. All that has changed is what has to happen to get the bar in the center of gravity or whatever. The line down the middle tells you everything.

Anything else is done ON PURPOSE. It is an intentional alteration and it has nothing to do with "correct" or "optimal" or any of that. At least as for as "strength" is concerned. As far as numbers...powerlifters do what they need to do to get the biggest numbers. I know there is a lot of "marketing" out there saying otherwise.

BTW, we mentioned EC..the guy is a record setting powerlifter. He straddles both worlds. As a "performance enhancement coach" which is sort of the new term of strength and conditioning coach, lol AND as a powerlifter. He doesn't have all his people doing low bar squats. WTF? You mean just because he's a powerlifter doesn't mean he has everybody become his clone?! How can that be. Fact is the guy hardly uses back squats at all.

Bottom line to me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anuj am I in the green or not?

You're ok. You're bring your shoulder blades together, etc...

Technically the heavy squat weight was a bit to high. Definitely get in those technique days.

Other than that...looking good.

VIDEOS:

Squat Set 1: 315 lbs x 2 reps

Squat Set 2: 315 lbs x 2 reps

Size vs. Strength

I came across an interesting read on EFS today.

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/size_strength.htm

Yeah, I'm not sure what he is saying exactly. I think maybe people need to be clear when they are speaking of themselves, lol, instead of making it sound like they have observed thousands of trainees to come to a conclusion.

Honestly I don’t really understand the logic of the central ideas in that article. Well, I understand what he is saying I just don’t understand WHY he is saying it. Sometimes I think people just want to get attention by saying the opposite of the generally excepted trend, lol, even if there is no real reason to be saying it.

If a person really only has size as their goal, and they ARE cabable of achieving that through primarily “hypertrophy” training, then good for them. I might think lot’s of size without that much increase in strength is silly but to each his own. For that person, I don’t understand why the point needs to be discussed about how they can get strong easy afterwards. You wanted to get big; you got big. Case closed. If your goals then change that is a different story. But to tell people, hey, get a bunch of jelly in your muscles without really increasing your max strength in proportion to that and then later you will find it easier to get strong….well, nice theory. I’ll believe it when he produces thousands of obvervations proving. But, in the end, what happens is what matters.

NOBODY likes the middle road. To me anytime someone presents any extreme viewpoint solidly in one end of the spectrum you can almost bet they are wrong. The answer to any goal tends to always be in the middle.

Bit I think so much has to do with mode of thought. We tend to "label" what we do as this or that and so that affects the outcome as much as anything else.

But here are is the BIGGEST problems with the argument in this article and in any article stating the opposite idea, and they are both related: All of these questions are dependent on the individual and their training state.

And problem two is a question of efficiency and, yes, genetics. The elite bodybuilder represents a VERY small proportion of the population. Just about everybody else falls under the "hardgainer" category to one degree or the other. Now, I hate the term hardgainer but the REASON I hate it is because people make seem like "hardgainers" are this very tiny group of ectomorphs. But really it's all relative. Most of us have bodies that will fight tooth and nail against building large amounts of energy expensive muscle. The body uses the path of least energy expenditure. So instead of the term hardgainer it would be more accurate, imho, to have the term "easygainers" for the very few lucky, and then "everybody else". Notwithstanding the fact that what works for the individual...WORKS. What matters is what happens, not my theories or ideas about what will happen

The question of what is more efficient is a little more complicated, though, to my mind. Assuming that someone, of course is working, more or less, in strength and hypertrophy range, or anerobic range, then every beginner who picks up a weight will have some period, longer or shorter, of "free strength". Some methods will develop max strength faster than others but at first just about anything is going to get some initial strength gains.

Why are 5x5 methods so popular? Because they are a perfect middleground for develping strenght AND mass for the person who is just past the novice stage...i.e. just past this period of "free strength". Doesn't matter really if it was "hypertrophy training" or "strength training" the middleground approach represents just the sort of change that will usually meet with a lot of growth AND strength for a while.

But here is where efficiency comes in. The idea that someone who has gained a whole bunch of apparent size from high volume high rep (presumable bodypart) training can just "switch" all that mass over to "strength" is ummm...a little misleading. Matter of fact it's almost simplified to the point of nonsense. If the adapatation NEEDED was a whole bunch of max strength it already would have happend, logically. Why didn't it happen? Because nervous system changes and FUNCTIONAL muscle tissue wasn't the only adpaptation needed to the type or training undergone. It all comes down to specific adaptations to imposed demands. You can't turn fat into muscle and you can't turn sarcoplasmic jelly (stored substrates) into strong contracting muscle. To some extent the body has to "readapt". Hell, that's one of the big problems with western periodization. One "skill" or adapation is being detrained or lost while the other is being trained. That's enough right there to put the serious cabash on that whole article.

But large amounts of non-functional "mass" retards strength ability and strength gain. People that really are interested in strength are wanting relative strength. To say that a whole bunch of hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake is somehow advantageous to gaining strength down the road…well let me just say that the 250 pound bodybuilder who starts training for strength is going to get his ass handed to him by others in his weight range who have been training for strength all along and until his relative strength is better, he really won’t be “strong” compared to people who are “really strong”. Which could VERY WELL mean a signicant decrease in body weight.

On the other hand, muscular strength will never retard your ability to hypertrophy if that becomes your primary goal. But I agree with you, Andrew, that giving arbitrary numbers as the strength gain before “mass” is probably a little much. When I really started primarily focusing on strength training I got smaller looking. I felt more dense, and I actually liked the way I looked better. But I think it comes down to more efficiency. And of course all rep ranges are always being used by me. But if I start getting the size bug whispering in the back of my head, I have to, quite frankly, do at least a little, ‘bodybuilding style’ training.

Mel Siff expains all this better, of course:

OPTIMUM, NOT MAXIMUM, HYPERTROPHY

In both Olympic lifting and powerlifting, optimal and not maximal
hypertrophy is a central feature of the game, unlike bodybuilding where it
does not matter whether one is relatively weak or strong with reference to
one's bodymass. All that matters is well-defined, symmetrical muscle bulk
in bodybuilding, but in the lifting sports, your size and impressiveness of
appearance earn you scant respect - all that counts is what you lift.

Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as
long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases
in strength and power. If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total
increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative
strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

This is a serious problem in contact sports such as football where the
common belief is that virtually any form of added mass is good for the game
(especially defensive players), whereas in reality it would be a lot better
if the added bulk was mainly solid, functional muscle which added strength,
power, speed and agility.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF HYPERTROPHY

Research from Russia even suggests that there are two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy (of the actual contractile
components) and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (of non-contractile proteins and
semifluid plasma between the muscle fibres), with the latter type of
hypertrophy being more in evidence in bodybuilding (Siff & Verkhoshansky
"Supertraining" 1998 Ch 1.12).

MUSCLE GROWTH & PERFORMANCE

To provide some more relevant information on this important and
controversial topic, I have included this fairly lengthy extract from
"Supertraining" (pp 58-60) for those who may be interested:

Other research has found that hypertrophied muscle fibres need a
significantly larger tissue volume to perform a given amount of work. With
the development of non-functional muscle bulk (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),
the increase in muscle mass outsrtips the development of the circulatory
system, resulting in decreased nutrition and oxygenation of the muscle,
slowing down the metabolic processes in the muscle and less efficient
disposal of metabolic waste products from the musculoskeletal system
(Zalessky & Burkhanov Legkaya Atletika 1981: 1-7).

Furthermore, adaptation occurs more slowly in connective tissue (such as
tendons and ligaments) than in muscle and any increased tension made
possible in the musculotendinous complexes by the increased muscle mass can
cause damage to these structures (Zalessky & Burkhanov, 1981). Thus,
excessive hypertrophy usually leads to slower muscle recovery after
exercise, deterioration in speed, speed-strength and speed, as well as an
increased incidence of injury.

THE ENERGY COSTS OF TOO MUCH HYPERTROPHY

This might suggest that all muscle fibre hypertrophy lowers work capacity.
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response to physical stress and does offer the
benefit of increased mitochondrial surface area, which provides for more
efficient energy processes than would an increased number of mitochondria.
With a rapid increase in loading, the size of the mitochondria continues to
increase markedly, but their number decreases and the concentration of ATP
drops, thereby diminishing the partial volume of the contractile myofibrils.

The resulting energy deficit soon inhibits the formation of new structures
and the decreased amount of ATP stimulates various destructive processes
associated with decrease in the number of myofibrils. This process is
referred to as irrational adaptation.

Growth of any living structure is related to the balance between its volume
and its surface area. When muscle hypertrophy occurs, the surface of the
fibres grows more slowly than their volume and, this imbalance causes the
fibres to disintegrate and restructure in a way which preserves their
original metabolic state (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990).

It would appear that light and medium increases in loading require less
energy, facilitate cell repair, minimise the occurrence of destructive
processes and stimulate the synthesis of new, non-hypertrophied cellular
structures. Medium loads applied with a medium rate of increase in loading
produce intense muscular development, the process in this case being
referred to as rational adaptation..

The fact that conventional isometric training improves performance in
static, rather than dynamic, exercise may be due to the different
structural effects of isometric training on the muscle fibres, muscle
cells, connective tissues and blood capillaries.

MORE ON OPTIMAL HYPERTROPHY

This work seems to corroborate the hypothesis referred to earlier that
there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy
(MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of
prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance
between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious. Thus, it
is not only prolonged cardiovascular training which can be detrimental to
the acquisition of strength, but multiple fairly high repetition sets of
heavy bodybuilding or circuit training routines to the point of failure may
also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres.

Therefore, it is vital to monitor regularly changes in muscular structure
and function alongside changes in size and mass. In most cases the taking
of biopsies is not possible or financially practical, so that indirect
assessment of the adaptive processes is necessary. Increase in hypertrophy
of a given muscle zone may be assessed from muscle girth and skinfold
thicknesses at that site, while factors such as relative strength, maximal
strength and the strength deficit (see Ch 1) serve as useful indicators of
functional efficiency.

INDISCRIMINATE WEIGHT TRAINING

Bosco (1982a) cautions against the indiscriminate use of resistance
training that typifies much of the 'cross training' prescribed with weights
and circuits by Western personal trainers and coaches. He emphasizes that,
although heavy resistance training serves as a powerful stimulus for the
development and hypertrophy of both ST and FT fibres, the invaluable role
played by FT development can be impaired by the accompanying growth of ST
fibres, because the latter appear to provoke a damping effect on FT
contraction during fast movement.

This is due to the fact that, during high speed shortening of muscle, the
sliding velocity of ST fibres can be too slow and therefore, may exert a
significant damping effect on the overall muscle contraction. He concludes
that the central role played by the storage and release of elastic energy
by the connective tissues of the muscle complex should never be ignored in
sport specific training programmes.

Dr. Mel Siff

Sorry this post is super long. I wanted to just get it across and not have to come back and post on it a bunch more. BTW, I want to point out that when he talks about cardio and super high rep circuits and such as being detrimental he uses the word PROLONGED. He is not saying there is not advantage to it.

This all reminded me of another thread:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...pump-9642.html

I thought that some non math-oriented individuals (like myself) may be confused by this statement by Siff:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

What he is talking about is strength-to-weight ratio. There is also power-to weight ratio but he mentions a 1RM so we'll stick to a simple strength formula. You strength-to-weight ratio is simply your 1RM (for a given movement) divided by your body mass.

So, if you weigh 200 pounds and you have a 1RM of 220 lbs (good for you) then your relative strength is 1.1. THEN, if you increase your body weight by 15 pounds but your 1RM increases by 5 lbs...your relative strength goes down to 1. Doesn't seem that bad but if that represents a TREND, then you can see that all that a bunch of that body weight ain't doing nothin for you in terms of strength.

Squat Flexibility and Hitting Depth

One thing you may not recognize is that just because you aren't stable at a certain depth with a heavy weight doesn't mean you may not be able to get more depth with a ligther weight. So remember Cressey's suggestions for "technique" days as well and that is a place you can work on depth and such too...

That way you are also practicing mobility with some load that you have to stabilize.

Kind of like I do now on overhead squats.

I actually have too different "progressions". OH squats are in regular rotation now and that is when I am concerned with lifting as heavy as I can. On those sessions with the heavier weight my depth is a little less.

But then I have regular practice with OH squats with a lighter weight and greater depth. In fact, now with the lighter weights I can do a full "olympic style" squat with OH....pretty much with the lower back perfect. Plus with the lighter weigth I have enough control to really work on keeping that lower back set and achieving full extension. SO, with these squats I am also slowly upping the weights. This I can do a good three times a week without taking anything out of me really...only benefits....but I don't have to do it that often.

Like I've said before..the weight always matters. That is why you would have things like technique days with lighter weights. I.E. enough weight to require proper form but not so much that you can't really hone in the technique.

E

Mobility: Flexibility and Stability

Hey, hope you had a good time.

I'll be happy to explain it further to you, but first of all let me say that no, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing now.

One thing to read is a fairly recent article by Mike Robertson called, I think "the mobility/stability continuum", or something to that effect. He kind of addresses some of the confusion that has come about recently but of course Mike Boyle, Eric Cressey, Hartman, Gray Cook....are great sources of info on this short of a kineseology and kinematics textbook

Anyway there is always a tradeoff between mobility and stability. I guess I should try to make clear in your mind what those two things really are in simple terms.

For mobility lets ASSUME that flexibility goes into that, even though flexibilty and mobility are NOT the same exact thing. Flexibiltiy is the ability of a muscle to change lengths. Stretch, basically. MOBILITY is simply movement, or the abiltiy of a joint to move. There are more factors other than JUST flexibility that effects this, right? Like a joint can just be restricted and tight on it's on. And there is even more to it than that, from a kinematic standpoint.

Stabibility should be self explanatory (I know you know all this stuff but...) let's simply say that it is the abiltiy to maintain a fixed postion in space...a STABLE position.

So, think about this. Why is it someone can go low a back or front squat and be sable throughout the entire range of motion but make them hold something overhead and they can no longer do that? How much of that is flexibility, for instance, of the thoracic region and the shoulders, etc...and how much is stability...the core muscular, the hips, the lower back...everything required to hold that position with the weigths overhead?

Remember when Andrew told you the OH squat thing had nothing to do with weight and I got annoyed by that? Well, that is because of mobility versus stability. You may have the mobility and stability to take a five pound wooden rod and overhead squat it but a 45 pound bar requires more stability. It doesn't matter how flexible you are if it's too heavy to stabilize. Of COURSE the weight has something to do with it. It ALWAYS does.

OK, so to get into a new position requires both new mobility and new stability. Right? But why is it easier to gain the mobility FIRST and then add the stability? Becasue if an area you require flexiblity and mobility in is too tight, than another area that is supposed to be stabilizing has to give in order to achieve the range of motion.

That might be confusing even though it's in very simplified terms (we both know it's more complicated) so let me give an example of what I mean. I explained this in someones journal not to long ago.

Say you are trying to do hip extensions. You know, "hyperextensions" which I call hip extensions. Say your hamstrings are tight and you lack range of motion in you hips. But you are trying to keep the lower back set and the upper body fully extended, right? So what happens when you reach the end of that limited range of motion in the hips but you want to go lower? The lower back has to flex, right? The lumbar muscles have to stretch to allow any more range of motion. So if you KEEP on doing that trying to go lower WHILE maintaining a nicely set lower back it is going to be a battle between the mobility you want and the stability you want. Is this making sense?

If you go into is already with the hip mobility you need, then the lower back doesn't have to take over for the range of motion thus allowing it to stabilize and build static endurance. It's like this with anything. So simply speaking, if you can achieve a degree of mobility while allowing for external stability (something propping you up, etc...) it will be much easier to then allow the stabilizing muscles to do their job once a load is added. And even a little load changes everything when it comes to stability, right? Because your center of gravity changes.

Does any of this help explain it?

OH Squats

Here's a nice vid:

http://www.nsca-lift.org/videos/

If you use the search you can find other nsca vids, front squats, whatever…

On the vids:

Big improvement.

You biggest problems are the first phase and consistency of bar position. And the last phase with going deeper than you can stabilize, like IW said.

At the top you have been tending throughout to either have the bar too far back, behind your shoulders or too far forward. The last video with the weights the bar position was def too far forward. In the first vid it's hard to say. Once problem with watching is that you extend your neck a bit too much which makes it difficult to judge proper bar postion and it's too far away and dark to make everything out well.

Try not to extend the neck or jut the chin up. Keep the neck neutral. Look slightly up with your eyes, not by moving the head back. That will counteract this tendancy. I.E. you try to keep the head down while moving the eyes up and that tends to cancel out the two extremes and put you in a more neutral position. Try it, if it doesn't work then just remember not to extend so much.

With your head in the right position it will be easier for you to judge bar position. It may vary slightly for different people of course but you never want it in front of your ears or behind the shoulders. It's more like a little slot between your ears and your shoulders...somewhere in there.

Shoulder flexibility is certainly not an issue as you well know. T-spine mobility probably cannot be overemphasized. Stay a bit higher at the bottom so you can stabilize the lumbar. Work on some drills separately like the Dan John ones.

Hypertrophy and Strength NOT so different

I wanted to write a bit on some of the ideas floating around about strength and I thought this was a place it made sense to do so.

Lots of well meaning people, including myself, have worked hard to convince people that if you want to get bigger than getting stronger should be your goal. 5x5 has become this very popular means of working on these two goals together as it is a happy medium between intensity and volume. However people have begun to lose sight of what strength work really is compared to general strength/mass goals. For all the great info in this particular thread, the emphasis on "workload" has sort of missed the point when it comes to strength.

In the end to get your strongest you have to let go of the middle ground approach and actually except strength as a primary goal. Hypertrophy is a side effect of strength work period, especially in the long run. You will have to use all rep ranges at some point or another and in some way or another to get your strongest. But if you want to REALLY get strong then INTENSITY is the number one parameter, workload be damned.

All the emphasis on microtrauma and local musular recovery misses the point of strength. Trainees get way too focused on physiological details. Physiological details are the favored stomping ground of the guru who doesn't really know training and programming. Yes, you can get stronger without gaining a whole lot of mass and sometimes people can get WAY stronger without a lot of apparent mass, but in general, if you eat a lot you get big.

But the "detail" oriented mind will tell you that absolute strengh is neural in nature so...you won't get big. Well...neural improvements mean more muscle fibers called into action more quickly. Sounds like a recipe for getting big especially when you put them to work with more workload.

Probably olympic lifters are the best example. You really need to look at the physiques of the light and middle weight O lifters. NOT the heavyweights

The message people recieve in terms of rep ranges in the popular literature tends to go like this: If strength is your only goal then you only need to work in the 1 to 4 rep range. Or sometimes people say 1 to 5 or 6. BUT if hypertrophy is your goal you have to work in the 8 to 12 rep range. Somebody who writes somethng like that, you can rest assured, has never spent much time engaged in strength training. If you try to work primarily in the 1 to 4 range you will find yourself falling short of your goals at the least, and getting injured, burned out, or simply losing strength at the worst. Not to say that the primary means of gaining absolute strength isn't going to be in that range.

It makes sense that we would find a middle ground in terms of intensity and volume. Somewhere between 4 to 6 reps and 4 to 6 sets. 5x5, being right in the middle seems a sensible way to go.

But when it comes to strength, the middle ground can only take you so far. It is most appropriate for the beginner to intermediate and even if you want to do "advanced" 5x5's you are STILL trying to realize strength/mass goals simultaneously rather than true strength goals. You are just doing in the way of a person who can handle more workload.

People have the idea that you need a certain amount of work to get stronger. So that you have to give up intensity for volume. People have the idea that you have to stick to certain rest periods. That you need a certain amount of density. NONE of this is true. The best idea I can tell you in terms of maximal strength work is to get as much work done at the highest intensity possible. BUT instensity IS the number one in strength. Volume has to go before that. Maybe I could simplify this as follows: If you can lift a relative heavy weight more times than you normall would be able to do with the "volume/density" approach, this will lead to great strength gains. After that the name of the game is to find a way to do it without losing ability, etc..

There is a lot more I could say about this but the primary thing I want to point out is that throwing 5x5 at something and calling it 'strength' is not going to get the job done forever. It's not "strength" it's strength for bodybuilders (in the long run I mean). You want to realize your truest potential you will have to work at intensities at above 85% and spend a lot more time in the 90% or above range.

The question of whether 5x5 is good for strength or mass isn't really the question. The question is what is good for the individual. For an absolute novice 3x8 is good for strength and mass. For a bit. It's the same with any volume/intensity relationship. I spent a lot of time doing 5x5 interations telling myself I wanted strength. I am quite certain that the last few could have been better spent on a program more focused on absolute strength.

IMO, working on absoute strenght qualities will allow your "hypertrophy" gains to be reached much more easily. And NO you don't have to work "strength phases" and "hypertrophy phases". Most coming here are interested in mass. There are some that say they are interested in strength first and mass second. Now, IF you are not a beginner intermediate and you are being truthfull about that goal, then a 5x5 program is NOT necessarily the best choice for you.

Hypertrophy and strength are not so different but ultimately the training is. Don't tell me you want strength but then be unwilling to lift heavy. You will only get so strong and no more after a point.

The next post I think will be a bit about neural fatigue and the realities of it in terms of CNS intensive training and it's relationship to intesity and workload.