One of the biggest advantages of high intensity training over other training methods is that it allows you to stimulate improvements in all general, trainable factors of functional activity at once, and provides the same or better results with much less time. If you value your time, if you’d rather spend it with family and friends, pursuing recreational interests or hobbies, or doing work you are passionate about, you don’t want to spend more time working out than you have to for the best possible results. The following are a few tips for making your high intensity training workouts even more efficient.

Favor compound exercises over simple ones

Minimally, your workouts should include one set of at least one exercise for every major muscle group, and for muscles and muscle groups which are capable of producing movement in a variety of planes, two. Fewer exercises would not effectively work your whole body, and more exercises or sets can be counterproductive. With high intensity training, less is usually more.

Compound exercises should form the base of your workout, and include pushing and pulling exercises in both vertical and horizontal planes, and hip and thigh exercises that are both quad and glute and hamstring dominant. Round out your workout with simple exercises for muscle groups that aren’t effectively worked during the compound exercises like the neck flexors and extensors and calves, or muscle groups you are unable to work with compound exercises due to injury (for example, performing a leg curl, leg extension, and hip extension instead of squats or leg presses to work around a foot or ankle injury).

It also helps to compare the muscles targeted by each of your exercises in your workouts and cut redundant exercises or alternate between exercises with overlapping target muscles. Unless you’re doing a 3×3 workout and want some variety you don’t need to do chin-ups, close underhand-grip pull-downs, and parallel-grip pull-downs in the same workout.

Move quickly between exercises

I almost didn’t include this, as it seemed too obvious, but decided to add it any way because if I didn’t someone would probably end up asking about it. As a general rule, you should move slowly when performing exercises, but quickly between them. In addition to reducing your total workout time significantly, this appears to produce greater cardiovascular improvements than longer rest periods between exercises and will not interfere with muscular strength or size gains. You may not be able to use as much weight on subsequent exercises when you rush between them, but this will not negatively effect your results as long as your intensity of effort is high. You should move from one exercise to the next as quickly as you can without becoming light-headed, dizzy, or nauseated. If you start feeling any of these wait until it passes before starting your next exercise.

Use a workout chart

I almost didn’t include this as well, but since there are still a lot of people out there who don’t keep track of their workouts I also decided to include it. A workout chart is necessary to objectively evaluate performance between workouts and determine whether or what changes you might need to make to your program to optimize progress. If you’re not tracking your workouts you are probably wasting most of your time in the gym.

Having a well organized workout chart lets you know in advance exactly what exercises you’ll be doing, in what order, and how much weight you’re using for each. This removes any guesswork and gives you a plan to follow when you get to the gym.

Set up equipment in advance

This is much easier if you work out at home or can go to the gym during off-peak hours and don’t have to share equipment, but it is possible in a gym if you have a training partner. Unless you need a spot or assistance with forced reps, forced negatives, or other advanced high intensity training techniques, while you are performing an exercise your training partner should be setting up your next one and holding it for you. If the equipment you need for your next exercise is in use they should set up for the exercise after that, while keeping an eye on the equipment and going back to hold it for you if it is available before you finish your current exercise.

Unless you are both performing the exact same workout with similar weights if using free weights, it is more efficient for one of you to train first while the other spots, assists, and sets up equipment, then switch, than to both go through your workouts together.

If you have to perform your exercises out of sequence to avoid waiting for equipment record it on your workout chart. Since every exercise effects your ability to perform every subsequent exercise the order influences performance, and knowing it is necessary when comparing workouts and evaluating progress. The best way to record this is drawing squares in the upper-right corners of the weight/reps boxes and numbering the exercises in the order you performed them.

If you work out at home setting up equipment in advance is much easier, and can be made even more efficient by using quick adjust dumbbells like the Bowflex SelectTech, and if you are using the same bar or belt for multiple exercises loading it in a way that minimizes the amount of plates you need to move around between exercises. For example, if you are using the same forty five pound bar for both squats and standing presses, and you are using one hundred and forty pounds for the standing presses and three hundred twenty for squats, you would load the weight for the standing presses first, then add the extra forty five pound plates for the squats, so you only have to remove the two plates after squatting for the bar to be ready for pressing.

If your gym has good selectorized machines, use them

It takes much less time to move a machine’s weight stack selector pin and adjust the position settings than it does to load and unload barbell plates, especially for compound exercises which require more weight. However, if a machine doesn’t feel right or if it is too small or big for you to fit or properly position yourself on, use free weights instead. If you prefer to work out at home and have the budget and space having even just a basic line of machines – leg press, pull-down, chest press, compound row, overhead press, trunk extension – can cut your workout times down considerably.

This is an extremely important consideration when equipping a personal training studio. While free weights and plate loaded machines are less expensive than good selectorized machines like Nautilus and MedX, if you’re training a dozen or more clients a day you don’t want to be loading and unloading bars or plate-loaded machines all day long. It’s not just inefficient, it can also be very hard on your shoulders, especially for females and older instructors.

Use bodyweight exercises

Many bodyweight exercises require no equipment at all, and when equipment is required it usually needs little or no adjustment, so it takes almost no time to move between them. You can substitute exercises like chin-ups and dips for pull-downs and chest presses, or even do your entire workout with bodyweight.

Keep track of workout duration

In addition to recording basic information like the date of your workout, the weight used, and the repetitions or TUL performed for each exercise, I like to record the start and end time of my workouts so I can compare the duration. The better your conditioning the more quickly you will be capable of moving between exercises, so this should also be considered a measure of workout performance and progress.

If you have a tip to add or questions about any of the above, please post them in the comments.

I’m encouraged by what appears to be an increase in public awareness and media discussion of the high risk of orthopedic injuries and dangerous medical conditions like rhabdomyolysis with popular exercise programs like CrossFit and many so-called “boot camps”, however, it bothers me that ignorant trainers and journalists frequently blame exercise intensity for problems caused by things like poor exercise selection and bad form.

High Intensity Versus High Risk

In the context of exercise intensity is best defined as relative effort; how hard you are working relative to how hard you are capable of working at the moment. For example, if you are capable of exerting one hundred units of force in an exercise and perform it with a level of resistance which only requires you to exert sixt units, at the start of the exercise your intensity of effort will only be sixty percent. As you fatigue the force you are capable of exerting gradually decreases so the sixty units of force you exert gradually becomes a larger percentage of your momentary capability. When fatigue has reduced your momentary capability to sixty units of force you will be working at maximum intensity.

Injuries occur during exercise when tissues are exposed to more force than they can withstand, which can be due to any one or a combination of of several factors. The higher the force relative to your tissue strength the higher your risk of injury. While training with a high level of intensity requires a high relative effort, it does not require relatively high levels of force. By consistently applying the following guidelines you can train as intensely as you are capable of without wrecking yourself in the process.

Use a slow, controlled speed of movement

You should move slowly enough during exercise to be able to do three things:

1. Reverse direction smoothly and with little acceleration during both the lower and upper turnarounds
2. Maintain proper positioning and path of movement over the full range of motion
3.  Focus on intensely contracting the target muscles.

Reversing directly smoothly, gradually slowing to a stop and gradually starting the positive or negative without bouncing, yanking, or jerking the weight reduces the peak force the target muscles encounter. This is especially important during the lower turnaround, because more force is required to slow the weight to a stop and to begin the positive, and in many exercises the target muscles may be at or near a stretched position where they are weaker and more vulnerable to injury.

For most exercises this means taking at least four seconds to complete the positive (lifting) phase and another four seconds to complete the negative (lowering) phase, but moving even more slowly improves control of body positioning and movement and minimizes acceleration during the turnarounds.

Contrary to uninformed opinion it is not necessary to move in a fast, explosive manner during exercise to improve your speed or explosiveness in other activities or to accomplish any general fitness goals, and doing so unnecessarily increases your risk of injury. Regardless of the speed of movement used to develop strength, if you get stronger, you will able to move faster and more explosively.

It is also not necessary to move quickly or perform a high rate of mechanical work during exercise to improve metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning. As long as your metabolic work is high you will stimulate improvements in these, and this can be accomplished moving slowly, or even not at all with isometric high intensity training methods and by minimizing your rest between exercises. Avoiding a high amount of mechanical work done in an explosive, high-force manner also reduces your risk of rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle releasing muscle fiber contents into the blood which can be harmful to the kidneys), a condition which occurs with alarming frequency in people doing CrossFit.

Maintaining proper positioning and path of movement prevents you from moving into or through positions where the joints or other tissues are exposed to potentially harmful levels of force due to compression or stretching of tissues. Maintaining proper positioning also ensures the target muscles are being efficiently loaded, rather than offloading to other muscle groups. This prevents you from generating a lot of force with other larger muscle groups that must be transmitted to the weight through smaller muscle groups, which increases your risk of injury.

Exercise is not about using your muscles to lift weights, it is about using weights to work your muscles. When performing an exercise your focus should be internal rather than external, focusing on intensely contracting the target muscles rather than what you are doing to the weight or the handles, pedals, or pads on a machine. It is much easier to do this when you are moving slowly.

Avoid movements or positions which cause excessive stretching or compression of joint tissues

Your muscles and tendons can only stretch so far, and your joints can only move so far in any direction before tissues start to be compressed and/or stretched to a potentially harmful degree. While a moderate stretch is desirable in some exercises an extreme stretch puts the muscles under load in a weak and vulnerable position increasing the risk of strains or tears and can be harmful to your joints.

If you study ju jitsu, chin na, dumog, or any other style of grappling which involves joint locks and breaks, you learn how to position and apply force to a threat’s joints to cause pain or damage, and how to prevent them from doing the same to you. The basic principles are the same for almost every lock; you move the threat’s joints into a position at the end of their range of motion and apply force in that direction using a position which gives you leverage. You need both for it to work. During exercise the principles are exactly the opposite; you want to avoid positioning your joints at the end of their range of motion if the weight and leverage results in excessive stretching or compression of joint tissues in that position, and removing either of those two – extreme stretch or excessive force –  significantly reduces your risk of injury.

A good example of this is the dumbbell pullover. When your upper arms are moving in the sagittal plane parallel to each other your shoulders can only flex so far before ligaments in the shoulder restrict further movement.  This can be tested by standing with your back flat against a wall and slowly raising your arms in front of you while keeping your elbows shoulder-width apart. During the dumbbell pullover, as you lower the weight approaching this position the horizontal distance between your shoulder and the center of gravity of your arms and the weight increases, increasing the lever and the resistance force. If you allow your shoulders to flex as far as you can using a heavy enough weight you can damage the ligaments or capsule. To avoid a shoulder injury you can do one of two things. Either only lower the weight until you just begin to feel a slight stretch in your lats and shoulders, avoiding an extreme stretch, or perform the exercise using a cable with an overhead pulley, minimizing the lever and force against your shoulders near the stretched position.

Use a weight you can perform at least a moderate number of reps with in good form

Assuming you have healthy muscles and joints you’re not likely to get hurt using heavy weights if you follow all of the above, but heavy weights are not necessary for effective training and some research even shows moderate loads can be more effective for stimulating muscular strength and size gains.

My personal preference is to start people at a weight they can perform an exercise with in good form for a time under load (TUL) of sixty to ninety seconds, and adjust from there if necessary (for more on determining the optimal rep range see High Intensity Workouts). On the low end I do not have anyone using more weight than they can use with good form for at least around thirty to forty seconds, since form tends to break down much faster with weights heavier than this.

If your form on an exercise is even a little questionable, reduce the weight enough that you can perform your upper target rep number or TUL in perfect form, and gradually increase from there. Only good reps count. Do not increase the weight on an exercise if your form with your current weight is poor.

Proper Mindset

As I mentioned earlier, exercise is about using weights to work your muscles, not about using your muscles to lift weights. This is not just a matter of semantics, it is an important difference in how you think about exercise, a difference that has a tremendous impact on how you go about it. When you think of exercise as something you do to the weights with your muscles, you will tend to move in a manner that makes it easier to accomplish the assumed objective of making the weight go up and down, which tends to make the exercise both less effective and more dangerous. When you think of exercise as a process of using weights to accomplish the real objective of exercise, which is to efficiently load the target muscles, you will tend to move in a manner which more effectively accomplishes this, and reduces your risk of injury.  I’ve already written quite a bit on mindset elsewhere, so I’m not going to repeat myself here, but I strongly recommend reading Focus On Your Muscles Not The Numbers and Intellect Versus Instinct for a more detailed discussion of this.

Both compound (multi-joint, linear) and simple (single-joint, rotary) exercises can be used to safely and effectively improve muscular strength and size along with other factors of functional ability, however each has specific advantages and disadvantages which may make one or the other a better option under different circumstances and the best approach for improving your overall muscular strength and size along with other general factors of functional ability requires a combination of the two.

The biggest advantage of compound exercises is the ability to effectively target multiple muscle groups simultaneously, which would require two or more exercises to target with simple movements. This is more time efficient and, because of the greater amount of muscle mass involved, places a greater demand on the cardiovascular system. Compound exercises are also much easier for most people to learn, making them the best choice for beginners.

Although compound exercises do not provide direct resistance (resistance applied directly to the limb being acted on) to all of the muscle groups targeted or provide resistance over as much of a range of motion as is possible with some simple exercises using certain machines, this does not appear to negatively effect muscular strength increases for any of the muscle groups being targeted. Assuming proper positioning and movement the muscles of the arms and legs are not “weak links” limiting the effectiveness of compound exercises for the muscles of the torso and hips. If you understand the levers involved you can even alter your positioning to change the relative effort required by the different muscle groups if you feel it is necessary to balance things out or to emphasize or de-emphasize a specific muscle group. An example of this is varying hand spacing on the bench press or push ups to increase or decrease the lever against the triceps.

Not all muscles can be effectively trained with compound exercises, however. Simple exercises are required to effectively work the majority of the muscles of the neck, and certain muscles, like the short head of the biceps femoris which helps flex the knee but does not extend the hip like the rest of the hamstrings, can only be effectively trained with simple exercises. A few of the muscles involved in gripping also flex the wrist, but effectively targeting all the wrist flexors and extensors also requires simple exercises.

Also, although compound exercises might result in greater growth hormone secretion, the difference is probably not large enough to be a practical concern.

The biggest advantage of simple exercises is the ability to selectively target single muscle groups, which may be necessary either to address muscles which can not be effectively worked with compound exercises, to bring up a lagging muscle group, or to work around an injury. For example, someone with a foot or ankle injury may not be able to squat, deadlift, or leg press, but they can perform knee flexion and extension and hip extension, and someone who already has really good back development but whose biceps were not as well developed can substitute arm curls for their usual compound pulling exercises on some of their workouts until they achieve the desired proportions.

As I mentioned earlier, improving your overall muscular strength and size requires a combination of the two. While a compound leg exercise and both a vertical and horizontal pulling and pushing exercise will cover most of the major muscle groups, you still need to perform simple exercises to effectively work your neck flexors and extensors, and probably for your calves and forearms as well. Although research shows it makes little difference for muscular strength and size gains whether you perform compound or simple exercises first in a workout, since the compound exercises involve more muscle mass and require more energy to perform, I recommend doing them first when you have more energy unless you are prioritizing a muscle group which you want or need to perform a simple exercise for.

Reader Questions

I have tried to address the most common questions I received above, but readers had a few specific ones which I’m going to answer separately before. If you’ve got a question about compound versus simple exercises not answered here post it in the comments below.

Question: Is it safe/advisable to do multiple compound exercises that have crossover in trained muscle groups (e.g. squats and deadlifts or bench press and military press) on the same day?

Answer: Most beginners will have no trouble recovering from a workout with multiple compound exercises targeting the same muscle groups, but as you become more advanced and learn to train more intensely you will probably need to cut back. For example, I start most new clients with squats, chin-ups, dips or bench press, rows, overhead presses, and stiff-leg deadlifts (and a few simple exercises for the calves and neck), but divide these up as they become more advanced so they only perform squats, dips or bench press and rows in one workout, and deadlifts, overhead presses, and chin-ups in another.

Question: Are simple exercises necessary? Is it enough to focus on the compound exercises? I ask this because I enjoy working out and doing compound movements like squats chins dips.  But for some reason the same attitude isn’t there for when its time to do calf raises or sit-ups or wrists. They feel… bland. I don’t know why, maybe they’re unnecessary for most of us that just want to get/feel fit and aren’t looking to get up on the stage with an absolute perfect body.

Answer: That depends on your goal. If you are only concerned with general health and fitness, a workout consisting of compound leg, pushing, and pulling exercises plus neck extension and flexion is enough. If you want optimal overall muscular development you may want to perform some simple exercises if necessary to balance out the development of different muscle groups. If you play any sports or participate in any recreational activities involving running you should also perform leg curls, since the short head of the biceps femoris isn’t worked by hip extension.

Question:Do you really believe one can get sufficient bicep and tricep stimulation with compound exercises? If so, which ones? My time is very restricted. I have been a competitive bodybuilder over 25 years ago but am trying to make a comeback. It seems when I train legs first, I cannot get the upper body trained sufficiently and vice versa. I do train with very high intensity. Anyway, those are my questions directly and indirectly to your question about compound vs. simple.

Answer: Yes, and research seems to support this. Don Matesz recently informed me of a few studies which shows if you are already doing compound exercises adding simple exercises does not produce better strength and size gains in the arm muscles:

Rogers, R.A., Newton, R.U., Mcevoy, K.P., Popper, E.M., Doan, B.K., Shim, J.K., et al. 2000. The effect of supplemental isolated weight-training exercises on upper-arm size and upper-body strength. In NSCA Conference. pp. 369.

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesized additional training effect of programming isolated supplemental exercises in conjunction with compound weight-training exercises on muscle size and strength. Seventeen national-level baseball players volunteered to participate in this 10-week training study and were randomly divided into 2 groups. The control group completed a 10-week training program consisting of the bench press, lat pull-down, dumbbell incline press and dumbbell 1-arm row exercises. The treatment group completed the same training program but with the addition of biceps curl and triceps extension exercises. A tape measure was used to record upper-arm circumferences, and a 5 repetition maximum (5RM) was determined on the bench press and lat pull-down for each subject before and after training.

Both the treatment and control groups displayed significant increases in upper-arm circumference (6.6 and 6.5%, respectively), 5RM bench press (21.4 and 22.1%, respectively) and 5RM lat pull-down (15.7 and 14.5%, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in the percentage change before and after training. The findings of this study suggest that isolation exercises are not necessary in order to increase compound movement strength or increase upper-arm girth. These findings also suggest that strength coaches can save time by not including isolation exercises and still achieve increases in strength and size.

Gentil P, Soares SR, Pereira MC, Cunha RR, Martorelli SS, Martorelli AS, Bottaro M. 2013. Effect of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance-training program on strength and hypertrophy in untrained subjects. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2013 Mar;38(3):341-4.

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of adding single-joint (SJ) exercises to a multi-joint (MJ) exercise resistance-training program on upper body muscle size and strength. Twenty-nine untrained young men participated in a 10-week training session. They were randomly divided in 2 groups: the MJ group performed only MJ exercises (lat pulldown and bench press); the MJ+SJ group performed the same MJ exercises plus SJ exercises (lat pulldown, bench press, elbow flexion, and elbow extension). Before and after the training period, the muscle thickness (MT) of the elbow flexors was measured with ultrasound, and peak torque (PT) was measured with an isokinetic dynamometer. There was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in MT (6.5% for MJ and 7.04% for MJ+SJ) and PT (10.40% for MJ and 12.85% for MJ+SJ) in both groups, but there were no between-group differences. Therefore, this study showed that the inclusion of SJ exercises in a MJ exercise training program resulted in no additional benefits in terms of muscle size or strength gains in untrained young men.

A lot of compound exercises effectively work the biceps and triceps, but the best are probably chin-ups or close underhand-grip pulldowns, dips, and bench presses. If after training legs you feel too wiped out to be able to train arms intensely I recommend experimenting with an upper body/lower body split. Several examples of these are included in High Intensity Workouts.

Question: Where is the right place to put simple exercises in the routine? In the same day of the compound for the same group? In another day if it’s a split routine? If it’s in the same day, (right) before or (right) after the compound that is for the same group?

Answer: If you want or need to perform a simple exercise for a muscle group it makes little difference for muscular strength and size gains whether you perform it first or last, or on the same or separate days (as long as your total workout volume is not excessive). I recommend reading my recent article Pre-Exhaustion Versus Prioritizing Compound Exercises, which discusses a recent study on this:

James Peter Fisher, Luke Carlson, James Steele, Dave Smith. The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2014; 1 DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2014-0162

Abstract:

Pre-exhaustion (PreEx) training is advocated on the principle that immediately preceding a compound exercise with an isolation exercise can target stronger muscles to pre-exhaust them to obtain greater adaptations in strength and size. However, research considering PreEx training method is limited. The present study looked to examine the effects of a PreEx training programme. Thirty-nine trained participants (male = 9, female = 30) completed 12 weeks of resistance training in 1 of 3 groups: a group that performed PreEx training (n = 14), a group that performed the same exercise order with a rest interval between exercises (n = 17), and a control group (n = 8) that performed the same exercises in a different order (compound exercises prior to isolation). No significant between-group effects were found for strength in chest press, leg press, or pull-down exercises, or for body composition changes. Magnitude of change was examined for outcomes also using effect size (ES). ESs for strength changes were considered large for each group for every exercise (ranging 1.15 to 1.62). In conclusion, PreEx training offers no greater benefit to performing the same exercises with rest between them compared with exercises performed in an order that prioritises compound movements.

Question: Can I build functional strength with nothing but simple exercises?

Answer: Yes, as long as you perform exercises for all of the major muscle groups, however it will be a lot more time consuming since you will need to perform two or more simple movements for each compound exercise being replaced.

Since posting Dr. James Peterson’s Project Total Conditioning case study I’ve received a lot of e-mails from people with anecdotes about how high intensity strength training improved their cardiovascular and metaboolic conditioning, improving their performance in athletics or work. While the plural of anecdote is not data, these confirm what has already been proven over and over through research and the empirical experience of thousands of high intensity training instructors over the last four decades.

I recently received the following in an e-mail from Australian HIT instructor Christian Marchegiani about his experiences with high intensity training and boxing:

Hey Drew,

I thought I would share an experiment I did. My background is boxing but have not boxed in 18 months since getting more into high intensity weight training. I haven’t even done any ‘cardio’ as such (whatever that is). Yesterday I returned to training and participated in an hour of boxing and it was as If I never left. My speed, power, and endurance was unbelievable (even my coach had commented on how fast and powerful I had become). What perhaps was lacking was my skill which is understandable since it’s been 18 months since I practiced boxing. We did push ups, burpees, sprints, etc and it was a breeze (although burpees are not my choice of exercise). I was able to recover between rounds very quickly.

HIT works. Period.

I’ve had a similar experience with my own training and with hundreds of clients. I have studied and continue to practice several martial arts for a few decades, although for the past few years I have done so very sporadically. There are some months I practice consistently, spending an hour or more most days of the week doing forms or drills, and times when I only do one form in the morning or evening (Wing Chun’s Siu Nim Tao). Other than this, I don’t do anything that might be considered “cardio” other than high intensity strength training once every three to four days. With just these HIT workouts, I am able to maintain a high enough level of cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning that I am able to jump right back into heavy training, including sparring with friends locally, without difficulty.

I’ve trained and consulted athletes at various levels of competition, active military and law enforcement, and people with other kinds of physically demanding jobs, using high intensity training only – no “cardio” –  and clients consistently report being able to do things longer and more easily with less fatigue and score better on physical fitness tests. A woman I used to train who was in her mid fifties at the time told me her doctor said she performed better on her cardiac stress test than some of the Orlando Magic players and was shocked when she told him she only did strength training for about half an hour two times a week.

If you are an athlete or have a physically demanding job which can place demands on stamina and endurance you do not need to perform traditional “cardio” for conditioning. All you need to do to stimulate improvement in all trainable, general factors of functional ability (muscular strength and endurance, cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, flexibility, body composition, bone and connective tissue strength, etc.) is a proper high intensity training program. During Project Total Conditioning the group who was performing only high intensity training improved more on every measure of cardiovascular conditioning than the control group, which was practicing football and following their own workouts or workouts supervised by their coaches at the time. The HIT group improved their two mile run times by over four times as much and improved their forty yard dash times twice as much as the control group.

Regardless of what you are doing with your muscles, whether it is strength training, running, swimming, cycling, etc., if you are working with a high enough intensity of effort you will also be placing demands on and stimulating improvements in cardiovascular and metabolic efficiency. Since a proper high intensity training workout effectively addresses these factors there is no need to perform additional physical activities for them. Additionally, there is a direct relationship between muscular strength and local muscular endurance; the stronger a muscle is the smaller the relative effort required to perform submaximal tasks, the more work it is able to perform.

The only other work you need to perform to improve your endurance in specific physical activities is to practice those activities to improve your skill and efficiency of movement to make them less fatiguing. Strength training stimulates general improvements in endurance affecting all physical activity, while skill practice stimulates specific improvements in the activity practiced, so if you are training to improve endurance for a specific type of activity you should practice that activity regularly in addition to high intensity training. However, if you are only interested in general cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning high intensity training is all you need.

References:

1. James Peterson, PhD., Total Conditioning: A Case Study, Athletic Journal Vol. 56 September, 1975

2. Maisch B, Baum E, Grimm W. Die Auswirkungen dynamischen Krafttrainings nach dem Nautilus-Prinzip auf kardiozirkulatorische Parameter und Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit (The effects of resistance training according to the Nautilus principles on cardiocirculatory parameters and endurance). Angenommen vom Fachbereich Humanmedizin der Philipps-Universität Marburg am 11. Dezember 2003

3. Effect of resistance training on cardiorespiratory endurance and coronary artery disease risk. Cardiovasc J S Afr. 2005 Sep-Oct; 16(5):256-9

4. Strength training and hemodynamic responses to exercise. Am J Geriatr Cardiol, 2003 Mar-Apr; 12(2):97-106.

5. Hemodynamic responses during leg press exercise in patients with chronic Congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1999 Jun 1; 83(11):1537-43.

Question: You’ve written a lot about intensity, advanced HIT techniques, training programs etc. but, correct me if I’m wrong, you haven’t written about muscular imbalances? I mean a situation, for example, where left hand is stronger than right hand.

Sometime ago I thought that my other hand was stronger than the other, but there was no significant difference, and now it seems that there either never was an “imbalance” or it has evened out, so to speak. I rarely do single-arm or single leg exercises, it just doesn’t “fit in my program”.

So, what is your view on this? How to fix imbalances, and how to properly detect them?

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. Some people suggest that you should train that weaker part more etc.

Answer: Since there are different types of muscle imbalances it is important to first specify we are talking about bilateral strength imbalances, as opposed to strength imbalances between agonist and antagonist muscle pairs, or size imbalances between different muscle groups or body parts. We are also not talking about imbalances resulting from a major injury or a neurological damage, which may require very different solutions depending on the type and severity.

Nobody is perfectly bilaterally symmetrical and it is normal for there to be a slight difference in strength between your right and left sides. Many people will have a little more difficulty on one side during the last few reps of a barbell exercise, or are often able to get one or two more reps with one side on unilateral exercises. Slight bilateral strength imbalances usually balance out pretty well over time with normal training if the resistance progression is the same for both limbs.

If there is a larger imbalance, you don’t need to do extra sets or exercises for the weaker side and doing so may actually overtrain it and worsen the imbalance. Instead, you should only increase the resistance when you are able to complete your upper target rep number with both sides in good form, even if you are able to perform many more repetitions with your stronger side.

If you have access to properly designed machines with fused movement arms they are your best option, since they allow your stronger side to assist your weaker side. As long as you are contracting on both sides with equal effort the stronger side will not do all of the work resulting in the weaker side being underworked. If your stronger side is producing much more force initially it will fatigue faster, making the weaker side work harder towards the end of the exercise. If you do not, you can still correct the balance using machines with independent movement arms, free weights, or bodyweight.

For barbell exercises only increase the resistance when you are able to complete your upper target rep number while keeping the bar perfectly level.

For dumbbell exercises performed bilaterally or when using machines with independent movement arms if you are able to perform more reps with one side after that side reaches momentary muscular failure continue the exercise with the other side with a five to ten second rest-pause between reps until you have matched the number of reps completed on your stronger side. Or, if you are working out with a training partner, if one side fails before the other have them assist you with forced reps for just that side, giving you just enough help to match the speed of the other side. Increase the resistance when you are able to complete your upper target rep number with both sides without rest-pause or forced reps.

For exercises performed unilaterally, like one-legged squats and dumbbell heel raises and one-armed dumbbell rows, work your stronger side first. Then attempt to match the number of reps completed with your other side, using rest-pause or forced reps if necessary. Increase the resistance when you are able to complete your upper target rep number with both limbs without rest-pause or forced reps.

Some recommend performing unilateral exercises with your weaker side first claiming you will have more energy for it, however few unilateral exercises are demanding enough to significantly compromise your ability to work your strong side effectively afterwards, especially if done earlier in the workout. The problem with working your weaker side first is it sets the bar low for your stronger side. When performing unilateral exercises people tend to try to match the reps completed with the first side worked when working the other, and if there is a bilateral strength imbalance this can result in the stronger side not being worked as intensely as the weaker if it is worked last. While this can also help reduce the imbalance by slowing down the progress of the stronger side, it makes more sense to try to increase the progress of the weaker side instead.

For example, my left calf has always been slightly stronger than my right, the difference being enough that I am usually able to perform one or two more repetitions with the left with the same weight. I found when I work my right calf first I would not try as hard with my left calf after matching the reps. However, if I work my left calf first, I usually work my right even harder. I have noticed the same thing with clients who I have perform unilateral exercises, and because of this whenever someone does a unilateral exercise I have them start with the side they completed the most reps with previously, if there was a difference. This approach has worked well both to correct imbalances, and to prevent them from developing.

The following is a case study by Dr. James Peterson, who was the Associate Professor of Physical Education at the United States Military Academy in West Point when Nautilus participated in several studies there known as Project: Total Conditioning. This originally appeared in Athletic Journal Vol. 56 in September of 1975.

This should be read by everyone with an interest in exercise and especially those who train others for a living. It is one of the best examples of how proper strength training can improve other trainable factors of functional ability like cardiovascular conditioning and flexibility, and one of the best arguments against recommendations to perform additional steady-state activities or sprint interval training for cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning.

PROJECT TOTAL CONDITIONING

For more than 170 years the primary mission of the United States Military Academy has been to select, train, and educate the finest of American youth to be comate arms officers in the Regular Army of the Untied States. An integral factor in that mission is to insure that each graduate of the Academy possesses the physical attributes necessary for leadership. To accomplish this goal, every cadet is required to participate in a physical education program designed to provide him with a high level of personal fitness. To this end, one of the cornerstones of West Point’s commitment to high physical standards in its graduates is a continuing, ongoing examination and evaluation of the methods used to attain such levels. Primarily because of this commitment, the Academy decided to undertake a comprehensive study of strength training and its consequences. This article provides and overview of the results of that undertaking.

The initial impetus for the direction of the study evolved from the Academy’s desire to learn how to more effectively utilize the Nautilus weight training equipment it had recently purchased. With the cooperation of COL. James Anderson, Director of USMA’s Office of Physical Education, representatives of Nautilus Sports / Medical Industries agreed to participate with the Academy in a joint venture. Collectively referred to as “Project Total Conditioning.” The study was designed to provide USMA with the institutional knowledge of how to properly use its Nautilus equipment; to examine the elative effectiveness of different methods of strength training; and finally, (and perhaps, most importantly) to identify the consequences of a short duration, high-intensity strength training program. Answers to several questions were sought. Can significant strength gains be achieved from intense but relatively brief workouts? What effect does strength training have on an individual’s level of cardiovascular fitness? …On his degree of flexibility?…on his overall body composition? How often should an individual train to achieve maximum results? How closely should an individual be supervised to attain maximum results? What application does high-intensity strength training have to functional performance? How can the musculature of the neck be effectively strengthened? In summary, every effort was made to make “Project Total Conditioning” the most productive and inclusive field research endeavor ever undertaken in the area of strength training.

Members of the Corps of Cadets served as subjects in the project. Cadets with a history of recent illness or debilitating injuries were not allowed to participate in the study. In addition, all project activities were closely monitored by physicians assigned to the US Army Hospital at West Point and by consultant physicians contracted by Nautilus. All training and supervised by representatives of Nautilus Sports. Medical Industries. To insure project validity and objectivity, all pre and post training testing of the subjects was precisely controlled by Academy personnel.

In order to utilize the available personnel and resources in the most productive manner possible, several studies were concurrently conducted. The primary investigation involved the training of twenty-one (two subjects were later excused from the study because of medical reasons) varsity football players. Because this part of the project required each participant to exercise each of his body’s five main muscle groups, the experimental subjects were collectively referred to as the “wholebody group.” For comparative purposes, a matched control group, also consisting of intercollegiate football players, was chosen. Members of the wholebody group trained under tightly controlled conditions three times a week for a period of 8 weeks. In order to identify and help evaluate the effects of the training, an extensive battery of tests and measurements were administered to every member of both groups after the whole body group had trained for 2 weeks and at the conclusion of the 8-week project. The pre-study testing was not scheduled until after 2 weeks of workouts had been completed in order to minimize the influence of what is commonly referred to as the “learning effect” on individual performance, In many cases of training (no matter what type of equipment is used), dramatic increases initially attained are not attributable to strength gains but rather to individual improvement in the neurological functioning of the tested muscle or muscle groups (A review of the literature and past studies on strength training indicate that the arbitrary designation of 2 weeks of training to the “learning effect” is a generous allotment). The pre- and post-training between-groups differences provides the basis for evaluating the effects of the training.

Another study examined the consequences of multi-functional, bi-lateral neck-strength training. Sixteen varsity football players engaged in a neck strengthening program using only the three Nautilus neck machines. The results of these subjects were compared in those achieved by a control group who members participated in a semi-supervised neck-strengthening program of isometric exercises devised by the USMA football staff.

Table 1. Exercises and machines used in “PROJECT TOTAL CONDITIONING”

1. Leg Extension – Compound Leg
2. Leg Press – Compound Leg
3. Squat – Leg and Back
4. Hip and Back – Super Hip & Back DUO-POLY Hip & Back
5. Leg Curl – Leg Curl
6. Pullover – Pullover
7. Bench Press – Infimetric Bench Omni Bench
8. Chins – Multi-Exercise
9. Dips – Multi-Exercise
10. Torso Arm Pulldown – Torso Arm
11. Seated Press – DUO – Shoulder
12. Double Chest – Double Chest
13. Decline Press – Double Chest
14. Biceps Curl – Curl-Triceps DUO-POLY Curl
15. Triceps Curl – Curl-Triceps DUO-POLY Triceps
16. Neck Extension – 4 – Way Neck
17. Neck Flexion – 4 – Way Neck
18. Bi-lateral Neck Flexion – 4 – Way Neck
19. Shoulder Shrug – Neck and Shoulder
20. Rotary Neck – Rotary Neck

Two secondary studies involved members of the Academy’s club squad rugby and volleyball teams. Rugby team members were solicited as subjects in a study designed to examine the effects on overall neck strength of a twice weekly versus a three-times weekly workout program. In the second project, twenty-two volleyball team members volunteered to participate in an investigation designed to compare the effects on vertical jumping ability of a strengthening program which utilizes the Nautilus regular hip and back machine versus one which uses the Nautilus DUO symmetric PLOY-contractile hip and back machine.

In order to systematically present and discuss the results of “Project Total Conditioning” in as logical and comprehensively a manner as possible, the findings have been categorized into seven (separate but interrelated) subsections: 1) strength training; 2) neck strengthening; 3) cardiovascular fitness; 4) flexibility; 5) body composition; 6) thermo graphic diagnosis; and 7) concurrent studies.

RESULTS

Strength Training

In the past twenty years, coaches, athletes, and physical educators have been increasingly aware of the role of strength in sport and athletic performance. Unfortunately, there are still many unknown factors regarding the acquisition and maintenance of strength. (Strength may generally be defined as the muscular force exerted against movable and immovable objects). An overview of the considerable volume of literature devoted to the topic reveals a wide disparity in identifying the proper way to train and the consequences of such training. “Project Total Conditioning” was designed to provide a solution to some of the enigmas associated with strength training. Two of the most widely debated aspects of strength-training concern the intensity of training which is necessary to achieve maximum results and the length of time which should be devoted to training. In the present study, nineteen subjects trained three days a week on alternate days, with a two day rest after the third workout, for a period of 8 weeks. Contrary to traditional practices (and / or misconceptions) each workout was relatively brief in duration. Each subject was required to move from exercise to exercise with a minimum of recovery time between exercises. For all practical purposes, the intensity of the workouts was so severe that it would have been impossible to appreciably extend them. During the first workouts a few of the subjects became nauseated, but after several weeks of training, not only had such negative reactions entirely disappeared, but the average time to complete a comparable workout had been considerably shortened.

The normal workout consisted of ten basic exercises. In addition, twice a week, the wholebody group workouts included six exercises designed to strengthen the neck. Table 1 lists the exercises (along with the required equipment), which, in varying combinations, constituted the training program.

Three different ways of exercising were prescribed. In the first method, an exercise was done in normal fashion (the subject lifts and lowers the weight under his own power). In the second type of training, and exercise was performed in a negative-accentuated fashion (e.g. the subject lifts the weight with two limbs and lowers the weight using only one limb). In effect, negative-accentuated work, as opposed to “normal work”, doubles the amount of weight, which can be lowered with one extremity (arm or leg). The final (and perhaps most strenuous) way of exercising was doing exercises in a negative-only fashion. In this method experimenter personnel lifted the resistance to the contracted (concentric contraction) position for the subject who in turn was required to lower the weight at a controlled pace through the eccentric contraction phase of a muscle’s range of motion. The primary advantage of negative-only exercising is that it greatly increases the amount of resistance that an individual can handle since quite obviously an individual can lower considerably more weight than he can raise. In a program designed to exercise only in a “normal fashion,” the resistance in the eccentric phase is by definition limited to the amount of weight lifted in the concentric part of muscle contraction.

The procedures for training were explicitly objective and precisely controlled. Each subject in the wholebody group worked out at an appointed time. All training as conducted on one-to-one basis with Nautilus personnel supervising every workout. Additional feedback regarding the program was provided by outside professionals. A number of physicians, coaches, and physical educators participated in the project as “exofficio” consultants (One of the primary purposes for the participation by Nautilus personnel in “Project Total Conditioning” was to evaluate several prototype machines, which were used in the study. These “consultants” aided this cause.) A record of each workout – the exercises performed, the amount of resistance and number of repetitions for each exercise, plus any extraneous information (e.g. illness) – was kept for every subject.

The amount of resistance and number of repetitions for the initial workouts were prescribed on the basis of an arbitrary projection of what the individual could reasonably handle. This part of the study proved to be an important factor. Even though most of the 19 wholebody group members had been working out with weights just prior to the start of the project, each subject developed severe muscular soreness after the first workout. In most cases, the soreness was dissipated by the forth workout. After the first week of training, the workout program was adjusted on the basis of an individual’s demonstrated performance.

Having developed the basic parameters of how to proceed with the study, the only major task remaining concerned how to accurately measure changes in strength, which
would result from the training. This measurement presented several problems. Even though strength is frequently identified as a basic component of physical fitness by both physicians and physical educators and is accepted by most coaches and athletes as an essential factor in athletic performance, the precise determination or expression of muscular strength is extremely difficult because of the variety of conditions which can effect such a determination. Perhaps the two most dominant of these conditions are: 1) the mechanical advantage produced by the body’s system of levers, and 2) the influence of neurological factors. First of all, since all contractions express their forces through the movement of skeletal levers, the end product is a measurement of movement of force (or torque) rather than force per se. As a result, the position of levers involved in a specific exercise becomes important. Angle of attachment effects both the strength of a muscle and its resultant mechanical advantage. To offer a basic example of this, all other factors being equal, and individual weigh relatively short arms can biceps-curl more resistance than a man with longer arms because of his mechanical (angular) advantage.

A second complicating factor in strength measurements evolves from the fact muscles respond to stimulation from the nervous system. As a result, maximum volitional strength is greatly affected by neurological factors (The term “neurological factors” also includes “psychological factors,” such as motivation. Collectively, members of the Corps of Cadets are a motivated and disciplined group. The objectivity of the assessment that the subjects were motivated was also strongly supported by the outside individuals who were contracted to do the ergometer testing. Refer to the CARDOVASCULAR FITNESS section in this article for additional information).Unfortunately, no one has been able to precisely identify or quantify the influence of these factors. The literature, however, suggests several viable alternatives. If a reasonable amount of training is allotted for initial learning effect (as was done in Project Total Conditioning”), absolute strength can be measured by the use of a device known as a tensiometer. On the other hand if tensiometers are unavailable, relative strength changes can be inferred from the ability of an individual to lift an increased amount of resistance the approximate same number of times for any given exercise. Other plausible methods for inferring strength increase concern quantifying the amount of lean muscle mass in an individual and measuring an individual’s ability to perform on a functional item which involves strength (e.g. leg power) In an attempt to provide a maximum amount of information on the consequences of the Nautilus strength training, Project Total Conditioning incorporated each of the four alternatives as a means to identify strength changes.

Table 2 A comparison of the 1st and 17th workouts of the wholebody group subjects

Subject (a)	Avg. Wt. (10 exercises)	Avg. No. of Reps	Duration (b) (in Min)	Ave Wt (10 exercises)	Avg. No. of Reps	Durations (in Min)	Avg. Wt. (in lbs)	Change (%)
1	99.0	9.3	NA	168.0	10.4	NA	69.0	69.70
2	80.5	6.7	49	135.5	9.2	25	55.0	68.32
3	96.5	7.8	42	160.5	8.3	27	64.0	66.32
4	93.0	8.0	43	154.0	8.9	22	61.0	65.59
5	80.5	9.3	NA	132.0	9.2	NA	51.5	63.98
6	91.5	7.3	29	149.0	8.7	21	57.5	62.77
7	98.5	11.0	33	157.5	8.8	30	59.0	59.90
8	101.0	9.7	44.5	161.5	10.7	35	60.5	59.90
9	98.0	10.5	33	156.5	10.8	30	58.5	59.69
10	95.0	9.7	33	150.5	8.7	38	55.5	58.42
11	94.0	7.9	NA	147.5	10.0	NA	53.5	56.91
12	101.5	7.3	NA	159.0	8.2	NA	57.5	56.65
13	88.5	9.2	35	137.5	9.0	29	49.0	55.37
14	89.5	13.7	34	138.5	11.4	30	49.0	54.75
15	94.0	8.2	NA	142.0	9.0	NA	48.0	51.06
16	104.5	86	NA	157.0	10.4	NA	52.5	50.24
17	97.0	9.8	40	144.0	10.8	28	47	48.50
18	85.0	9.1	NA	124.5	11.5	NA	39	45.61
Mean =	93.78	9.06	37.73	148.61	9.67	28.64	54.83	58.54

a. Arranged in rank order by achieved percentage of improvement. Only 18 subjects are listed even though 19 participated in the study because one subject was injured during football practice and was subsequently excused from some exercises.

b. Rounded off the nearest half minute. N.A. is used to designate those for whom no recording of the duration of their workout is available.

c. The 17th workout was the last workout. The 18th workout was omitted because of scheduling problems.

d. Subject’s #10 and #14 pre-scores are based on workout #3. Both were recovering from injuries suffered at spring football practice and did not engage in the program used for the 17th workout until the 3rd workout.

Table 3. A comparison of the 2nd and 16th workouts of the wholebody group subjects. (a)

Subject (a)	Ave Wt. (10 exercises)	Ave No. of Reps	Duration (b) (in Min)	Ave Wt (10 exercises)	Ave No. of Reps	Duration (in Min)	Ave Wt. (in lbs)	Change (%)
1	60.3	9.4	26	96.0	14.6	25	35.7	59.20
2	75.5	14.4	31	114.0	12.1	23.5	38.5	50.99
3	74.5	13.0	36	112.3	13.7	34	37.8	50.74
4	68.5	11.9	31	103.0	12.3	21.5	34.5	50.36
5	78.5	13.3	23	115.8	13.6	23	37.3	47.52
6	72.0	11.9	30	105.5	12.4	24	33.5	46.53
7	75.0	10.7	37	109.3	13.7	31	34.3	45.73
8	72.5	13.3	35	103.0	12.2	23	30.5	42.07
9	61.5	9.4	21	87.3	13.3	26	25.8	41.95
10	66.5	13.3	26	94.0	13.2	22.5	27.5	41.35
11	77.5	21.5	44	109.0	12.2	22	31.5	40.65
12	71.3	12.9	25	100.0	10.5	20	28.7	40.25
13	80.3	11.8	NA	112.0	13.1	NA	31.7	39.48
14	71.3	10.7	24	99.0	11.5	18	27.7	38.85
15	76.5	16.9	33	106.0	15.5	28	29.5	38.56
16	72.5	10.6	34	97.5	10.7	38	25.0	34.48
17	82.3	10.9	23	110.3	10.6	19	28.0	34.02
18	72.5	9.1	23.5	96.0	11.7	19	23.5	32.41
Mean =	72.7	12.5	27.92	103.9	12.6	23.19	31.2	43.06

a. The program used for the 2nd and 16th workouts differed from the one prescribed for the 1st and 17th days of training.

b. Subject #11’s data for the 2nd workout is based on his 4th workout. He did not participate in the program used for the 16th workout until #4 because of training.

A series of tensiometers (involving the major muscle groups of the body) was developed. Tensiometers are instruments which measure the force an individual can exert at a specific point in the range of motion. By means of an attached dynamometer, the force (pressure) an individual exerts against a static resistance is quantified. Six machines – each designed to be compatible with the movement required in a Nautilus machine of a comparable function – were used: 1) Bench Press; 2) Leg Extension; 3) Leg Curl; 4) Hip and Back; 5) Biceps Curl; and 6) One for the four basic functions of the neck. While the mechanical advantage offered by a tensiometer set at a fixed position might vary slightly from individual to individual. It would not change for the individual himself. In the other words, although one subject might have a slightly more disadvantageous angle of rotation than another on a specific tensiometer, the resultant pre – post-measurements reflect valid change since the angle remains constant from test to test for each individual. Unfortunately, although steps were taken to insure repeatability on the tensiomenter measuring, numerous operational problems were encountered regarding the use of these machines. Except for the information furnished by the neck tensiomenter, the data provided by the tensiomenters was inaccurate and was subsequently discarded.

Although reliable tensiometer measurements were not obtained in some cases, it is still possible to observe the strength increases which were produced by the training. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the significant nature of these changes. By comparing the average amount of resistance that an individual used for identical (identical with respect to the exercises performed, the order of the exercises, and the relative intensity of the workout) workouts – one at the beginning of the training, the other at the conclusion of the 8 week period – the difference can logically be attributed to a change in strength. Such a conclusion can be given additional credence when the 2 weeks of training which were allocated to “learning”, are considered.

Over a period of 6 weeks, the 18 wholebody subjects increased the amount of resistance used in their first two workouts (comparisons were only made of the 1st and 17th, 2nd and 16th workouts because of spatial reasons and because they were among the few times that an exact workout was repeated) of the training by an average of 58.54% and 43.06% respectively. The variance in the amount of change incurred by the two “two” sets of workouts (15.48%) can primarily be attributed to differences in the programs used for the first and second days of training. The program for the 1st and 17th workouts included one set of each of the following exercises: squat, hip and back, leg curl, pullover, chins, dips, omni bench, torso arm, double chest, and decline press. In the 2nd and 16th workouts, set of the leg extension, leg press, seated press, duo-poly curl, and duopoly triceps was substituted for the squat, chins, dips, double chest, and decline press exercises.

Despite the dramatic changes achieved by even the lowest man (improvementwise), there were circumstances attendant to the project which undoubtedly prevented even greater levels of improvement. During the first 4 weeks of training for record, each subject participated in spring football practice. Quite possibly, the energy expenditure for spring practice not only minimized some of the gains produced by the strength training but also precluded additional increases by limiting the amount of rest (and resultant recovery ability) available to each man. Further demands on the time and energies of each subject were incurred by the final academic exam schedule, which was held concurrent with the last week of training. In addition, a few subjects missed several workouts (or trained at less than full effort) because of minor injuries or illnesses. One subject contracted the mumps but remained in the project anyway. His missing three full workouts undoubtedly accounts for his comparatively poor showing among the wholebody group members (he ranked last on the 1st/17th comparison and 10th on the other).

An examination of tables 2 and 3 reveals another meaningful statistic: the subjects, not only significantly increased their level of strength, but decreased the time required to go through an identical workout. Despite a slight increase in the number of average repetitions performed each workout, the duration of the training dropped over 9 minutes and 4.5 minutes respectively from the expended times for the initial two periods. The nine-minute decrease might have been even larger.

By the 17th workout, all of the subjects had to put on a device, which would accommodate additional weight for both the chins and the dips. In the initial workout this strap was not needed. When the fact that the entire 6 week program involved less than 8.5 hours of actual training per man is considered, the significant increases in strength and decreases in the duration of the workouts appear to be even more note worthy. In order to provide a measure of the functional application of the training, three items were administered to each member of both the wholebody and the control groups: 2-mile run (wind, stamina), 40-yard dash (speed), and vertical jump (leg power). These items were chosen because of their somewhat universal acceptance (by football coaches) as integral components of the skills required to play football. Table 4 illustrates that on each of the three measures, the wholebody group subjects improved their performance MORE than did the control group members.

The differences between the two groups on the functional items were substantial. The wholebody subject’s level of improvement was more than four times that achieved by members of the control group on both the 2-mile run (4.32 x) and the vertical jump (4.57 x). On the 40-yard dash the wholebody group improved 1.89 times the rate of the control group. The significant increase produced in vertical jumping ability is consistent with the gains achieved in leg strength by the wholebody subjects. The dramatic changes which occurred over a period of only 6 weeks in the 2-mile run times will be examined in greater detail in the section on cardiovascular fitness. One final point to consider in this section concerns the relatively moderate degree of improvement in the times for the 40-yard dash. This occurrence can be at least partially attributed to the fact that prior to the advent of training, members of both groups used the 40-yard dash as an integral part of their conditioning program to prepare for spring football practice. Once “Project Total Conditioning” and spring practice began, this specificity training (doing 40 yard dashes) by-and-large ended.

Neck Strengthening

In light of the overwhelming number of neck injuries which result from athletic competition, it is essential that both coaches and athletes undertake steps to strengthen the musculature of the neck (and surrounding shoulder area). All individuals who participate in sports which involve forceful displacement and contact of either the head or the neck should include neck strengthening exercise as an integral par the there conditioning program. Unfortunately. In many strength training programs, this aspect of self improvement has been accorded (at best) minimal attention. In fact, the two most apparent overriding commonalities which can be identified as existing between the “traditional” methods of strengthening the neck – calisthenic-type exercises such as bridging, the buddy system of exercising (one individual pushes against a resistance provided by someone else); and the use of external paraphernalia, such as harness straps which accommodate free weights, etc. are: 1) Such methods generally are very awkward and as a result, inhibit proper form; and 2) These “programs” typically produce less than desired-for results.

In “Project Total Conditioning,” efforts were made to minimize the first aforementioned limitations, thereby abrogating the second concern. Three machines – each designed to enable an individual to exercise the neck in proper form for the basic functions of the neck – were used. For comparative purposes, the subjects who participated in this part of the study were placed into three groups (all of the subjects who were part of this section were members of the intercollegiate football team). The first group consisted of the 19 wholebody subjects discussed in the previous section. In two of their three weekly workouts, these individuals included exercises for strengthening their necks. The second group was designated as the “neck-only” group because the sixteen individuals in the bracket restricted their strength training to the muscles of the neck and shoulders. The last group was comprised of 14 members who served as a “control” group. Subjects in the control group did not participate in the training conducted during the project. Any exercising these individuals did was done either on their own or under the auspices of the USMA football staff.

Table 4 A comparison of wholebody group vs control group performance on 3 functional measures

Two Mile Run (a)	Pre Training (in min)	Post-Training (in min)	Mean Difference (in sec)	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=19)	13:18	11:50	88	11.02
Control Group (N=15)	13:04	12:44	20	2.55
Forty Yard Dash (b)	Pre Training (in min)	Pre Training (in min)	Mean Difference (in sec)	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=19)	5.1467	5.0933	0.0534	1.04
Control Group (N=15)	4.7933	4.7667	0.0266	0.55
Vertical Jump (c)	Pre Training (in inches)	Pre Training (in inches)	Mean Difference	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=19)	22.600	24.067	1.467	6.49
Control Group (N=15)	21.692	22.000	0.308	1.42

A. Run on a tartan, indoor track.

B. Best of one trial, run in tennis shoes administered in the gymnasium.

C. Best of three trials, one hand reach.

Tensiometer Strength (b)	Pre Training	Post-Training	Mean Difference	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=19)	586.28	1,125.16	538.88	91.92
Neck-Only Group (N=16)	571.06	894.94	323.88	56.72
Control Group (N=16)	620.50	793.25	172.75	27.84
Neck Circumference (c)	Pre Training (in inches)	Post-Training (in inches)	Mean Difference (in inches)	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=19)	16.38	16.82	+0.44	2.67
Neck-Only Group (N=16)	16.28	17.03	+0.75	4.61
Control Group (N=14)	16.47	16.62	+0.15	0.91

a. The pre- post-test data on the average amount lifted and number of repetitions performed is not presented because the neck-only group subjects trained in a semi-supervised environment. As such, their recorded number of properly performed repetitions could, in some instances, be inaccurate.

b. The totals reflect the sum of four tensiometer measurements –one each for extension, flexion, lateral flexion – left, and lateral flexion – right. The scores on one of the wholebody subjects were omitted because he was sick on the day the testing was conducted.

c. No pre-training measurements were taken for two control group subjects.

The program for strengthening the neck consisted of three weekly workouts for the neck-only group and two neck sessions for the wholebody subjects. One basic program was used for all neck-training workouts. This program required each subject to perform one set of six exercises: shoulder shrug, neck rotation (rotary neck), and the exercises done on the 4-way neck machine (flexion, extension, lateral flexion-right, and lateral flexion-left). When an individual was able to do 12 repetitions of an exercise, except for the rotary neck, which remained constant at 12 repetitions (six each direction), the amount of resistance was increased to the next higher increment. Each participant took approximately 8 minutes to complete a “neck” workout during the initial stages and less than seven minutes thereafter.

Similar to the procedures discussed in the section on the wholebody strength training, the first 2 weeks of exercising were devoted to the “learning effect.” Trainingfor-
record started at the sixth workout. Table 5 presents the between group differences, which resulted from 6 weeks of training.

The subjects in both the whole body and the neck-only groups increase their relative neck strength (91.92% and 56.72% respectively) at a greater level than did the control group members (27.84%). These significant changes are even more substantial when the fact that they were achieved in approximately two hours of actual training is considered. The large variance between the results achieved by the wholebody and the neck-only groups is at least partially attributable to the amount of supervision of each group received during training. The wholebody group was closely supervised at all times, insuring that each subject performed every repetition in proper form. As a concession to experimenter manpower requirements and in an attempt to ascertain (to at least a peripheral degree) the influence of experimenter supervision, the neck-only subjects received only minimal input from an instructor during their actual training. Their progress and form were monitored and charted, but only on infrequent occasions were the neck-only subjects “pushed” to the apparent limit of their capabilities by an experimenter. The improvement attained by the control group members is the result of an combination of the effects of engaging in spring football practice with its attendant “involvement” of the neck and lifting on their own initiative.

The neck circumference results are somewhat more difficult to evaluate. By any rational criterion, the subjects who participated in the Nautilus training increased the size of their necks by a significant degree. However, the direction of the variance between the wholebody and the neck-only groups is inconsistent with both the tensiometer measurements and the personal observations of those personnel involved with “Project Total Conditioning.” By all reasonable expectations, the neck of each of the whole-body should have increased in size substantially more than those of the neck-only group. The recorded differences are apparently the result of operational complications. The same individuals did not measure the necks of the wholebody subjects who calculated the neck-only and control group figures. In addition, a slightly different measuring instrument was used to obtain the whole body data. Complicating the dilemma was the fact that the wholebody circumference measurements were not available for analysis until after the product had been completed. While the neck-only and control group measurements were conducted by Academy personnel, the responsibility of securing the whole body group calculations was assigned to outside personnel who were involved with another aspect of the project.

A few wholebody subjects were measured DURING the course of the 6 weeks of training by the same individuals who conducted the testing of the other groups. In EVERY single case, the resultant measurements of the wholebody subjects indicated that the AVERAGE increase in neck circumference for the nineteen wholebody group members would exceed at least one inch by the end of the training (similar operational problems occurred during the measurement of skin fold thickness and body fat percentages. In the case of skin-fold data, however, calculations on each member of ALL three groups were obtained by the same experimenter). Although the existing discrepancies in the circumference data cannot be resolved, the unabated fact remains that significant increases in neck strength were produced by both the wholebody and the neck-only group training.

Cardiovascular Fitness

Cardiovascular fitness is an integral component of both an individual’s level of overall physical fitness and individual’s capability for sustained athletic performance. A brief review of the basic function of the circulatory system can clarify these basic assumptions. The primary function of the circulatory system may be stated in one simple word – “transport.” It transports essential like oxygen and glucose to the cells, and byproducts, such as carbon dioxide, from the cells. As would be expected, the circulatory system is called upon to increase its transport of essentials to the cells and of waste products from the cells during muscular exertion. This need, of course, is directly related to the intensity and duration of exertion. It follows that one of the limiting factors in athletics and sport is the ability of this system to meet the demands imposed by the body during competition. Therefore two of the benefits which can be derived from a functionally efficient circulatory system are an improved capacity for work (exercise) and an increased ability to perform the transport function.

Traditionally, physicians and exercise physiologists have held that participation in strength training does not increase an individual’s capacity to meet the “transport” (oxygen-in –CO2-out) requirement of strenuous exercise. Although this capacity is collectively known by various names, this section refers to it by one of its most common designations- “cardiovascular (C.V.) fitness” (cardio refers to the “heart” and the vascular portion consists of the large arteries, the small arteries, the arterioles leading to the tissues, and the capillaries within the tissues). Numerous researches have found that the individual who wishes to improve his C.V. capacity by means of an exercise program must incorporate several factors into his efforts. The program must be of sufficient intensity to have the heart rate of the participant reach a level of at least 145-150 beats per minute (in general, the more of the body’s large musculature involved in the exercise, the easier it will be to reach a heart rate of 145-150 beats per minute); this rate should be sustained for a minimum of 10-12 minutes; and the participant should engage in such exercising 3-4 times a week (the literature is equivocal on the exact number of times).

Conventional strength training practices have prevented C.V. improvement from occurring because even on those occasions when a sufficiently higher heart rate higher heart rate is attained by a participant, such a rate is typically not sustained for more than a brief period. In the present study, an attempt was made to train the wholebody subjects in such a manner that improvement in their overall level of cardiovascular fitness would occure. By limiting the rest period between the exercises to a few seconds and by preventing the subjects from resting during the actual training, a high degree of intensity was achieved and maintained for the duration of the workout.

In order to ascertain the effects of the training, several tests were administered on a pre-post-training basis – to both the wholebody and the control group members. Differences on the initials test date were determined by a T-test for each variable. If there were no initial significant differences, then the T-test was applied to the post-training data to determine the effects of the training. If there were significant differences on the initial data, then analysis of covariance was used to determine the relative degree of any changes which occurred between the two groups as a result of the training.

Three different states of the cardiovascular function were examined: 1) C.V. capacity at rest; 2) Responses to sub-maximal work; and 3) responses to maximal work. The tests for the resting state consisted of measuring each subjects heart rate (HR), systolic (blood is being forced out of the heart), blood pressure (SBP), diastolic (the chambers of the heart are filing with blood), blood pressure (DBP), and systolic tension time index – an accepted measure of coronary circulation which is calculated by multiplying heart rate x systolic blood pressure (STTI).

An evaluation of the effects on the sub-maximal state was achieved by having each subject perform on a bodyguard model 990-bicycle ergometer. An ergometer is a basic research instrument which allows a subject to pedal against a resistance (load) which can be predetermined and adjusted (when necessary) by the experimenter. The sub-maximal tests required each subject to perform a continuous, progressive ergometer ride with increasing work loads (360 kpm/min increase) every two minutes until the subject could no longer sustain the rate (60 rpm) or wanted to stop. This was followed by two minutes at the initial light load (360 kpm/min), then three minutes of rest. At each condition, the HR, SBP, DBP, SITTI, and a subjective rating (by the subject) of his perceived exertion (RPE) were obtained. Cardiac feedback was provided by means of a continuous EKG which was obtained on each subject while on the ergometer. The maximal state was evaluated by means of two measures: total riding time and 2-mile run performance (with the exception of administering the 2-mile run test, all cardiovascular testing was conducted by outside consultants. In light of the fact that these individuals were not informed until after all testing had been completed about which subjects were a member of which group – control or wholebody, their efforts can be accorded an additional degree of legitimacy).

The results of the testing were conclusive. On NONE of the 60 indices purporting to evaluate the effects of the training on the cardiovascular function was the control group better on the final testing period (or on the change from initial to final) than the wholebody group. The following significant differences (.05 level) were caused by the training afforded to the wholebody group: Lower HR at 360, 1080,1260,1620, and 1800 kpm/min; lower SITTI at 360, and RPE at 1260; a higher amount of work necessary before the subject achieved a heart rate of 170; a longer ride time; and a lower time required to run 2 miles. These calculations mean that the training caused the players to work more efficiently (lower HR) at light, moderate and near maximal levels. They could also do more work before reaching a heart rate of 170, as well as more total work. Their improvement in their 2-mile run performances also indicates that they were less stressed at maximal levels. For the coach and the athlete, the implication is clear: these subjects could perform at more efficient rate for a longer period of time. In the athletic arena, where contest are frequently decided by inches or other fractions, such training could play an important role.

Flexibility

In any examination of the factors that effect human physical performance, consideration must be given to flexibility. Basically, flexibility can be defines as the degree to which a joint is free to move throughout its normal range of motion. The primary determinant in flexibility is the musculature surrounding a specific joint. If the muscles and tendons encircling a joint are required on a regular basis to stretch – to elongate – through a normal range of motion, the joint will maintain a normal level of flexibility. On the other hand, when the muscles surrounding a joint are not regularly required to make normal range adjustments, a shortening of that musculature will develop, and a loss of flexibility will occur.

The fear that “tightened” muscles result in a lack of flexibility undoubtedly accounts for mush of the superstition and misconception regarding the relationships between strength training and flexibility. Many coaches and athletes have not adopted strength training into their conditioning programs because of an erroneous belief that all such training will result in the participant becoming “muscle-bound.” The assumption is made by these individuals that if a person has bulging muscles, he must have sacrifices some degree of flexibility. The truth of the matter is that, with proper training methods, normal flexibility will not only be uneffected, but may be increased by strength training.

When planning a program the principles that should be considered are: 1) for each exercise, a muscle should be stretched through a full range of motion; and 2) both the agonist and the antagonist should receive comparable attention in any strength program. Muscles are set up in opposing pairs around joints. In a discussion of elbow flexion, for example, the biceps is the agonist, or the muscles responsible for the action being considered. The triceps, which in this case would be the muscle “opposing” this action, is called the antagonist. These designations are solely based on the specific joint movement being considered. If, however, attention was focused on elbow extension rather than on flexion, the triceps would be referred to as the agonist and the biceps as the antagonist. In order to avoid a loss in flexibility, strength training programs should be balanced to give equitable attention to the development of both the antagonists and the agonists of a particular muscle group.

In “Project Total Conditioning,” steps were undertaken to comply with both principles. By design, the machines required each subject to both fully stretched perform each exercise through normal range of motion. In addition, the workouts were planned to give an appropriate amount of attention to each of the agonist-antagonist pairs of the
major muscle groups.

The procedures for examining the effects of the training on flexibility were similar to those discussed in earlier sections of this article. Because of their potential import for human (and in particular, athletic) performance, four measures of flexibility – trunk extension, trunk flexion, shoulder extension, and shoulder flexion – were selected for examination. Subjects in both the wholebody and the control groups were tested on a pre and post-training basis on each of the four items. The relative degree of changes on the four items over the 6-week period of the study provides the basis for identifying the effects of the training.

Table 6 illustrates the fact that the training produced significant changes in flexibility. On each of the tested measures, the wholebody group achieved a substantially higher degree of improvement than did the control group (only the results from three flexibility measures are presented in Table 7; the data on the shoulder flexion was obtained through the coordinated use of synchronized photography and a goniometer (an instrument to measure the degree of angle) and was not available at the press time for this article).

The results provide formidable support for the contention that strength training, when properly performed, can in fact increase flexibility. In a period of only 6 weeks, the wholebody group subjects improved on the three flexibility measures by an average of almost 11% (10.92) In contrast, the average gain in flexibility for the control group members was less than 1% (0.85).

Body Composition

Body fat is accepted by researchers as the major storage form of energy. On the other hand, there have been a number of studies, which indicate that excessive body fat can have a debilitating effect on human performance, individual health, and psychological well-being. For the athlete, unwanted body fat serves as an unneeded obstacle, which can hinder his competitive efforts.

There is an abundances of evidence to support the conclusion that in order to reduce fat, it is necessary to expend more calories than are consumed. Traditionally, strength training has not been considered to be an activity which would greatly facilitate such a “negative calorie balance.” In “Project Total Conditioning,” steps were undertaken to identify the effects of high-intensity, brief duration training on body fat measurements. Two types of body fat calculations were obtained. A relative percentage of body fat for each subject as determined by a machine known as the Whole Body Counter and skinfold measurements.

Prior to the first workout of training-for-record and at the conclusion of the 6 week study, the wholebody group (the prohibitive costs prevented the inclusion of the control group) was flown to Rochester, New York. At the University of Rochester Medical School, the relative level of lean body mass (muscle) and the body fat for each of the nineteen subjects was determined by means of the Whole Body Counter. By measuring the radiation given off potassium K in the body, the Whole Body Counter is able to provide an estimation of body fat. Table 7 presents the results.

Contrary to expectation, only eight out of nineteen subjects lowered the overall level of body fat. In fact, the group as a whole averaged a slight increase in the amount of body fat. These calculations are in contradiction to both what might have been anticipated as the result of significant strength increases and to a visual interpolation of pre- and post-training photographs of the subjects (in only their gym shorts). Two possible sources of inaccuracy in the data are the 4% potential error inherent in the machine (as reported by the Rochester personnel) and the fact that the pre- and posttesting was conducted by two different sets of individuals.

A second source of anthropometric input was provided by fat-caliper measurements. Commonly referred to as skin-fold test, these measurements are an accepted (although not entirely reliable) method of quantifying the relative amount of fat in the body. By measuring the thickness of specific areas of the body a comparing the change in thickness on a pre- post-treatment basis, the effect of the training on the body fat can be identified.

In “Project Total Conditioning,” two sets of skin-fold measurements were obtained. In the first, the Rochester personnel provided fat calipher measurements of the nineteen wholebody group subjects. In the second set, USMA personnel measured both the wholebody and the control group members. Table 8 presents the results.

Again the calculations are contradictory. The Rochester measurements showed a slight overall increase on the skin-fold test, while the USMA calculations indicated a substantial decrease for both groups. On the USMA measurements, the wholebody group improved slightly better (19.4%) than did the control group (18.5%)

Table 6. A comparison of the effects of training on flexibility

Trunk Extension	Pre-Training (in inches)	Post-Training (in inches)	Mean Difference (in inches)	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=18)	46.33	53.55	7.22	15.58
Control Group (N=16)	47.44	48.06	0.62	1.31
Shoulder Flexion	Pre-Training (in inches)	Post-Training (in inches)	Mean Difference (in inches)	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=18)	47.33	52.83	5.50	11.62
Control Group (N=15 ) (a)	50.75	51.25	0.50	0.99
Trunk Flexion	Pre-Training (in inches)	Post-Training (in inches)	Mean Difference (in inches)	Improvement (%)
Wholebody Group (N=18)	47.94	50.61	2.67	5.57
Control Group (N=16)	50.50	50.63	0.13	0.26

a. One control group subject was omitted because of a shoulder injury.

Table 7. A comparison of the effects of training on the wholebody subject’s level of lean muscle mass and body fat

	Lean Body Mass (in lbs)	Body Fat (in lbs)	Fat (%)
Pre-Training (N=19)	182.34	26.48	12.4
Post-Training (N=19)	180.48	27.50	13.0
Mean Difference	-1.86	+1.02	0.6

Table 8. Fat calipher measurements for subjects involved in “Project Total Conditioning” (a)

	Rochester (B)			USMA (C)
	Pre-Training	Post-Training	Mean Difference	Pre-Training	Post-Training	Mean Difference
Wholebody Group (N=19)	9.97	10.42	+0.45	6.25	5.04	-1.21
Control Group (N=10)	NA	NA	NA	6.48	5.31	-1.17

a. All measurements are in millimeters.

b. The Rochester data is base on an average of five measurements: biceps, subcostal, umbilical, iliac, and subscapular.

c. The USMA data is based on an average of several areas: chest, axilla, triceps, subscapular, abdomen, supralliac, and frontal thigh.

Table 9. A comparison of the effects of a program using a Super Hip and Back Machine versus one using a DUOsymmertic POLYcontractile Hip and Back Machine

Vertical Jumping Ability	Pre-Training (in inches)	Post-Training (in inches)	Mean Difference (in inches)	Improvement (%)
Regular Hip and Back	22.222	22.722	0.50	2.25
DUO – POLY Hip and Back	21.45	22.86	1.41	6.57

Thermographic Diagnosis

As an aside to the main areas of concern under investigation in “Project Total Conditioning,” an effort was undertaken to evaluate the potential application of thermography to strength training. Basically, thermography is a procedure where skin temperature readings are visually obtained by means of a scanning camera and a display unit. In the past, thermography has been primarily concerned with various aspects of early breast cancer detection. Most thermographic instruments are still chiefly engages in that application. However, the thermographic potential in medical diagnosis is apparently quite diverse and particularly promising in the field of orthopedics and peripheral circulation. Given that skin temperature recordings are representative of the circulatory situation in the examined tissues, the use of thermography may have many uses in the field of athletics.

In the present study, a consultant from AGA Corporation, the largest supplier of thermographic instruments in the world, was employed to visually record several workouts. At press time for this article, and analysis of this efforts and the implications of his findings has not been completed.

Concurrent Studies

Two secondary studies were also conducted as part of “Project Total Conditioning.” Lasting only four weeks, each investigative effort attempted to provide additional information concerning strength training and practices and processes. In the first study twenty-four rugby team members participated in a project designed to examine the effects on overall neck strength of a twice weekly versus a three-times-a-week workout program. The content of the program (exercises, equipment, etc.) was the same as the one discussed in the section on neck strengthening. Somewhat surprisingly, the two-times-a-week program generated a slightly greater increase in neck strength (41.6%) than did the three-times-a-week (39.8%).

In the second project, twenty-two members of the USMA volleyball club team were involved in a study designed to determine the effect on their vertical jumping ability of an exercise program using the Nautilus Super Hip and Back Machine versus one, which uses the Nautilus DUPsymmetric POLYcontractile Hip and Back Machine. Both programs consisted of each subject performing one set, three times weekly, on their appropriate machine. The total amount of expended time involved less than 60 seconds per workout. Table 9 presents the results of the training.

Although both programs increased the average vertical jumping ability of the subjects, the “DUO-POLY” workout -wherein the participant lowers the weight with one leg while being forced to keep the other leg in a contracted position – produced a greater increase. Since very little has been done regarding the study of the effects of “DUOPOLY” contractions on strength training results, this finding lends impetus to the need for additional investigative efforts.

Summary

In retrospect, considering the countless hours, the substantial cost, and the effort involved, the question might be asked: what was accomplished by “Project Total Conditioning”?

First and foremost, it was demonstrated that a strength training program, when properly conducted, can have a positive effect on the central components of physical fitness. In less than 6 weeks, high-intensity training of a relatively short duration increased the average overall strength of each subject by more than 58%. Neck strength was also significantly affected. The members of the wholebody and the neck-only group increased their aggregate level of neck strength by an average of 91.9% and 56.7% respectively. Contrary to most commonly held beliefs on the subject of strength training, the training also significantly improved the cardiovascular condition of the subjects. By maintaining the intensity of the workouts at a high level and by limiting the amount of rest between exercises, the training resulted n improvement on each of 60 separate measures of cardiovascular fitness. Contrary to widespread opinion, not only will a properly conducted program of strength training produce increases in muscular strength but will also significantly improve an individual’s level of cardiovascular condition. The data suggests that some of these cardiovascular benefits apparently cannot be achieved by any other type of training. And finally, the experimental subjects increased their level of flexibility by an average of more than 10% on the three evaluative items.

In today’s society, it is impossible to find any topic on which there is a shortage of rhetoric. Certainly, strength training is no exception. Unfortunately, much of this dialog has been based on innuendo, superstition, and/or misinformation. This author feels that part of the misunderstanding has resulted from the fact that previous studies on the subject of conditioning have focused on only one or two aspects of the overall picture. For that reason many of the interrelationships of the effects of strength training have been either overlooked or misunderstood. “Project Total Conditioning” provides new insight and clarification into these interrelationships.

Question: I am confused about 3×3 workouts compared to single set high intensity strength training workouts. First, is one meant to go to failure on each set of the 3×3? Second, if a person can do multiple sets during 3×3 then why is it not recommended during strength training? I know a single set to momentary muscular failure “is all” that is requires for hypertrophy but then surely doing the circuit again at perhaps slightly lower weight would give best of strength training and the metabolic/ cardiovascular conditioning achieved with 3×3. IF I am correct in my above assumption and I was to play devils advocate, my question would be why even bother with 3×3? Why not just do a round of single sets to failure then do the whole circuit again and then maybe a 3rd time?

Answer: First, each of the sets in a 3×3 workout should be performed to momentary muscular failure.

Second, multiple sets are not recommended during regular high intensity training workouts because they do not stimulate greater improvements in muscular strength and size than performing a single set to failure, and exercise volume must be limited to avoid overtraining or compromising intensity of effort.  Single set workouts make it possible to perform a greater variety of exercises while keeping the total volume of exercise relatively low, which improves overall muscular development.

Limiting the rest between sets appears to be beneficial for the purpose of stimulating improvements in cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, but this is not always practical with single set workouts because you are moving between different pieces of equipment after each set. If you work out at a busy gym during peak hours you may have to wait several minutes between exercises, compromising the cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning effect of the workout. A 3×3 is a workaround for this problem, which sacrifices exercise variety to enable you to move quickly between sets.

For example, you can place a barbell or dumbbells in front of a chin-up/dip station and move very quickly between deadlifts, push-ups or dips. If your gym has a power rack with a chin-up bar you can set a pair of dumbbells inside it and move very quickly between squats, standing dumbbell presses, and chin-ups. This is difficult to do with machines in a busy gym, but if you have a couple training partners you can hold on to three machines if they are close enough to each other. Each of you begins with a different exercise in the circuit, and once the last person has finished their set you all rotate immediately, preventing others from taking the machines and making you wait for them.

If you work out at home where nobody else can get in your way, or if you train with bodyweight, I recommend performing a single set of a larger variety of exercises rather than several circuits of only a few. You can still follow the 3×3 pattern, but perform different compound leg, pushing, and pulling exercises for each of the three circuits, and follow up with one or two direct exercises for smaller muscle groups not directly worked. One of my personal favorites is a bodyweight variant of the “Cerberus” 3×3 workout from Project Kratos:

Circuit 1

1. Pull-up
2. Dip or Diamond Push-up
3. One-legged Squat

Circuit 2

1. Chin-up
2. Push-up
3. Squat

Circuit 3

1. Inverted Row
2. Pike Push-up
3. Squat Hold

The pike push-up — a push-up performed in the pike position (hips flexed, back and legs straight) — is an easier alternative to handstand and half-handstand push-ups for training the shoulders using only your body weight. However, like handstand and half-handstand push ups, if done from the floor your range of motion is limited and you have to extend your neck towards the start point to avoid hitting your head on the floor, which may irritate some people’s necks.

A pair of sturdy push-up handles increases head clearance and range of motion, but normal push-up handles do not provide an optimal grip angle for pike push-ups, and are more prone to tipping or sliding when used for them because of the angle and narrow base. Ideally, handles for pike push-ups should be angled up about thirty degrees and have a longer base to prevent tipping.

Materials

This is a pretty simple project, requiring only two feet of one and one-quarter inch or larger schedule 40 PVC pipe, four T joints, and two ninety-degree elbow joints. This cost me less than fifteen dollars including tax at Home Depot. Optionally, you can add grip tape to increase friction and minimize the risk of slipping.

Tools

You’ll need a tape measure and sharpie to mark the cuts on the PVC and a pipe cutter or saw to make them. I recommend using a saw with a miter box to keep the cuts straight. If you don’t have a saw or pipe cutter and don’t want to buy one you should be able to find someone at your home improvement store to cut the handles for you.

Construction

Measure, mark, and cut two eight-inch and two four-inch sections of PVC.

Connect each of the eight-inch sections to each of the four-inch sections using the ninety degree elbow joint. Then connect each of the four T joints to the ends of the handles so they are perpendicular to the elbow joints.

 

Add grip tape if desired. I used two-inch 3M Safety-Walk Outdoor Tread. Place the handles on the floor and mark the bottom of the sides of the T joints for positional reference when applying the tape.

Use

Before using the handles test whether they will slip on the surface you plan to use them on. Kneel down in front of them and place them just outside of shoulder-width, put your hands on them, and gradually put your weight on them, pushing perpendicular to the handles. If they slip, add grip tape, put them on a rubber mat, or both. If you don’t have grip tape or a rubber mat, you can place them against a wall, although the wall then reduces your range of motion. I’ve tested the pair pictured above on carpet, concrete, and rubber, with no slipping.

It is equally important that your feet not slip either, so make sure you wear something that grips the surface you’re on or put something on the surface that will improve your grip. This was one of the considerations for the placement of the heel raise step on the new UXS bodyweight multi-exercise stations, suggested to me by Ken Hutchins when discussing this exercise. The heel raise step functions as a brace for the feet when using the pike push-up handles.

Because of the angle of the grip these handles should not be used for regular push-ups. If you want to make yourself a pair of regular push up handles you can with the same materials here plus two more ninety-degree elbow joints. Instead of two four-inch segments measure, mark, and cut four two-inch segments to connect the elbow and T joints.

The photos below show the start and end point of a pike push-up using the handles described here. Unlike normal push-ups you are pushing your bodyweight back more than up. For a detailed explanation of how to perform pike push-ups see the Project Kratos: Bodyweight High Intensity Training Handbook.

Because of the large number of people who expressed an interest in bodyweight high intensity training and DIY equipment I plan to post more articles like this. If there is a particular piece of equipment you would like me to write about, post it in the comments below.

Question: Hi Drew, I am really enjoying my Project Kratos workouts. They are ass-kickers. I am about two months in after ~five years of BBS-style 2:00 TUL training, and have to say I look a lot less forward to these than even my MedX-powered sessions of the past. That’s rad.

I have a question about progression — or lack thereof: stalls. I suppose this is unrelated to bodyweight training in particular as it was an issue for me before but maybe there are some PK-specific approaches here.

Basically since maybe my third Kratos workout I’ve been flat on nearly every exercise, both time and rep-wise. I am by no means “done” with muscle-building (5’10?, 170). In the past I’ve chalked it up to not eating enough — was on a years-long diet — but this year I’ve been eating more — have put on about 7 lbs in the past few months — but no change in lifts. For instance: my chin-up, level 5: I consistently get 65 seconds, about 5.75-6 reps. On one-legged squats I am always between 1:04 and 1:09. This is now 5-6 weeks of the same. I suppose I am lifting slightly more in both of these thanks to weight gain, but…

Would you recommend any of the following at this point?

* Adding in the Zelus workout?
* More rest between sessions? I’m currently at four days rest.
* A different level? I’m mostly on level 5 because I could do a ~1m TUL from the get-go, but maybe I need to drop down to ~1:30 TULs for a few?
* I’m nervous to add even more food as my pants have all stopped fitting, and my weight gain seems to suggest I’m fueling enough. But unsure.

Thanks in advance!

Answer: 

I’m glad you’re enjoying the workouts! If you have gained weight this will increase the difficulty of the exercises, but should not slow progress to a stop. While two to three full-body high intensity training workouts per week is fine when starting out most will need to reduce either their training volume or frequency as they become stronger and capable of pushing themselves to train harder to avoid overtraining.

The Zelus workout is meant to be alternated with Kratos for more movement variety, but has about the same volume of work so if you need a reduction in volume or frequency alternating between the two won’t help. I recommend first reducing the volume slightly, by alternating between two shortened versions of the Kratos workout. Drop the second pair of upper body movements, the crunch, and the neck exercises for one workout, and drop the first pair of upper body movements and the trunk extension and heel raise for the next:

Kratos Condensed Workout A

1. Chin-Up
2. Push-Up
3. Squat
4. Prone Trunk Extension
5. Heel Raise

Kratos Condensed Workout B

1. Squat
2. Inverted Row
3. Pike Push-Up
4. Crunch
5. TSC Neck Extension
6. TSC Neck Flexion

For variety, you could do something similar with the Zelus workouts, alternating between performing the Kratos condensed A and B workouts one week and the Zelus condensed A and B workouts the next. If reducing workout volume does not improve your progress you may need more recovery between workouts, in which case I recommend taking a week or two off to make sure you are fully recovered then resuming your workouts at with an extra rest day in between.

I also recommend tracking your food intake, weight, and waist measurement or bodyfat percentage closely and adjusting your calorie intake until your weight is increasing but not your waist or bodyfat percentage, assuming your primary focus is increasing strength and muscular size.