Intensity is not a thing in and of itself, but a measure of something. When we’re talking about “intensity” in the context of exercise we’re really talking about the measure of things like relative effort, relative load, heart rate elevation, etc., and rather than just saying “intensity” we really ought to be more specific, saying “intensity of effort” or “intensity of load”.

In High Intensity Training (HIT) “intensity” is usually used to mean intensity of effort, or how hard you are working relative to how hard you are capable of working at the moment, and that is what I usually mean when I say or write “intensity”. For example, if you perform an exercise using a resistance that is eighty percent of your one repetition maximum your intensity of effort at the beginning of the exercise will be eighty percent, but as you fatigue the resistance requires an increasing percentage of your decreasing strength, until your strength has been reduced to the point where it equals the resistance and your intensity of effort is one hundred percent.

Intensity of effort is often criticized as being imprecise, since it is not accurately measurable during exercise except at the point of momentary muscular failure, but since relative effort appears to be the most important factor for stimulating improvements in muscular strength and size it is the most relevant, and most useful (1).

Most of the rest of the fitness industry uses “intensity” to mean intensity of load, the percentage of your one repetition maximum used for an exercise. There are several problems with this, however, including problems with accurately testing one repetition maximums. Although all types of exercise intensity are meant as a measure of how hard you are working during an exercise there are numerous factors which affect exercise difficulty and it is possible to work easier or harder with the same percentage of your one rep max by changing one or more of these factors, such as whether the exercise is performed to the point of momentary muscular failure. Also, as long as an exercise is performed to the point of momentary muscular failure (maximum intensity of effort) most people do not perceive any difference in difficulty using different relative loads (2) or even perceive greater difficulty with lighter loads (3).

Regardless of the relative load used, if you are not training to momentary muscular failure you are not working as intensely as possible.

It could be argued that despite these problems intensity of load can be used to estimate the average intensity of effort of an exercise. Assuming a relatively constant rate of fatigue, and assuming the exercise is stopped immediately after momentary muscular failure occurs, the average intensity of effort during the exercise would be halfway between the percentage of one-rep max used and one hundred percent.

This is a lot of assumptions, however, and several things can throw this off. Fatigue during exercise is the result of numerous factors, which can vary depending on protocol, and probably does not occur at a constant rate. When training people on Ken Hutchins’ iMachines with real-time force measurement and feedback (displayed as a line on a graph) it was not unusual for the rate of fatigue to increase towards the end of the exercise. Also, if you continue to contract isometrically for several seconds after achieving concentric momentary muscular failure you increase the relative time spent working at maximum intensity of effort, increasing the average. I suspect this is why many set extension techniques (forced reps, drop sets, finishing negatives, etc.) seem to make greater demands on recovery.

In addition to all these problems there appears to be little difference on average in muscular strength and size increases with different relative loads and repetition ranges as long as exercises are performed to momentary muscular failure, which throws a huge wrench into the claims that load equals intensity, or that ultra-heavy ultra-brief sets are the way to go (1, 4).

The biggest problem with using load to define intensity is thinking that mechanical definitions of work and power or force or load over time accurately describe what is happening in the muscles during exercise.

This is easy to disprove, and Arthur Jones wrote about this decades ago in The Metabolic Cost of Negative Work,

A great deal of confusion exists on this point because of attempts to compare metabolic work with mechanical work, and, secondly, because of a failure to consider several related factors.

By definition, work require movement… no movement means no work; and while this is undoubtedly true in regard to mechanical work, it certain is not true in relation to metabolic work.

Muscles produce force, and it is easily possible for a muscle to produce a high level of force without producing movement; logically, it appears that the metabolic cost of muscular force production would be related to the level of force produced and the time that the force is maintained… rather than the amount of mechanical work performed.

If, for example, a 100-pound barbell is held motionless at the halfway position of a curling exercise, then the muscles will be required to produce a certain level of force to prevent the downward movement of the barbell. Providing that force will certainly entail metabolic cost… yet no work is involved.

Slowly, curling a 100-pound barbell also requires a greater metabolic cost than curling the same barbell at a more rapid pace; even though the amount of mechanical work involved is exactly the same in both cases.

Many other examples could be given to illustrate the same point, but it should now be obvious that attempts to relate metabolic cost to mechanical work are doomed to failure.. there is no meaningful relationship. We must have another standard for comparison.

The only meaningful standard, I can think of is force/time… the amount of force produced by the muscles multiplied by the time that the force is maintained.

Force multiplied by time is a much better measure of exercise difficulty than mechanical work, but still flawed since it is possible to have the exact same force output and duration and even the same mechanical work and still have different levels of difficulty if the repetition cadence, range of motion, or other factors are varied. For example, if you perform ten repetitions of an exercise each taking eight seconds with the same load, over the same range of motion your mechanical work, power, and force multiplied by time would be the same, but the difficulty will be different if you lift in two seconds and lower in six, lift in four and lower in four, or lift in six and lower in two since your muscles are stronger and fatigue more slowly when lowering than lifting and since the force your muscles are capable of producing concentrically varies with contraction velocity.

Differences in strength and resistance curves complicate this further. Although it is possible to get a resistance curve that very closely approximates your strength curve using machines with well designed cams with adjustable timing like Ken Hutchins SuperSlow Systems and RenEx machines or lifting weights with correct body positioning and movement during some free weight exercises, it is impossible to match your strength perfectly over the full range of an exercise using weight-based machines. Because of this there will be harder and easier portions of the range of motion. Depending on the amount of time you spend in each during both the positive and negative the exercise may be more or less difficult. For example, during most compound pushing movements the target muscles are working against a much larger lever at the start point than the end point. Performing the lower turnaround very slowly, or even holding briefly at the start point makes an exercise more difficult, while performing the upper turnaround any more slowly than necessary or holding there makes an exercise easier.

Imagine performing two sets of barbell squats with the same weight, same number of repetitions, and same cadence, one set in the top half of your range of motion, the other in the bottom. The force multiplied by time and mechanical work would be the same, but the effort would be much different; the set performed in only the bottom half of your range of motion would be much harder.

This is because the force you produce when contracting against the resistance is the product of both muscular force and leverage. As your muscles contract and cause your bones to move their angle of pull and leverage changes, so the same amount of force applied to a machine or weight through those bony levers can require more or less muscular force input depending on the part of the range of motion you are in. This is the reason some exercises are harder in some portions of the range of motion and easier in others, the reason you are capable of holding much more weight at or near lockout on pushing exercises, and the reason that load multiplied by time is not a valid measure of exercise difficulty.

It is the reason leg pressing something as heavy as a small car over a range of motion of only a few inches near lockout is not more intense—does not require more effort—than performing a full-range leg press and avoiding lockout with much less weight. This is not impressive to anyone with a basic understanding of physics. It’s just stupid, and a good way to wreck your knees.

This is extremely important, so I’m going to say it again. The resistance your muscles contract against during an exercise is the result of both the load and the lever you are working against. Two thousand pounds lifted with a two inch lever requires the same muscular force input as only two hundred pounds lifted with a twenty inch lever:

2000 pounds x 2 inches = 4000 inch-pounds of torque

200 pounds x 20 inches = 4000 inch-pounds of torque

Since the muscular force input required is the same it makes little difference to your muscles which you do, but it makes a huge difference to your joints in many exercises, which is why it is just as effective but much safer to perform an exercise over a greater range of motion against a larger average lever using less weight.

Also consider your muscles are capable of producing different amounts of force at different lengths (length-tension curve), with their force output being lowest when fully stretched and fully contracted and highest through the middle of their range of motion. As you approach lockout most of the muscles being worked will be closer to their fully contracted length and capable of producing less force than in the middle of your range of motion, so the muscular force input may actually be slightly lower when doing very short-range partials in the so-called “strong range” of an exercise.

I’m not saying load isn’t important, it appears you need at least a heavy enough load to be able to achieve momentary muscular failure within about two minutes. However, working as hard as possible relative to your momentary ability has a much bigger impact on your muscular strength and size gains than the load you use, and it is safer and easier on your joints in the long run to use more moderate loads.

References

1. James Fisher, James Steele, Stewart Bruce-Low, Dave Smith. Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Med Sport 15 (3): 147-162, 2011 DOI: 10.2478/v10036-011-0025-x

2. Vitor L. Silva, Arthur P. Azevedo, Joctan P. Cordeiro, Michael J. Duncan, Jason M. Cholewa; Mário A. Siqueira-Filho, Nelo E. Zanchi, Lucas Guimarães-Ferreira. Effects of exercise intensity on perceived exertion during multiple sets of bench press to volitional failure. J of Trainology August 2014; Vol. 3, No. 2: Pages 41-xx

3. Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, et al. Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20: 819-23.

4. N.A. Burd, C.J. Mitchell, T.A. Churward-Venne, and S.M. Phillips. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 37(3): 551-554, 2012.

Pre-exhaustion is the performance of a simple exercise followed immediately by a compound exercise targeting the same muscle group. The purpose is to pre-fatigue the targeted muscle group with the simple exercise so it is must work harder during the compound exercise, based on the belief that the muscles of the arms and legs are “weak-links” in compound exercises and limit their effectiveness for the muscles of the torso and hips.

I have used it in many of my workouts and with my clients because it appeared to be effective and has been used with much success by high intensity training experts like Ellington Darden and Mike Mentzer. Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones liked pre-exhaustion so much he designed and built several “double-machines” specifically for performing it, including the compound leg (leg extension and leg press), compound torso (pullover, pulldown), double chest (chest fly, chest press) and double shoulder (lateral raise, shoulder press). Because of Jones’ influence pre-exhaustion became a staple of high intensity training, and you would have difficulty finding a book on high intensity training that doesn’t include pre-exhaustion in a few of the workouts.

However, based on a recent study it appears that pre-exhaustion is no more effective for improving strength in the muscles worked than performing the same exercises with a longer rest between them, or performing the compound exercises first(1). The abstract states,

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.

This has a few interesting implications. It suggests that when properly performed compound exercises alone may be enough to effectively train all the larger muscle groups and many simple exercises may not be necessary for general, overall muscular strength and size increases (the neck being an exception), and two of the studies cited suggest compound exercises target all the muscles involved effectively (2) and are as effective as simple exercises for improving muscular strength and size in the muscles targeted (3).

There may still be a need for simple exercises for some muscles for optimal overall strength and size gains, such as the short head of the biceps femoris which unlike the other hamstrings muscles only crosses the knee joint and is active in knee flexion but not hip extension, and for developing a well-balanced and proportional physique some people may need to perform simple exercises to target lagging muscle groups while minimizing the work for relatively overdeveloped muscle groups. However, due to their efficiency and greater metabolic effect compound exercises should be the focus of your workouts, and I recommend including at least one of each of what I consider the six basic movements:

1. Quad-Dominant Lower Body Exercise (squat, leg press)
2. Glute-And-Hamstring-Dominant Lower Body Exercise (deadlift, hip extension)
3. Vertical Pulling Exercise (chin-up, pull-up, pulldown)
4. Vertical Pushing Exercise (standing press, shoulder press)
5. Horizontal Pulling Exercise (bent-over row, compound row)
6. Horizontal Pushing Exercise (bench press, chest press)

I recommend also performing both a neck flexion and extension exercise, which can be alternated with lateral flexion or rotation, since the neck is an important area but the majority of the neck muscles receive little work in compound exercises. Although the calves are worked during exercises like deadlifts and squats, if you perform exercises like leg presses and hip extensions for the lower body which do not effectively work your calves additional calf work should be performed.

To look at it another way, pre-exhaustion was not less effective than prioritizing compound exercises, either; so if you like performing pre-exhaustion in your workouts you don’t have to drop it. All the groups in the study made significant improvements in muscular strength. However, I recommend erring conservatively when it comes to exercise volume since any more exercise than necessary to effectively stimulate improvement in all the major muscle groups increases demands on recovery.

References:

1. 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

2. Brennecke, A., Guimaraes, T.M., Leone, R., Cadarci, M., Mochizuki, L., Simao, R., et al. 2009. Neuromuscular activity during bench press exercise performed with and without the preexhaustion method. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 23: 1933–1940. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b73b8f. PMID:19855317.

3. Gentil, P., Soares, S.R., Pereira, M.C., Cunha, R.R., Martorelli, S.S., Martorelli, A.S., and 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. 38(3): 341–344. doi:10.1139/apnm-2012-0176. PMID:23537028.

Gains in muscular strength and size from training tend to follow an asymptotic curve. You make rapid progress during your first six months to a year of training, about half as much progress during your second year,  about half of that the third, and so on until your gains level out. The further you are from the limits of your potential the faster you will approach it, the closer you get, the slower.

The general recommendation is to increase the weight you use for an exercise by approximately five pounds or five percent, whichever is less, whenever you are able to complete a certain number of repetitions. This works very well for most exercises when you start working out, but five pounds can be way too much of an increase for exercises requiring a lighter starting weight, and it is unrealistic to expect to continue to go up five or ten pounds every couple of weeks indefinitely. Exercises with smaller starting weights require smaller weight increments, and as you become more advanced you need to progress in smaller increments, what is known as “microprogression”.

How small of a weight increase? Consider if you were able to increase the weight you use for an exercise by only one pound per week you would be lifting over fifty more pounds after only one year, and over one hundred more pounds after only two. While this is certainly possible for some compound exercises during your first few years of training, eventually even this becomes unrealistic.

A better progression increment for advanced trainees is around one half pound, or one quarter kilogram for those of you on the other side of the pond, for several reasons. It allows resistance progression at a relatively constant rate that is possible for even advanced trainees. Such a small weight increase every week or two will be barely noticeable, and makes it easier to stay close to the top of your target repetition range. Although your weights will not increase as much each time, they will increase more often, which can also be more motivating than seeing the same numbers on your chart workout after workout (although it is important to keep in mind performance on paper isn’t the same as progress).

You should start reducing your weight increments when a five pound or five percent increase in weight consistently results in your repetition count total dropping below your target range on most exercises (assuming there are no other factors negatively effecting performance). You don’t have to drop down from five pounds all the way to one half right away, though. Intermediate trainees may only need to reduce their weight increments to around two and a half pounds at first.

As a general rule, if after increasing the weight you are consistently unable to complete your lower target repetition number you should reduce your weight increments by a decreasing amount until the increase consistently puts you in at least the lower half of your target repetition count. If after increasing the weight you consistently exceed your upper target repetition number you should increase your weight increments by an increasing amount until the increase brings you down to at least the middle of your target repetition count.

There are several ways to do this. The most obvious is using fractional plates, which are usually available in one-quarter, half, three-quarters, and one pound plates, and can be put on a barbell or adjustable dumbbell or hung over the pin on a selectorized machine. These sets can be ridiculously overpriced though, costing over ten dollars per pound which is ten to twenty times the cost of most Olympic plates, and some do not fit all Olympic bars. Instead, I recommend getting eight quarter-pound washers with a two-and-one-eight inner diameter. These will fit Olympic plates and bridge the gap between two-and-a-half pound plates in half-pound increments for around half the cost of most fractional plate sets. If you’ll be taking these to the gym with  you I recommend getting a letter punch set for stamping metal and putting your name or initials on them.

Another slightly cheaper option is to cut lengths of chain to the weight increment you want, which can be clipped on to spring collars or weight selector pins with a carabiner. Buy a few feet and weigh it, dividing the ounces by links to determine the links needed to get the weight you want, including the weight of the carabiner. If you plan to create several different weights you can buy carabiners in different colors to indicate the weights, or spray paint them.

If you’ve got questions about microprogression or know of a source of good, fairly priced fractional plates, please post them in the comments.

Question: I’ve read Project Kratos and it’s well written with photo, progression, workout, etc., everything I need but I have a question: I want to work on my power and speed with kettlebells. How can I do the two together, kettlebells and high intensity training?

Answer: The stronger you are the more force your muscles can produce the faster you will be able to accelerate (speed) during other activities and the more work you can perform over time (power). Any type of training that makes you stronger will improve your speed and power, regardless of the speed of movement used during exercise.

To hold a weight motionless or lift it at a constant velocity requires you to produce a force equal to the pull of gravity on the weight. However, unless you are performing isometrics, your velocity will not be constant. It will be zero at the start and end of the movement and you will accelerate positively and negatively in between. You have to produce more force to accelerate a weight positively than to hold it motionless or lift it at a constant velocity. The more force you are capable of producing, the faster you will be able to positively accelerate the weight.

For example, if the most weight you can lift for an exercise one time is one hundred pounds, you are only capable of producing slightly more force than this and you will not be able to lift it very quickly. If you increase your strength so you are able to lift two hundred pounds, the amount of force you are capable of producing will be much higher, and you will be able to positively accelerate one hundred pounds relatively quickly.

How quickly you are able to generate the maximum force you are capable of, your rate of force development (ROFD) is also a factor, but you don’t have to lift fast to improve this either. If you perform an exercise to the point of momentary muscular failure you will not be capable of moving quickly during the last few repetitions, but as long as you are attempting to move as fast as possible at this point, even if your actual speed is quite low as long as your intended speed is high, your ROFD will improve (1).

If you want to maximize your speed and power in a specific movement like the boxing jab or cross, or kicking or throwing a ball, you must practice performing that movement quickly once you have learned the correct mechanics. However, there is little or no transfer of skill from exercise movements to other movements even if they bear a superficial resemblance, and exercise movements using even moderate loads can not be performed at anywhere near the speed you are capable of during movements not performed with weights, and no benefit to attempting to mimic a non-exercise skill during exercise in terms of improved speed and power.

While any type of training that makes you stronger will improve your speed and power, not every type of training is equally effective and safe for building strength. While you can get stronger using kettlebells, since the swinging movements are done quickly with a high rate of acceleration, usually for high repetitions, they carry a higher risk of acute and overuse injuries. Many popular kettlebell exercises like swings, Turkish get-ups, Russian twists, cleans, and snatches do not load any particular muscle group very efficiently, and since their center of gravity is outside of the handle they are inferior to dumbbells or a barbell for many conventional exercises (exceptions include exercises like stiff-leg deadlifts, bent-over rows and shrugs which involve pulling the weight straight up).

Any muscle group you can train with a kettlebell exercise can be trained more safely and effectively with conventional exercises, using bodyweight, free weights, or machines. If you are following the Project Kratos bodyweight high intensity training program or any conventional high intensity training program using free weights or machines you will improve your speed and power as much as you are physically capable of.

References:

1. Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. Per Aagaard, Erik B. Simonsen, Jesper L. Andersen, Peter Magnusson,Poul Dyhre-Poulsen. Journal of Applied PhysiologyOct 2002,93(4)1318-1326;DOI:10.1152/japplphysiol.00283.2002

A friend once told me I write  better when I am answering questions from or conversing with readers and that some of my best and most informative writing is in the replies to reader comments and questions. On more popular articles with a large number of comments a lot of this writing is overlooked, which is why when someone asks a particularly good question I often address it in a separate article where more people are likely to read and benefit from the answer, rather than in the comments.

Recently, a reader mentioned a conversation I had with several CrossFitters in the comments on my CrossFit article, saying “it is the ONLY intelligent discussion/critique of CrossFit I have ever read.” I went back and read through the conversation, which also contained excellent questions and input from readers, and decided to repost it here with additional commentary in red and text links to relevant articles.

All comments and links appear exactly as in the original post, except I have added the name of the person being replied to at the beginning of some comments to make it clear who is talking to who and fixed some spelling errors. I have only included those comments from the conversation with the CrossFitters and the relevant replies, while removing some of the tangential questions and replies.

Scott Charles: Drew: to me, crossfit is a way to manage fitness goals, and it has three core ideas: functional movement, intensity, and constant variation. From your post I gathered you don’t think crossfit is particularly safe or productive. But when I looked at your “What is HIT” page, you list the same exercises we do at the crossfit gym I work out at. Honestly I don’t see a big difference between what you recommend and what crossfit does. And perhaps more to the point, CF is exercise agnostic: whatever works best is what CF will use in the workouts.

Also I would mention that at the CF box I work out at, weights are used, but the Olympic weightlifting aspect is only about 15% of the workouts we do. Lots of kettlebells, sled pulls, ball slams, pullups, dips, dumbells and sandbags. To me it feels like the same kind of workout I would have gotten had I worked on a farm.

The one thing we probably do agree on is that CrossFit can be dangerous (a point I have covered several times on my own blog.) I knew that from the start (having seen CF workouts and events several times before I joined my local box.)

Also, nobody at the CF box I go to recommends six days of workouts. 3X per week is what we were told. Beyond that, it’s up to the individual.

While I appreciate your reasoned perspective, your comment that “the same or better results” can be had more safely isn’t (to me anyway) particularly compelling. HIT has the same exercises, and safety is up to the individual — the first order of business being selecting a competent coach.

Finally, I find there is a huge psychological advantage to crossfit. I enjoy the variation in the exercises, the enthusiasm of my peers, and feeling of competence as learn new skills. I find it to be a very dynamic environment. Much more so then when I worked out alone, or with a pre-determined routine.

Best Wishes,
SC

Drew Baye: Scott,

Anything that improves strength throughout the body will improve functional ability. It is not necessary for exercise movements to mimic other activities to improve your ability to perform them, and attempting to do so reduces the effectiveness of exercise. Constant variation may keep a program more interesting but is also counterproductive (read The Ultimate Routine). While CrossFit workouts may contain some of the exercises I recommend there are big differences in the style of performance.

There is no reason to devote any percentage of an exercise program to the Olympic lifts for anyone other than competitive Olympic lifters. They provide no physical benefits which could not be obtained more safely and effectively with other exercises. The same goes for the use of kettlebells, ball slams, sand bags, sleds, etc.

As for coaching, if the videos I’ve seen of CrossFit online and the accounts of clients who have done it previously are representative of the typical instruction, it is deplorable. Also, regardless of how good the coaching is certain exercises and activities are inherently less safe and effective.

The psychological benefits you mention are important and I believe they are one of the biggest reasons for CrossFit’s popularity, but they are things a person can and should obtain elsewhere – ideally from other social and recreational activities.

Jordan Barnes: Drew,

So basically what you are trying to say is that Olympic lifting is only for Olympic weightlifters?

I would point out that every Division 1 college has their football/volleyball/track&field athletes train olympic lifts to increase hip extension power, a valuable skill in almost every sport.

Next, I would point out that olympic lifting increases your metabolic rate more than any strength exercise and I think you would agree that an increased metabolic rate is a desired result of exercise.

Furthermore, you are going to talk about this type of training without any experience beyond some “videos I’ve seen of CrossFit online.” I’m sure those were a reliable source because all videos online are such. They have reigional olympic weightlifting coach and also the head national coach putting on seminars and making videos. They are obviously more credible than you.

It really seems to me that you put no effort into understanding what is going on in crossfit. You decided that you know more than some of the most well respected coaches in the nation. You obviously have not done your homework.

I did the same thing for 3 years until I started crossfit. It has it’s problems, but there are much better variation out there.

Drew Baye: Jordan,

That’s exactly what I’m saying. The only people who benefit from performing the Olympic lifts are competitive Olympic lifters, because the only thing they provide which can not be more effectively and safely accomplished with other exercises is the specific skill of performing those lifts.

I doubt every Division 1 college has all their athletes performing Olympic lifts. Not everybody can be that ignorant.

Acute increases in metabolic rate are related to effort, and there are a lot of better exercises which can be performed with equal or greater effort for equal or greater effect. Chronic increases are largely related to increases in lean body mass, and there are many exercises much better than the Olympic lifts for improving muscle size.

I don’t need to actually perform CrossFit workouts to understand how bad the exercises and form are. Did you actually read any of the article above? If not, read it. If so, re-read it. If after that you still don’t get the very simple points I’m trying to make I can’t help you.

Yes, I do know more than some of the most well respected coaches in the nation. If more people actually understood this subject they wouldn’t be very well respected because if they’re recommending Olympic lifts to athletes who are not competitive Olympic lifters they are severely misinformed and doing their athletes a huge disservice.

Jordan Barnes:You sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you know anything about the power equation? P= w/t Olympic lifting trains your body to produce more power in less time. You cannot get this acute stimulation from simply lifting heavy weights.

I am a CSCS certified strength and conditioning coach and I can guarantee that every single college football weightlifting program, in every division, is doing Olympic weightlifting. I know this because I have worked with the University of Nebraska strength and conditioning program, regraded as one of the best in college football. They have an entire department of exercise physiologist who actually design programs based on studies and research.

They don’t base their opinions on “videos they see online”.

You obviously don’t know anything beyond posing like a fool in a G-string.

Drew Baye: Jordan,

The only thing Olympic lifting trains you to do that other exercises can’t is to perform the Olympic lifts more skillfully. Power in other movements can be improved simply by getting stronger, regardless of the speeds used during exercise.

For example, if the absolute most weight you can lift in an exercise in strict form is 100 pounds you will be unable to move it very quickly. If you increase your strength in that exercise so that you are able to lift 150 pounds in strict form, you will be able to lift 100 pounds more quickly, and measure higher power output (work/time).

To be able to apply that strength efficiently in sport movements it is necessary to practice those movements at speed once the fundamentals have been mastered, but there is no need or benefit to moving quickly during an exercise.

The Doctor: static weightlifting is NOT as effective skill wise as functional movements in crossfit. Using practical skills from everyday life has its obvious benefits. sitting on a bench and pressing a bar up is not helping me do anything better outside of the 4 walls called a gym. because that would never be the case in real life.

Drew Baye: The premise behind the “functional training” trend, that exercise movements must mimic activities of daily living or sport or vocational skills to improve one’s ability to perform those movements, is false. The specific skill of exercise movements does not transfer to other movements even if they appear similar. Whether you perform so-called “functional” movements or more conventional barbell or machine exercises the strength you gain from them will transfer to other activities, however many of the so-called “functional” exercises are inefficient and less safe due to the unbalanced or unstable nature or because they attempt to mimic some activity or skill rather than efficiently load the targeted muscles or muscle groups.

Eric: I would ask that any advocate of “functional/Crossfit-type training” come play basketball with me. Or triple jump. Or pole vault. Or go out and throw a javelin. Or do a forward 2 1/2 Somersaults in the Pike Position… I hope you get where I’m getting at…

Skills are highly specific. There is nothing you can do with Crossfit that will make you more skilled compared to someone else that chooses to train in as safe a manner as possible in the gym, and combines this with skill-training (on the track, ice, field, court, mat, etc.) that is specific to their sport.

Once one understands that the central nervous system learns and stores only essential information, one also realizes that the ability of the body to retain high levels of skill, strength and conditioning is also very poor. The only way to retain and transfer skills to the playing field is to practice literally thousands of specific repetitions exactly as performed in competition. Just ask a basketball player what happens to his shot if he does not shoot for a few days. He has, in effect, lost a certain amount of what the nervous system now perceives as “nonessential information”. That is also why, for instance, batting with a heavier bat, or shooting with a heavier basketball, or running with a heavy load, does NOT make you better at these given activities.

Training with Crossfit WODs will make you better at Crossfit WODs, PERIOD (and, most likely, injur you in the process…). But, it will not make you better at any given skill (say, O-lifts) compared to an individual who does these to the exclusion of other movements, but only in comparison to people (smart people, might I add) who chose to not do such silly movements as kipping, muscle-ups, O-lifts for reps, KB swings, etc. as part of their exercise regimen…

Skill is highly task-specific and, for that matter, so is fitness. The fact that Crossfitters want to claim that they are “fitter” than other trainees only shows how narrow-minded their approach is… “Fitter at what?”, would be the pertinent question… And, “More skilled at what?”… A 400-m specialist will kick a “fit” Crossfitters ass any day of the week on the track. Does this mean the 400-m specialist is “fitter” than the Crossfitter… I hope you realize how silly this game is…

Scott Charles: Eric: well the CrossFit games are over. The top athlete is a man named Rich Froning. I understand he won 250K. If you are willing to offer the same kind of prize money, I would expect that you’ll have plenty of CF athletes at your doorstep. So how long would they have to train? A day or two, or a week maybe?

Or you could wait until next year and participate in the CF games and try for that 250K.

But you are 100% correct — specialized skills require special training. This is something Greg Glassman says all the time. He also says “nature will punish the specialist” as well as “specialization is for insects”

Anyway if you’re interested you can follow my progress on my blog. The workouts won’t mean much to you, but I’m told my sense of humor is sublime.

Perhaps I’ll see you next year at the games?

Cheers,
SC

Drew Baye: Scott,

Unless they’re participating in recognized sports I wouldn’t call people who do or compete in CrossFit “athletes”. CrossFit isn’t an athletic competition, it’s a badly programmed and sloppily performed imitation of exercise.

Eric: Scott, having many trainer friends from the Crossfit world, a few “well-known” ones that own their own “boxes”, I am actually quite familiar with it and with the “programming”. As well as with the athletes, including Rich. I always restrain from commenting on topics I have not taken the time to understand correctly, experience at least briefly and taken the time to discuss with others. This ensures the most unbiased opinion I believe…

I’ve even partaken in a few of the most popular WODs on occasion, by invitation from the aforementioned Crossfit friends/owners. For what it matters, I have a Fran of under 3:30 minutes, a Helen of under 9:30 minutes, a Kelly of under 18 minutes and a FGB best of 430 reps. With numbers in the gym in all the classic lifts to match these. BUT, what does this all mean really?

I’ve read one of your articles explaining that you had read up on the history of Crossfit and of its ‘success’ with the army and police force ranks. But, even this is completely false. I have partaken in various projects and discussed this matter with many an exercise physiologist colleagues responsible for the training of our Canadian troops and, the research is quite clear: Crossfit, unlike what it likes to claim, does not come out on top compared to well-planned and periodized workout approaches. Nor are all police and armed forces embrassing their concepts… And, the injuries are simply piling up in many instances, to the point that it often appears to be a few step backwards compared to even the old paradigm of endless calisthenics and jogging!!!!

Crossfit is indeed a “sport”, as you noted in another one of your blog entries, and with this notion comes risks that are also inherent to other sports and activities. Properly executed exercise, on the other hand, does not and in fact, attempts at all cost to limit these risks. Given this, any everyday gym-goer or professional athlete that chooses to train “à la Crossfit” on the premise that they will achieve better all-around fitness and skill is really just kidding themselves. And most likely looking at some type(s) of injury(ies) in the long run…

You can’t ride two donkeys with one ass. Well, you can, but just don’t kid yourself in believing this will make you fitter or more skilled. The “specific adaptation to imposed demands” is one of the few inalienable physiological principles that simply holds true no matter what. Every organism has only so much adaptive energy to spare and this, not just for training, but for everything you throw at it… Trying to be good at everything at once only leads to overall mediocrity. A more gifted/genetically-endowed athlete may be able to take this “mediocrity” a few scales higher (just as in any other sport) but, the fact remains that this same athlete would always be better if he allowed himself more specialization… I believe Crossfit also does a disservice to the general population by promoting their top-ranked athlete and maintaining that these guys and gals are that fit BECAUSE of Crossfit… But, we all know that many were athletes in other sports (wrestling, baseball, gymnastics, etc.) before they came to Crossfit and anyone with a brain will also be able to appreciate that methods can only take one so far up the upper echelon of the elite ranks and that genes will dictate much more than anything how successful anyone athlete can be in their chosen sport at that level of competition…

And, regarding the latter, Glassman’s quote is so wrong, I don’t even know where to start… Biologically, it just makes no sense, except in a few rare cases.

Respectfully,
Éric

Scott Charles: In case you are interested, here is my blog post replying to Michael Johnson’s post about crossfit being dangerous:

http://libernetics.com/writings/?p=1635

Best Wishes,
SC

Jordan Barnes: Scott,

You seem to have your head on straight.

To people who say that Crossfit is going to injure them 100% of the time I am going to tell them that it absolutely will. And then I will go on to tell them that more people are injured every year running with improper form than every other mode of exercise combined, so ultimately if you run you will 100% of the time get injured.

I will say that the quality of training has more of an impact than the mode, whether crossfit or running a marathon.

I have seen some people with terrible running form who cannot understand why they cannot run more than a mile without excruciating pain.

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Drew Baye: Jordan,

Quality of training is very important, but so is good programming and exercise selection. From what I’ve seen and heard, however, CrossFit has none of these.

Over the past twenty years I’ve put hundreds of people through tens of thousands of workouts without causing any injuries

Scott Charles: Drew: well not none! We do air squats. Good grief nobody can screw those up.

Drew Baye: Scott,

Done correctly body weight squats are a great exercise. Unfortunately, most people manage to screw those up too.

For a demonstration of how to properly perform body weight squats watch Bodyweight High Intensity Training Discussion and Demo

Scott Charles: Drew: well then let’s say some “people” went to an “activity” and one of them (Rich Froning) won 250K.

Eric: I’ve come to believe CrossFit is a recreational activity, as opposed to a sport; so my understanding of it is evolving.

I wouldn’t say I know much about the history of CrossFit. What I would say is that I’ve read whatever was available on the Internet. Some of that reading has led me to believe that CrossFit has been used by police, paramedics, etc. What I find interesting is that every time I watch a documentary on armed services training (i.e., Rangers) it always looks to me like they are doing CF in the real world — lots of running, jumping, carrying things, but I never see any weight machines or anything like that. Same thing on TV: NBC’s “Biggest Loser” has been using CF ideas for years.

In any case if you know of any studies that show CF is not as good as other methods, I’d like to know. I haven’t seen anything in any peer-reviewed journals, or frankly anything that wasn’t just one person’s opinion versus another person’s opinion.

And yes it has been my experience that athletes from other disciplines join CF gyms. The one I go to has quite a few. I wonder why that is?

Your WOD times are awesome. I cannot Rx Fran. I did a 7:45 once using a 35# bar. In any case it seems you know exactly what CF is.

So the big issue here is whether there are better ways then Crossfit to get generally fit. Well I’m certainly open to suggestion. Insofar as the owners of CF gyms are independent, and can do whatever they want, I’m guessing they are interested as well.

Cheers,
Scott

ps: your comment that “anyone with a brain will also be able to appreciate … that genes will dictate much more than anything how successful anyone athlete can be in their chosen sport at that level of competition…” got me to thinking: is there gene for determination?

Drew Baye: Scott,

Re-read the article. There is no question there are better – safer, more effective, more time efficient – ways to improve overall, general fitness/functional ability than CrossFit.

Lee Smith: Comprehensive post. Well done. Giving credit where due and pointing out issues. I think bringing focus to multi-joint movements is from a good place. The sense of community CrossFit breeds is excellent. Personally the amount of overhead exercises is CrossFit’s downside. Even if in reality its not top end top heavy, just about every PR pic or story will have an overhead weighted exercise being shown. That breeds a mindset. It does my head in to think of lifting weight above my head, with extended arms, so often, being ‘functional’. Doing Olympic lifts like Olympic weightlifters is akin to doing a lap around France because Lance did it.

Lee

Mark Lloyd: Athletes actually spend their time rehearsing specific skills, and aren’t found in CF gyms. This beloved “function” being trained for: After 6 days on, 1 off, I can’t imagine the typical CF client’s life activities requiring a higher level of so-called functional fitness. The CF reality is recreation masquerading as exercise. In the case of some of the publicly documented CF activities, dangerous recreation.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

Recently an article appeared in a fitness magazine ‘The fittest person in Australia the title been given after a Crossfit competition. I made this comment to a Crossfitter that it should be titled the fittest Crossfitter in Australia. My comments didn’t go down to well my challenge was and at 58 years of age I will race any crossfitter in Australia in a triathlon challenge and I haven’t raced in triathlons for years – swim, cycle and run, I would take them right out of their comfort zone.

After the competition another person made the comment that all the winners had the same body types suitable for gymnast – surprise, surprise.

I forwarded an article Arthur Jones wrote on body leverage factors.

Besides the fact that crossfit being extremely highly dangerous is that many of the mainstream fitness centres have now included crossfit type training facilities and are designing crossfit type training programs for their unsuspecting clients- but again no surprise.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

One of the problems with “power” training is that power is measured as power output only (the end result). Power output measurments are specific to the actual movement change the movement and the power output equation changes. I think that with olympic lifts people are actually measuring “torque” and not “power”. Increase the size of the motor (muscles) and you will increase the power input (strength) but the power output measurements will still be specific to the movement.

Ryan Tobin: I don’t think enough emphasis is made about injury (potential and actual) amongst the CrossFit community. Whether it be the smashing of shins due to performing box jumps or torn ligaments requiring surgery (which happened to a friend of mine, who is *still* considering resuming it), these things are exceedingly common. Not only are they a “regular” part of the training, the psychology is such that these injuries are considered part of the “toughness” of it. CrossFit mentality is often that “We train so hard!” such that these things are inevitable. Having been a practitioner and advocate of HIT for about 13 years, the concern of suffering injury during training is foreign…and trumpeting it is bizarre.

Listen to the way people in CrossFit describe their minor recurring injuries in the context of the entire program and compare it to how domestic abuse victims rationalize their tolerance of dysfunctional relationships. It’s an astounding parallel.

Drew Baye: Ryan,

You’re right, and it is unfortunate many equate training hard with training dangerously. I don’t understand the mentality.

Scott Charles:

First, I’ve never actually heard anybody in CrossFit brag about injuries. My experience is limited to the CrossFit gym I work out at. Form and safety are part of the common language.

Secondly, the “mentality” is pretty transparent: it’s about the adrenaline rush. Along with a sense of accomplishment. It’s really not that complicated.

One thing I think that’s missing in this “CrossFit is dangerous” conversation is scaling: http://libernetics.com/writings/?p=1693

Cheers,
SC

Drew Baye: Scott,

Talking about good form and safety are one thing, actually understanding what it is and practicing it are another. Quite frankly, from what I’ve seen and heard I don’t believe most CrossFit trainers have any idea what proper form really is. Also, many of the “exercises” and WOD’s are poor from a safety and efficiency standpoint regardless of the form used or how they are scaled.

Ryan Tobin: Scott: I’ve never been in a CrossFit gym, but I can immediately think of 3 people I know from two different CF places that have talked about and “shown off” their training wounds. I know several others that have remarked about injuries (not positively), often the same injuries from the same activities. These aren’t isolated incidents: talk to any CF practitioner about shins and box jumps.

What you are missing is that *any* injury during training is not acceptable. What you are missing is that injury can’t be deductively avoided. “Objective evidence” is the injury, which means it is too late!

The article you referenced is a Straw Man. Nobody is arguing that different practitioners (of HIT or CrossFit) must all perform the same movements at the same cadence with the same resistance for the same number of repetitions. “Scaling” isn’t a CrossFit concept…it’s a physiological inevitability. Furthermore, the article doesn’t even agree with itself: scaling “regulates the intensity” but “CrossFit is all about high intensity”…which one is it?

Of course, there’s the absurd assertion that, “When you look at Baye’s core exercises, they include Olympic lifting.” Now, I’m not going to speak for Drew…but I’ve been reading his thoughts for over a decade. I’ve observed the transition from “generic HIT” to SuperSlow back to “generic HIT” to (presumably) RenEx today. Not once in that time have I seen him advocate any of the Olympic lifts, but I have certainly seen repeated and consistent commentary recommending against them.

And, everyone, I implore you to stop using the concept of mechanical power in relation to human muscular output. The application of this physics concept leads to erroneous conclusions.

Drew Baye: Ryan is correct. I do not and never have recommended Olympic lifts. I also just read Scott’s article and found several other errors and misrepresentations.

First, safety is not simply an issue of scaling weight. Risk of injury has far more to do with the choice of exercises and how they are performed than how much weight is used. If you are swinging, jerking, heaving, yanking, jumping, bouncing, or performing any other kind of quick movements during exercise you have a much higher risk of injury than when moving in a slow and controlled manner regardless of the weight.

Scott misquoted me , claiming I said people “don’t need explosive power.” This is not true. What I have said is it is unnecessary to exercise in an explosive manner to develop the ability to move explosively in other activities. Your “explosiveness” or general ability to perform work at a high rate (power = work/time) improves with strength regardless of the speed at which exercises are performed.

Ryan is also correct about mechanical definitions of work and power not directly applying to muscular or metabolic work. For example, during isometrics you perform no mechanical work but metabolic work is being performed and the relationship between power and metabolic work during dynamic exercise is not proportional either (part of the reason comments like Jordon’s about Olympic lifts increasing metabolic rate more than other exercises are wrong).

Scott Charles: Drew: I stand corrected on the “explosive power” remark: what you said was:

“There is no good reason for the vast majority of people to ever perform an exercise explosively … Olympic lifts and other explosive lifts provide no general strength or performance benefits that can not be obtained more safely by other means. There is simply no good reason for the vast majority of people to do them.” (on Anthony Johnson’s blog comments section.)

Which I misinterpreted, which lead to misquoting you. I will correct my blog post accordingly.

With regard to your HIT program including Olympic style weightlifting, here is what I read on your HIT page:

Barbell Squat
Bench Press or Dip
Standing Press
Stiff-Legged Deadlift

(among other mentions.) To me, these are Olympic style weightlifting. But if they are not, so be it, I’ll make another correction.

I also have to agree that scaling is not all there is to safety. But the idea behind scaling (as I understand it) is to allow a person to learn the correct moves. At the CF gym I go to we go so slowly in the movements it can be exhausting (for me anyway.) Nobody is “swinging, jerking, heaving, yanking, jumping, bouncing” unless they are competent to go at those higher speeds.

That said if I understand you correctly it is the whole “speed” thing that causes the danger in the first place. I have to agree, and in fact have said so on my own blog. I confess I enjoy seeing my times improve. So I’ll just have to do the best I can to stay safe.

Ryan: your comment about injuries is well-taken.. But your comment about “scaling” is silly. CrossFit is all about intensity, but (as you point out) the “physiological inevitability” is different for each person. I can achieve the same high intensity using lower weights as a far stronger athlete using heavier weights (or reps of anything.) There is nothing at all inconsistent with what I said in my blog post. The reason I know all this is because I experience it 3-4 times a week. I have a whole series of blog posts on CrossFit. Read them and you might get a sense of what CrossFit is (at least for me.) It might provide some insight as to why people do CF.

Also I’m hard pressed to believe that training will be injury free. I do agree it should be free of unnecessary injury. And the way I used the term “objective” it meant something beyond anecdotal comments. At the very least there should be some theoretical explanation for why something could or might or would result in an unacceptable level of injury across a population of people.

On balance, for me, CrossFit’s benefits outweigh the dangers.

Thanks,
SC

Drew Baye: Scott,

I consider the Olympic lifts to be the snatch and the clean and jerk and variants like power cleans and snatch pulls. I don’t put squats, presses, bench press, deadlifts, etc. in that category and the way I teach them is different than what I’ve seen and heard about being done at CrossFit gyms. The basic mechanics of the movements are similar, but I emphasize a very slow controlled speed of movement, minimizing acceleration during the turnarounds, and maintaining a consistent level of tension on the muscles throughout. Speed is part of it, but the bigger concern is acceleration.

Regardless of competence I don’t have anyone move quickly or teach exercises which require quick movement or swinging rather than controlled lifting as they provide no general fitness benefits that can’t be obtained more safely by other exercises.

While all physical activity poses some risk of injury exercise can and should be one of the safest things a person does. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words, but all injury during exercise is unnecessary. There is no such thing as a necessary injury in exercise. I think some of this comes from the beliefs that the harder you train the higher the risk and that certain higher-risk exercises or styles of performance convey unique benefits, both of which are false. If you perform biomechanically sound exercises with proper, strict form you can train as hard as humanly possible with very little risk of injury.

While you and others may feel the benefits of CrossFit outweigh the dangers the point I’m trying to make is you can obtain the same physical benefits far more safely with more conventional high intensity resistance training.

Jordan Barnes: Basically, he is saying don’t be athletic of play sports or train for them, because all of those thing require acceleration and quick movement.

Drew Baye: Jordan,

That is not what I’m saying at all. What I’m trying to explain is rapid acceleration and quick movements are undesirable during exercise as they provide no advantage over moving at slower speeds but increase risk of injury. The belief that one must lift weights quickly or explosively to be faster or more explosive when performing other movements is false.

All else being equal, as long as you are getting stronger and better conditioned you will be able to accelerate rapidly and move quickly and powerfully when performing other activities, and you can get as strong and conditioned as your genetics will allow without moving quickly during exercise.

Will June: For what it’s worth, I think that although ‘Crossfitters’ place a premium on “intensity,” there are many important (and perhaps obvious) differences from a conventional HIT understanding of intensity. I don’t fall neatly into either camp but am much more sympathetic to the sort of approach Drew recommends. I investigated Crossfit a few years back, looking for something different. There were many things that turned me off however: First, watching many YouTube videos of CrossFit workouts – a consistent disregard for proper form; the sloppiness was incredible to me. And then, of course, there are those exercises that are simply misconceived from the beginning – i.e., the kipping pullup. One can claim an agnostic stance on exercises, but the identity of the movement is associated with specific exercises and a particular approach to doing them. The second thing that turned me off was my local facility and the holier than thou attitude of the owners and staff – it struck me as almost cult-like. Perhaps an exception, but very unappealing.

Scott Charles: Will: I cannot agree that the kipping pullup is misconceived. It has it’s place in a fitness management program. The idea is to provide a method of moving weight effectively. It’s also a whole body exercise. It’s challenging, and it’s fun.

The “identity of the movement is associated with specific exercises and a particular approach to doing them” is true only for people who don’t pay attention to CF articles, WODs, or blogs. The WODs are posted all over the place. They are taken from multiple disciplines. Lots of variety. Something for everyone. But there is a particular approach: they are done with as much energy as an individual can bring to bear on any given day.

Finally I agree that if you got bad service at your local CF gym, you shouldn’t support them. I know I wouldn’t.

Thanks,
SC

Drew Baye: Scott,

Kipping pull ups provide no physical benefit that can’t be obtained more safely with other exercises. There is no good reason to perform them. Also, fun is not an appropriate criteria for exercise selection. See my comments on exercise versus recreation in the article Something Is Not Always Better Than Nothing.

Bringing as much energy to bear as possible is a good thing – results from an exercise program are directly related to effort – but it should be done within the constraints of safety to avoid undermining health and functional ability in the long run.

For a comparison of strict chin-ups and kipping pull-ups read Q&A: Strict Chin Ups Versus Kipping Pull Ups

Jonathan:

Hi Drew i have a short infuriating story for you.
One with which you are probably very familiar.
I train in a mainstream corporate gym in Portugal called Holmes place.
I have been using the 10/10 protocol for a few weeks now.
A member who also trains at the same gym was curious as to my training technique and asked one of the personal trainers about what i was doing.
Now bear in mind all the personal trainers at this gym go through a rigorous brainwashing in all the mainstream training protocols and know very little about high intensity training.
When this guy asked the personal trainer what he thought about my 10/10 protocol the trainer said it was very dangerous for ones heart!!and that he should avoid training like that!!
Now my mouth almost hit the floor when i heard that the personal trainer had said this to the the curious member.
I mean ,what cheek does this trainer have to pass a judgement like that on something he knows nothing about,i was extremely angry to say the least.
Anyway just thought id share that little story with you.
Thanks for all the cool info.
Best wishes
Jonathan

Drew Baye: Jonathan,

Thanks for sharing, and as you already know there is no reason to worry about your heart. Properly performed, resistance training is safer for the heart than steady-state training, and moving more slowly during exercise is safer overall.

Unfortunately, the majority of personal trainers out there have no idea what they’re doing, so this kind of stupidity is common.

Jordan Barnes: I will agree that many personal trainers have no idea. You actually only have to have a GED to become a personal trainer and then some of the personal training certificates take no longer than a weekend to attain.

This is why I have a degree in Health and Fitness and am a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist through the National Strength and Condition Association

Drew Baye: Jordan,

I would include NSCA CPTs and CSCS’s in that category. Not everybody respects or thinks very highly of the NSCA. In fact, much of what they teach about resistance training is nonsense.

Jordan Barnes: Drew,

I would like to know where you get your information and what makes you qualified to prescribe exercise? So far all that I know about you is that you “watch some videos on youtube.”

I would say that most people would find peer reviewed studies, published in scientific journals, with results that have been substantiated by other independent researchers a pretty legitimate resource.

I would also probably say somebody with a college degree in exercise science has studied several topics that relate to exercise, such as physics, exercise physiology, kinetics, motor neuron development among others. All of this means that they have an actual understanding of how things work and don’t just base opinions on “videos on youtube.”

Drew Baye: Jordan,

I studied biology and exercise physiology at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay and spent most of the past two decades continuing to study exercise and related topics while making a living training people. Regardless, my statements stand on their own and if you disagree you must make legitimate rather than ad hominem arguments to support your position.

I don’t just base my statements about CrossFit on youtube videos. If I’d never seen a person doing kipping pull ups, thrusters, ball slams, the Olympic lifts, or similarly inefficient and dangerous exercises I could still tell you they’re a bad idea.

Ryan Tobin: Jordan: Hardly any of the people I’ve met who have degrees in exercise science or kinesiology (which number in the hundreds from all across the USA) have any knowledge of relevant physics (Newtonian mechanics). This is unfortunate, given that such knowledge is fundamental and necessary to understand this area of study.

One cannot have expertise in *human motion* when lacking understanding of the basics of *motion*.

This includes you, given your repeated incorrect use/application of the concept of mechanical power.

Will: Hi Scott,

I’m familiar with the CrossFit defense of the Kipping Pull Up – i.e., that it’s a “full body” exercise, and not to be understood as a poorly performed standard pull up; instead, that it’s a completely different movement. My characterization of “misconceived” is based on my sense that “full body” exercises aren’t good simply because they’re full body. Some movements safely and efficiently recruit many more muscles, some don’t); the conventional pull up (or chin up variation) is simply a ‘better’ movement at working the muscles it works – perhaps I’m simply old-fashioned. That said, I don’t mean to indict all of CrossFit through some sort of guilt-by-association with the Kipping Pull Up (and, I suspect that’s a very old criticism by this point). There are aspects to CrossFit that I have some appreciation for: the emphasis on traditional, compound moves done with free weights (e.g, the dead lift and squat – unfortunately, as Drew correctly notes, the bulk of CrossFit practitioners I’ve seen either don’t understand proper form on these movements, or don’t care to pass it along to others); the incorporation of interval running, and so forth. Also, perhaps due to my own background, I still have some appreciation for an approach that views the workout as an end in itself, and not merely a means to some other end (i.e., fitness).

Scott Charles: Will: well I suppose all that poor form is an opportunity for someone to step up and show what the correct form looks like. More to the point, I concede that based on the idea that exercise should be injury free, CF is not exercise.

http://libernetics.com/writings/?p=1720

Where I disagree with Drew, and perhaps you, is that for me whatever fitness program I do has to be enjoyable (“fun”.) But that’ my choice.

Drew: I updated my blog post and corrected my misquotes and misrepresentations regarding “explosive” and “Olympic Weightlifting”.

You will see the corrections in the comments section.
Cheers.

Drew Baye: Scott,

Thanks, will read it soon.

If there is any fun to be had in exercise it is in the sense of achievement and pride that comes from continuously pushing your limits. What I am opposed to is purposefully trying to make exercise fun, rather than just doing what is most effective, efficient, and safe for the purpose of stimulating physical improvement.

Jordan Barnes: Kipping pull-ups, in the crossfit domain, are not to be looked at as purely a strength exercise, but as a way to elicit a anaerobic stimulus, in addition to the work that is done during a pullup. Similar to how sprinting is to lunges.

Drew Baye: Jordan,

You can achieve the same more safely and effectively with exercises performed at controlled speeds. There is no need to risk shoulder integrity by swinging and flopping around on a bar like that.

Jordan Barnes: Drew,

I am going to expand of this line of logic.

“For example, if the absolute most weight you can lift in an exercise in strict form is 100 pounds you will be unable to move it very quickly. If you increase your strength in that exercise so that you are able to lift 150 pounds in strict form, you will be able to lift 100 pounds more quickly, and measure higher power output (work/time).”

My first question for you is this would the typical back squat and the movement of the legs while sprinting be considered the same physiological movement, in terms of joint angle and muscle involvement? Or would you say the movements are not analogous at all?

Drew Baye: Jordan,

Squatting and running involve a lot of the same muscles but are obviously different movements. However, strength gained from squatting or any other exercises for the same muscles will transfer to improved running performance.

Jordan Barnes: Drew,

According to your previous example

“If you increase your strength in that exercise so that you are able to lift 150 pounds in strict form, you will be able to lift 100 pounds more quickly”

Following that line of logic, the fastest man in the world would be the one who could squat the most weight. A man who can squat 1000 pounds should be the fastest sprinter, according to your logic.

Would that be correct?

Am I following you

Drew Baye: Jordan,

The strongest person in the world might not be the fastest sprinter since there are other factors involved, but all else being equal someone who is stronger will be faster. One of the reasons world class sprinters are so much faster than the average person is they can apply around twice the force to the ground.

Jordan Barnes: Ok so now you are saying that there is another reason, not simply strength that makes them able to apply so much force to the ground.

An equally sized, equally strong person should be just as fast as a sprinter because their strength is all that allows them to move their body faster, according to your previous comments.

Now you are trying to bring up other factors in this exploration of your logic. Ground force is an interesting topic, how does one sprinter create more ground force that a power lifter even though the sprinter is weaker?

Drew Baye: Jordan,

If you make an individual stronger they will be able to move faster. You can’t fairly compare different individuals based on strength alone however because factors like bodily proportions and musculoskeletal geometry, muscle fiber type, etc. influence an individual’s ability to perform specific activities or movements.

For example, suppose two men had the exact same skeletal structure, muscle mass, fiber type proportions, neurological make up, etc., but one had tendons which inserted slightly further from the joint axes resulting in longer effort moment arms. The man with the longer effort moment arms would be stronger, but due to his tendon insertions being further from the axes the same degree of muscle shortening would not produce as many degrees of joint rotation, so he may actually be slightly slower.

Regardless, you could make each of the men faster by improving their strength, but it would not be fair to assume that one is automatically faster than the other based on strength alone due to these other factors.

Mark Lloyd: If Usain Bolt kept is bodyweight unchanged, kept the quality & length of his sprint practices undiminished, and remained uninjured, yet (somehow!) also increased his squat to 1,000 lbs, he’d run the 100m in 9.00, easily.

Jonathan: From my experience moving a weight at a 10/10 cadence is superior to moving a weight at explosive tempos for the following reasons based on my real life training experiences.

I have found moving a weight very slowly when i train eliminates most of the momentum of the weight and puts all the tension on the targeted muscle,so i cannot cheat and sway etc.

It has improved my mental focus and connection with each repetition incredibly.

My strength has increased every single week that i have trained using this protocol,this is also due to my rest and recovery period after the workout and maximising my diet.

I weigh 210 pounds with 8 percent body fat at the moment and i don’t do any cardio,i am 39 years old and i am in better shape than i have EVER been in my life due to this high intensity protocol.

Moving at a 10/10 cadence has made the exercise more difficult and safer at the same time,i am not moving slowly because the weight is light i am moving slowly with a heavy weight,a weight i can get 3 to 5 repetitions with.

From my experience it is a magic protocol.

It is an extremely CONSCIOUS protocol in terms of it has improved my body and my mental and spiritual areas as well.
So yes it pains me to see people knock this way of training especially so called educated health proffessionals who should know better.

But you know im not surprised because the programming runs so deep that it takes a Herculean effort to break free from it.
Consciousness is not the overriding function of the human race and those that do things differently always get knocked and ridiculed.

I pass this on from my real life experience.

I have seen those footballers train,and hell it looked like a 9/11 call waiting to happen.

I can only see a football team improving mental focus and getting soooo much stronger if they start training using slower controlled lifting cadences…ITS ONLY LOGICAL, a more focused and stronger group of footballers could only mean one thing, SUCCESS, is that not what every team and coach wants AND I SINCERELY mean it from my experience.
Best wishes

Mark Lloyd:

Indeed. Also 10/10 progress is -truly measurable-. Explosive work-speed & technique isn’t just fast, it’s highly variable from day to day: 1/What gets charted as more reps or weight is just as likely more speed or more secondary musculature incorporated. 2/What -doesn’t- get charted as progress may have been a meaningful extra second or two at 10/10. /// As far as what elite footballers are doing, let me turn Mark Rippetoe’s explanation against him: Those guys are already almost at their full potential strength when they arrive, and they achieved this by surviving even -worse- methods in their first years: garages, basements, etc. All this proves is that not -everyone- gets injured, no matter how insanely they train.

Eric: Evidently, many are still confusing “peak power” with “average power” (the latter is much more relevant and, ultimately, trying to increase the former is what leads to injuries!!!!);

too many still wrongly believe that “Power equals Strength by Speed”, when “Power really equals Work (force x displacement) divided by Time” (BIG, BIG difference); too many confuse “skill” and “strength as a skill” with “functional training”;

too many do not understand that exercise’s number one goal (exercise is NOT the same as recreation…) should be to improve health and that therefore, any increased risk of injury through one’s chosen exercise modality should NEVER be taken lightly;

too many do not realize that “fast in the weight room” is no where near the equivalent of “fast on the field/court” (in terms of degrees/second over a given ROM, the difference is staggering!!!! So much for “specificity” then…);

too many choose to not acknowledge the fact that you can get results from almost any method, but that there is also a host of other factors that must be considered…

Sadly, Crossfit has turned exercise into a sport and a “recreational activity”, which is exactly what should NEVER happen!!! This, some would say, has had “positive” ramifications, in the sense that more and more people are enticed by this form of “group exercise”, getting them to get up and move yet, in the process, this has also led many to believe various myths…

I could go on, but I’ll end my rant here 🙂

One of Drew’s article from a couples of years back is probably quite fitting here: “Something is Not Always Better Than Nothing”…

I also always liked my buddy Eric Cressey’s quote regarding Crossfit:

“One program on one dry erase board for hundreds of athletes isn’t training; it’s babysitting.”

Jordan Barnes: Eric,

I agree with you on one point, I don’t like turning exercise into a competition.

But there is a direct correlation between being fast in the weight room and on field performance.

One of my favorite examples is from a strength an conditioning coach at Minnesota U who was speaking at a seminar.

He had 2 shot putters, both with the same squat max, bench, pretty much similar in every physical attribute.

Well what he does is makes them squat with a Tendo unit which measures bar speed in m/s. Doing singles at 405, what he noticed is that one athlete could squat the weight significantly quicker that the other.

On of these athletes became a very good shot putter and the other was only mediocre. It wasn’t the slower athlete.

Drew Baye: Jordan,

There is not a direct correlation between the speed at which you perform exercises and on field performance. On field (or court, track, mat, etc.) performance will improve whether you move fast or slow in the weight room as long as you train hard and progressively; there is no advantage to moving quickly while lifting weights. There is, however, a big safety advantage in moving more slowly in the weight room, which should be a high priority for all athletes.

Mark Lloyd:

The athlete who COULD squat faster was a better shot putter, of course, but the reason he could squat faster isn’t because he trained the squat faster. It’s because he’s faster; and he’s faster because he’s stronger. (Their supposedly equal max squat is unlikely: If I can lift as much as you but faster, I can almost surely lift more than you at equal to your speed).

Eric: Exactly Mark… And the point Jordan tries to make by providing this anecdotal example brings to light one of many issues with regards to the speed-strength, strength-speed and max strength conundrum…

To say that one is a better shot putter because he can squat faster serves no purpose other than to bring more confusion if all factors are not taken in consideration, nameley actual max strength of both athletes being compared (as Mark alluded to already), their body weight, their stage of development and their skill set (which would require a complex analysis, even for an event as seemingly “simple” as shot putting), just to name a few…

Believe me. And this Drew already pointed out. There is absolutely NO correlation between speed of training in the weight room and speed of movement on the field/court/track. This is simply an illusion. You get stronger (SAFELY) in the gym, and then you apply that strength in a skillful manner in your sport of choice. It’s as simple as that…

People tend to want to make this more complex than it really is. They’ll, for example, compare speed of execution in Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters, and deduce that the former are faster than the latter, on the basis that the OW are training “fast”. Alas, once one understands that the training of max strength also falls under the category of “skill” (maybe not as much skill as pulling a 4.5 difficulty high-dive but nonetheless…), it’s easy to see where the confusion arises from…

In fact, one trick new strength coaches use when they first come into a program is to “test” the players to see “how much” they lift. They will choose exercises that the athletes have not done, have not done often, have not done in a long time, or have not trained in the fashion that the new coach tests (e.g., one rep max instead of repetitions). The new coach will then test them eight weeks later and show a huge “increase” in “strength” in order to make himself look good. This is called “pushing numbers” and is neither difficult to do nor the best way to train athletes, and derives, again, from the notion I alluded previously, namely that strength is also a skill (even if a low-level one…).

Donnie Hunt: Jonathan brings up the whole issue that I’m not sure I understand. The intentional speed vs. moving at a speed due to the amount of resistance. I understand that when using conventional equipment the trainee has to consciously control the speed of movement because this is what I workout with. Does ideal equipment vary the resistance in such a way that slower movement happens due to camming or however the resistance is varied? I understand that with any equipment that the trainee has to maintain form and is the one in control of force output. This whole intentional vs. unitentional speed has me confused as far as what is ideal in the ideal setting.

Drew Baye: Donnie,

At the beginning of an exercise when your muscles are fresh you should be capable of lifting the selected weight relatively quickly, but you should deliberately lift it in a slow and controlled manner. As your muscles fatigue more effort is required just to keep the weight moving in the prescribed form and near the prescribed speed/cadence. During the last few repetitions it should take a near maximum effort just to keep the weight moving slowly, until you achieve momentary muscular failure and further movement in strict form becomes impossible.

Good equipment helps, but this can be accomplished with any mode of training including free weights and body weight exercise.

Ritchie Harder: Drew,

Another engaging article and comment-fest.

I think Eric nailed it when writing:

too many confuse “skill” and “strength as a skill” with “functional training”;

My athletic background is Karate–more specifically, Kajukenbo. I started when I was 11 years old (40 years ago). I did not start training with weight until I was 17. Weight training does not take the place of athletic skill–it only only enhances it and usually not in the way that one would think:

Any football coach worth his salt knows that the main true purpose of a good strength and conditioning program is to keep the athletes injury free. The goal is NOT to train an athlete to blast one and a half times their body weight with Power Cleans thinking it will make them a better player! the Goal is to keep them healthy. A safe strength and conditioning program such as using slow continuous reps can do this.

The problem with most guys who lift is that they want to be bodybuilders today then next week they want to be powerlifters. Then they think about it a little more and want to train to be Oly lifters! Nothing but foolishness. Powerlifting and Weightlifting are sports. Don’t confuse sport skill with a basic strength and conditioning program.

And I agree with you Drew. Exercise in itself is not meant to be fun. My sessions are always brutal–and safe.

Will: “Fun” is obviously a very subjective experience. I find it a little bit tedious for folks to constantly say that exercise – if done properly – simply cannot be fun. Of course it can be, for some, sometimes. Brutal, hard, exhausting – none of these characterizations of exercise activity are necessarily contradictory to fun, again, for some people. To Drew, and others, please try to be somewhat less presumptuous with your definitions (and your own subjective experiences).

Drew Baye: Will,

The point is that exercise should be based on physical and biological principles rather than on what a person finds enjoyable. If they happen to find brutally hard work fun, that’s great, but people shouldn’t base what they do for exercise on what they enjoy.

Eric: Hmmmm… “Fun/enjoyment should not be the underlying premise for one’s choice of exercise” gets wrongly interpretated as Drew saying “If one’s choice of PROPER (i.e safe, hard, progressive, etc.) exercise is found to be fun/enjoyable, then it’s not exercise”!?!?!

Deductive fallacy anyone?!?! Go figure…

Will: Drew,

I don’t mean to sound antagonistic, but my initial response to your point is ‘why not’? To put it slightly differently, I think your response overemphasizes a distinction between the mind and the body – and, perhaps your point is grounded in a belief that the former is overly subjective and therefore too contingent on individual preference, whereas the latter is more susceptible to empirical observation and quantification. Not a huge point for me, but more of a quibble regarding the representation of exercise.

On another (only slightly related) point. Do you find Dips and Squats to be inherently dangerous exercises, that should be removed from any training routine?

Drew Baye: Will,

You’re not being antagonistic, you’re asking good questions.

The purpose of exercise is to stimulate improvements in or maintain a high level of functional ability and health and how it is performed should be based on the requirements and constraints of that goal. Whether one finds it fun or not is irrelevant and has no bearing on the effectiveness, efficiency or safety of a particular movement or activity for exercise purposes.

Exercise for physical improvement, do recreational activities you enjoy for fun. Don’t compromise exercise by trying to make it fun and don’t compromise your enjoyment of recreational activities by trying to turn them into workouts.

Drew Baye: With regards to barbell squats and dips, while they can be highly productive exercises when performed correctly the same general benefits can be had more safely with other exercises. I’ve done both for years and had good results from them but am hesitant to recommend them to others because I have rarely seen them performed correctly or with anywhere near the level of control required for proper turnarounds.

After Elements of Form is finished I’m going to be completely re-writing High Intensity Workouts and will be discussing those in more detail there.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

Comparisons of a “power sport”
Article in Wikipedia
Men’s 100 meters world record progress

There would be too many variables to direct comparisons of 100m times but I thought that this could be an interesting exercises. Have we advanced with todays training methods. I would say that comparisons would show very little advancement but that is my opinion – open to be criticsed.I will just include USA athletes.
Luther Cary 10.8 1891
Jesse Owens 10.2 1936
Jim Hines 9.9 1968
Justin Gatlin 9.77 2006

If you were to consider todays full time athletes with the latest technologies and training times spent in the gym, athletic running tracks to back when Jesse Owens was running then I would think that athletes times for 100m time are not that impressive. I would suspect that in 1896 the athletes just done a small bit of running in very limited spare time. And I would also suspect that for many years after most athletes did very little in the way of “squats” but still were able to produce excellent times. The last point to note is no USA athlete has featured in the records since 2006 where before that USA athletes dominated 100m. That is my anaylsis and comparisons.

Mark Lloyd: Actually, that 1.03 seconds seems like quite a lot to cut off a 100m time, close to 10% faster. How many footsteps does an elite 100m sprinter take in 1.03 seconds? Quite a few I’m pretty sure.

Eric: Sprinting is one of my favorite subjects of study; glad someone decided to broach the topic here 🙂 Unfortunately, as well versed as I feel I am in the field I’m afraid again that the subject is ridden in so many half-truths and myths as to render it one of the hardest topics from which to draw any conclusive theories.

What appears clear from the latest studies (most notably JB Morin’s) is that elite sprinters have a better ability to orient total force vectors with a forward incline and to produce the highest horizontal force amongst their peers, most notably at faster velocities (note that this should in no way be interpreted as elite sprinters having more “total force production” than their peers or, for that matter, even specialists from other sports).

Basically then, the best sprinters have acquired (or were gifted with – which is even more likely) the ability to produce more horizontal force at higher velocities (for various reasons, including fiber type, tendon length, muscle insertions/origins, inherent “stiffness”, etc.).

On top of that, the best ones are able to maintain the production of such larger horizontal force for longer, meaning they are able to limit the amount of time towards the end of the race spent decelerating. In effect, they have better “speed endurance”.

Many would also agree with Weyand’s “spring mass model” and its application through “mass specific force” (or, if you will, the amount of force in relation to bodyweight). In effect, this could mean that you must be able to produce high vertical forces to run at high top speed, but there is also a limit to this, simply due to the nature of the event/task. As you speed up, you have shorter and shorter ground contact times, and you must thus be able to produce great vertical forces yet in exceedingly shorter contact times. Ultimately and as already alluded to above, it’s been shown that the fastest sprinters DO NOT automatically produce the greatest maximum forces during sprinting; some do, but others, like Christophe Lemaître, don’t…

So, again, even in something as “seemingly simple” as sprinting (as in the earlier example of shot putting), there are many things to consider outside of pure strength, which is part of the reason this is so difficult. Some sprinters, such as Ben Johsnson, were freaks in the gym. Others, and what is more commonly observed (Christophe Lemaître and Usain Bolt being more recent examples, but there are many others, such as the great Carl Lewis), are not, and are simply able to get away with what would appear as “less strength” (as demonstrated in the gym), and more “skill”…

Not to mention of course the complexities and various/distinct demands associated to various sections of the sprint, including the start, acceleration phase, top speed, and speed endurance, and the relations of all these elements to the athlete’s body mass; these various aspects of sprinting are part of the reason sprinters aren’t necessarily the most homogeneous group, since certains characteristics will lend themselves better to specific phases of the race…

Eric: As for reasons for the progressively faster times over the last century (and yes, I would tend to agree, 1.03 seconds is quite an improvement over an event that is often determined by hundreths of seconds!!!) there are many…

Better athlete recruitment, better training (and recovery) methods, better training facilities, better racing facilities (most notably, faster/harder tracks – sort of like “f$ck the long distance runners”!!!! Case in point, our very own Donovan Bailey set his then-world-record on a ridiculously hard track which probably never should have met IAAF record standards. Bailey never ran remotely close to this in any other race), better drugs, etc.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

The point of my post with “comparisons” and as Eric pointed out there are so many variables that must be considered. I also realized and as Mark pointed out 1.03 seconds in 100m sprint is a huge difference between winning and losing. But also 100 years is a big difference.

But the other point I trying to make was that at the present day all things being equal we should expect faster times. We have as Jordan pointed out people doing olympic lifts that greatly “improve hip extension” that should make them faster.

Arthur Jones mentioned something along the lines with bodybuilders (words to the effect) I don’t think body builders of today have gotten any bigger but the pool of body builders has gotten bigger to choose from and we should expect bigger body builders (steroids not included). It could be the same with athletes we have a bigger pool of “gifted” athletes to choose from, athletes of today should be faster. Very difficult to do comparisons

Train harder but train safer

Mark Lloyd: It’s time to break free from your US Records Only comparison: 10.8 was also the World Record when it was the US record. Numerous 10.8 ties that year suggest that 100ths couldn’t be measured, thus the time can fairly be called “10.8+”. World Record now is 9.58, a difference of 1.22+! An eleven meter lead. Seems like a lot of progress to me.

As far as the athletic talent pool, the huge money in pro sports now has shrunk the pool for amateur athletics. If you can run fast and catch a football, we’ll probably never know your fastest 100.

How on Earth does one measure the progressive size increases of elite bodybuilders without accounting for steroids & HGH? For over 40 years, every one of them has ‘juiced’.

Jake: With mma conditioning most trainers recommend a 12 week periodized program. It would consist of a basic conditioning, strength, power and power endurance phase. With in each of those there would be energy system training as well. These workouts would seperate from skill training. What are thoughts on this approach? Would fighters be better off doing a H.I.T. work out? Could H.I.T. training give a fighter all the strength and conditioning benefits needed to go the distance?

P.S. great post!

Drew Baye: Jake,

Thanks. If properly performed a high intensity training program will give a fighter all the strength and conditioning benefits they require. There is no need to periodize training or divide it into phases to effectively improve all those things.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

You saved me time and money it easy to see how people can be fooled by the so-called experts. I won’t call them “so-called fitness” experts that would be given them to much credit and I won’t call the movements “exercises” as they did in the article.

On the weekend in the newspapers the so-called expert had a number of movment patterns to follow to improve coordination and balance.It goes without saying that you needed some specialist type equipment to improve your coordiantion and balance. I know that these movements would improve your coordination and balance in the specific movements but why do they always leave out that the coordiantion and balance improvements are only specific to that movement. Probably the reason is that the suggested movement patterns no one would need to do them. One of the movement patterns was something called a “crane” – bending forward on one leg.

But on closer analysis of the movement patterns strength gains would be from the required isometric, concentric, eccentric muscle contractions.

Drew Baye: Steven,

Exactly. There is nothing specific about such movement patterns or postures themselves that lends to better general balance or coordination. The benefit of these comes from the muscular work involved, something that can be accomplished more safely and efficiently with simple, conventional exercises.

Mark Lloyd: Looking at CrossFit from the opposite direction: I suspect that many CrossFit clients have no previous experience with legitimate exercise protocol. The perspective they’re more likely to have is in comparison to “LA Fitness”-type facilities, in which case it could be argued that they may have taken a small step in the -right- direction!

Drew Baye: Mark,

Good point. I went to a local LA Fitness to show a friend who works out there how to set up and use the equipment and spent some time observing their trainers. None of them appeared to know what they were doing and some of them were doing things that weren’t just wrong but downright idiotic.

Eric: Scott:

Admitttedly, at least insofar as exercise technique is concerned, there exists quite a disjunct between what Crossfit (“Headquarters” and what is presented in their courses) espouses and what is being presented in on-line videos, during competition, and even on the main site. I know, for instance, that technique/proper form is usually emphasized before speed and load.

I also understand that part of this disjunct has to do with the fact that Crossfit seemingly exists as two separate entities, which is not always appreciated by outsiders: the competition aspect (as in Crossfit Games participants, or people filming themselves competing during their training) and every day “normal” training. The problem resides in the fact that Crossfit promotional material tends to revolve around the former rather than the latter where, good trainers/CF boxes will, at least for the most part, seemingly emphasize form over speed/load.

But, in spite of this, I must still question the rationale behind the choice of certain exercises (namely, and among others, kipping pull-ups (where mechanical work is confused for metabolic work) and high-rep Olympic lifting (and, even Olympic lifting in general anyways, for the non-competitive trainee) and also high-rep (or not) plyometric exercises).

Then, of course, there are the “programming” issues… The “random” selection of different exercises for a workout of the day [WOD] is conveyed by CrossFit as being the way that life and our occupational environments present physically demanding challenges. That may in fact be the case in performance settings but, this approach can result in a frequency of loading during training that is either too low to elicit the desired training effect or too high so that overuse injuries result. The assertion, again, is that if the situations in life, sport, and physically demanding occupations are presented to us in random fashion, then training to meet these challenges should also be random. This is likely true in how we practice the use of our skills and fitness to permit us to respond to different tactical and environmental settings. However, I’ll reiterate, the risk of doing the fitness and skills training in this fashion is that the training at required frequency, load, duration and actions may not be optimal to achieve our desired fitness and skill outcomes.

Furthermore, it is also quite clear that working on specific characteristics of “fitness” in blocks will always lead to better overall results compared to a haphazard approach (as you may or may not already know, that is how the elite Crossfit participants do in fact train; this has brought about, on many occasions, philosophical debates over the Hopper approach espoused by Glassman which, if it did indeed work as he proclaims it does, should also work for the Game athletes, no?)… Intensities, frequencies and actions/movements all need to be prescribed appropriately and considered in programming, as well as individual strengths and weaknesses. Thus, I fail to see how a general workout written on a whiteboard would take these various aspects in consideration…

Now, I know certain Crossfit trainers do offer, to some extent, “proper programming” but, for the most part, what is presented through the CF mainsite and many other networks does not present itself as such, and simply assigns WODs that do not take anything in consideration other than the final time on the clock or the number of reps or the load. Should Crossfit in general be blamed for this you surely ask? I suspect you know my answer already 🙂

On a few more specific notes… If Crossfit does indeed attempt to address all the needs of armed and police forces, they fail greatly in at least one aspect, and that is with regards to long-duration work. Improvements in mechanical and metabolic efficiency that enhance long duration work outputs are primarily achieved through long-duration, low-power exercise. This is especially important, for instance, with long duration weightload marches in the heat. This type of training is very infrequent in the WODs offered through the CrossFit website. There is in fact a very conscious effort to avoid low intensity, long duration runs, rows and marches that would enhance aerobic skill-capacity. Considering the importance of long distance weightload marches in the armed forces and in the current operational environment, this type of training should no doubt be included.

There is also the issue of prescription of fixed loads in many of the resistance training exercises, which precludes older, weaker [males and females], and lower fit individuals from optimal overloads and presents some risk of injury. This could be avoided by prescribing relative loads or prescribing progressions from simple to complex skills and from no load to light to moderate to the prescribed absolute load for each workout. They do, at least to some degree, encourage this progression BUT, the prescriptions for their WODs and benchmark workouts do not generally include the progressions. It is left up to the individual to determine the appropriate progression.

The principle of recovery is not consistently addressed in Crossfit prescriptions or is simply ignored in the quest to enhance tolerance to high intensity work and fatigue. Recovery is scheduled between sets in some workouts [e.g. Barbara] but most often, the frequency and duration of recovery periods seem arbitrary. This is intentional [I believe] to insure that participants are pushing their performance under fatigued conditions. Therefore, typical prescriptions in CrossFit give a fixed number of reps of an exercise and sets of a group of exercises to be completed in as short a time as possible or a fixed time frame to complete as many prescribed tasks as possible. Mind you, this is neither necessarily right nor wrong; it is simply a difference with regards to the goal and therefore in the way the overload is applied, but it certainly ignores the importance of a repetition maximum range for eliciting different types of skill-strength improvements.

Finally, the Crossfit programming does not build in unloading weeks on a regular pattern but merely suggests that when workout quality deteriorates, extra rest days should be considered. This lack of a regular pattern is not consistent with common practices in prescription for elite athletes or high intensity occupational pursuits, and unduly puts the individual at more at risk of overtraining and stress related injuries – especially with this focus on high intensity, fatigue-based training.

Most of the stuff I mention here comes from discussions regarding internal research and reports conducted by colleagues who work in designing training programs (both theoretical and practical aspects) for the Canadian Armed Forces. The safety issue, among others, is what initially sparked most of this research. Many bases adopted the Crossfit model but, over the years, more and more bases have been dropping the approach in favour of a more conventional one. One that is, in part, based on “some” of the principles proposed by Crossfit (it’s not ALL bad then ha ha), but that also takes in consideration most of the points I’ve presented here…

Scott Charles: Eric: thanks for the well thought out comments. Yes I have observed various CrossFit people (i.e., “athletes”) do very specific training while preparing for an event. And yes I agree that CrossFit can be too random.

Which leads me to this next assertion: CrossFit is best seen as recreation, and if someone wants to get really fit they would most likely benefit from a well defined plan. As you said, ” It is left up to the individual to determine the appropriate progression.”

As it so happens CrossFit is the type of recreation I enjoy. That said I do plan on doing more rowing and sprinting, and adding some HIT work (e.g., using weight machines) and see where that takes me.

Cheers,
SC

Mark Lloyd: Perhaps it should be stressed, yet again, that you, Drew, and others in agreement with you, don’t actually have a problem with people doing CrossFit, as long as they understand what they’re engaged in: A risky recreational activity.

Drew Baye: Mark,

This is my position on recreational activity – as long as a person understands the risks and feels they are worth the enjoyment of the activity it’s fine. CrossFit is being promoted as exercise, however, and the risks are not worth it because the same or better exercise benefits can be obtained more safely by other means. If a person understands this and really does do CrossFit because they enjoy it I have no problem with that, but most people who do CrossFit do so because they think it is a good way to exercise while it is actually one of the dumbest.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

On a youtube video this person talks about the size principle of motor unit recruitment. He said (words to the effect) to get stronger and more powerful you must lift heavy to train the glycoltic fibres. He than said that F=ma so to increase force you must move the weight fast as possible ensuring you train the stronger fibres. He than added to be able to move the weight fast it must be somewhat lighter. To me the lighter weights will not train the stronger more powerful fibres. As you said “training hard and progressively”. Confused

Drew Baye: Steven,

Neither extremely heavy loads or fast speeds are necessary for recruitment or effective stimulation of the glycolytic fibers/high threshold motor units. Moderate loads (around 60% of maximum voluntary contraction) are enough to recruit all the motor units in the muscles worked after a few reps.

Steven Turner: Hi Drew,

If I could just add that the video also said that if a person deliberately moves the weight slowly not all the glycolytic fibres would be recruited/worked.

Arthur Jones wrote an article something along the lines; once you add weight to a limb the movement speed becomes slower, the more weight that you add the slower the movement speed becomes.

If accelerated speed of movement is a key factor in muscle fibre recrutiment why not use only weight in your limbs and accelrate them as fast as possible. To my way of thinking you can’t have both heavy weights and fast movements.

Drew Baye: Steven,

Regardless of the speed of movement all of the motor units in the working muscles including those comprised of glycolytic fibers will be recruited and worked if the effort is high enough. You can even do this with a speed of zero using timed static contraction protocol.

The key is effort. You can get good results with almost any training method as long as the effort is high enough, but not all methods will produce results as quickly, be as time efficient, or be as safe and sustainable in the long run. It is not enough to just train very hard (and to their credit, CrossFitters do train very hard), you also have to train safely and efficiently.

Matt S: Mr. Baye,

Thank you for the effort you put into your site. I agree with the viewpoint you present in this article. I believe too many people have misguided understanding of fitness pursuits and get caught up in the appeal of this type of “sport-based” training without understanding the risk. I do have two comments where I hope you can enlighten me: please explain how “intent” can alter muscle recruitment patterns and do you believe it hurts credibility of the message by quoting HIT advocates like McGuff, Bruce-Low, and, certainly, Arthur Jones? How much credibility would you give an anti-HIT article quoting Fleck, Kraemer, & Stone? Thanks for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Matt (Long time HIT advocate, too)
Iowa City, Iowa

Drew Baye: Matt,

I use the term “intent” to describe the movement you are attempting to produce during an exercise, which determines which muscles are recruited and their level of involvement. This can have different meanings in different contexts, for example if you’re talking about intended versus possible speed of movement as the muscles fatigue, or intended versus possible path of movement due to various physical constraints.

As for credibility, the arguments and evidence need to stand on their own merit, regardless of who is presenting them. Of course, HIT people are going to tend to view people like Jones, McGuff, Bruce-Low, Otto, Carpinelli, etc. as more credible than Kraemer, Fleck, Stone, Garhammer, etc. and vice versa due to confirmation bias. Everybody has a tendency to be more accepting of things that confirm their perspective or beliefs on a topic and to be more skeptical of things that contradict them. You have to do your best to set that aside and just look at the evidence critically and interpret it as objectively as you can.

One of the hardest things to do, but one of the most effective ways to continue to learn and improve, is to constantly challenge and test your own positions and beliefs. If you can do this honestly and objectively you will improve your understanding of the subject by a process similar to natural selection; by increasing the critical pressure on your own ideas the good ones become stronger and bad ones are weeded out and corrected.

Matt S: Thank you for the thorough response. I understand the use of the word “intent” in its broad, dictionary definition sense and, although anonymous to you, I have an academic background in exercise and physiology. My question was more to suss out the nature of “intent” in the sentence:

“After this point the intent should be to move the weight as fast as possible, although the actual speed will be anything but.”

What are the merits of moving, no, intending on moving the weight “as fast as possible” as opposed to simply moving the weight? (I understand that as the process of inroad occurs, the properly selected weight won’t actually move fast) Why the distinction? I have read this concept both in Nautilus Bulletin #1 (or was it 2?)and elsewhere in which the author’s belief was along the lines of “moving fast is essential to recruiting those fast-twitch fibers, you know, the good ones…” I was just trying to gain insight on why you stated the above. Does the intention, the cognitive aspect, on moving an appropriately heavy weight as fast, in the given exercise, as possible have a different effect on recruitment patterns, reps completed, TUL, etc, from a set wherein one focuses on just lifting the weight or even maintaining a measured speed? Would it not also be likely that if one’s intent is divided from technique towards speed of movement that there is an increased likelihood of substitution and therefore a detraction from the targeted prime mover?

I also understand the use of supporting “unbiased” information to bolster an arguement. We are all well aware that there is a presidential election, and confirmation bias in an election year is like Santa Claus is to Christmas. Maybe your intent (see, I know that word) is to only write to a HIT audience. I was just wondering, since I linked to this article from the one explaining what HIT is, if using the same handful of pro-HIT sources ultimately best serves to get the “HIT message” across. Your other article seemed to want to “clear the water” as to what HIT is (and isn’t) aimed at those uninitiated to HIT. I’m sure you get many curious non-HIT tourists who have Googled, “what is HIT?”, and arrived at your site. It seems to me that HIT, as you advocate it, is the best general approach to exercise, but is represented on the Internet as a subcultural and fractured niche in a small corner of the exercise community that may repulse those that might reap its benefits due to those that represent it – I’m sure you’re well aware of what a nightmare the Dr. Darden forum has become. They’re the voice of HIT? Scary.

I agree on keeping an open mind – but not so open your brain falls out – to new avenues in life. As I have aged, my exercise approach has deviated from a strict interpretation of HIT but that still reflects its core tenets. I also advocate experimenting on yourself to test the value of different approaches to exercise. Why take someone’s word for it? Try it out yourself. What are a few months of time trying something new in the context of your lifetime of exercise?

Anyway, thank you for indulging my impulse to write something in your comments section. I appreciate your efforts of maintaining your site with frequent updates, interesting articles, and useful information, and of presenting HIT in good light. I think your good reputation in the HIT community is well deserved.

Regards,
Matt

Drew Baye: Matt,

It makes little difference to motor recruitment whether you are actually moving fast or just intending to move fast as long as the load is appropriate and the set is performed for a long enough duration to recruit all the motor units in the muscles being worked, but it is safer to move more slowly. As long as you are trying to move as fast as you can once moving more quickly than prescribed becomes impossible you will still have recruited all the motor units in the muscles worked but minimizing acceleration reduces the risk of injury. As long as correct form is maintained you shouldn’t have substitution occurring. That’s the trick, though.

I agree with your observation about HIT appearing to be a small subculture and it is definitely fractured; there are many cliques within HIT that don’t all get along with each other and unfortunately some are outright hostile towards each other. It certainly doesn’t help the image of HIT with the rest of the fitness industry or the public in general and in many ways it’s just as cultish as CrossFit.

I like and respect Ell Darden but the less said about what has become of his forum, the better. I would love to see him break away from Biotest/T-Nation and start over with a blog format similar to this site or Doug McGuff’s and John Little’s Body by Science blog.

So, there you have it. A reasonably civil and hopefully informative discussion between HITters and CrossFitters. If you have additional questions about anything discussed here, please post them in the comments below and keep the conversation going! CrossFitters are welcome, as long as you refrain from profanity and physical threats (I had to delete hundreds of comments over the years from people angry about the original article).

The amount of force your muscles are capable of producing varies with both the type and velocity of contraction because of differences in cross-bridge mechanics and the rate at which cross-bridges can be formed. This is known as the force-velocity curve.

When you lift a weight your muscles contract concentrically, heads on the myosin filaments attach to actin filaments, bend and pull them, then release and reattach. When you hold or lower a weight your muscles contract eccentrically, the myosin heads work more like breaks, trying to hold on, then bending back, detaching and reattaching. These braking attachments are stronger, which is why you can hold or lower a much heavier weight than you can lift. A few years ago Dr. Michael Reedy of the Duke University Cell Biology department explained it to me as follows,

In a nutshell – more crossbridges attach and hang on tightly – due to to either or both causes of recruitment:

1) backbending distortion of one-headed crossbridges allows the second head of each myosin to attach, and they backwalk a few steps, smoothing the plateau of force that develops in phase 2 of ramp-stretch. (I love this idea, inspired from the Linari paper, but good evidence for it is not available yet.)

2) all weak-binding M*ADP*Pi heads of myosins that collide with backsliding actin hang on tightly to resist lengthening– and the more generous interface geometry for braking attachments by M*ADP*Pi allows more myosins to attach and evolve into brakes than are able to attach and evolve into purely isometric or shortening motors.

Much of my structural research over the next couple of years will focus on getting evidence for or against 1) and 2). We get snapshots of muscle structure by x-ray diffraction, and by 3D EM tomography of thin sections from fibers quick-frozen during mechanical actions and responses of interest.

When your muscles contract concentrically, the faster the contraction velocity the lower the force your muscles can produce because the limits of the rate of cross-bridge attachment and detatchment result in fewer attachments being formed. The graph below, adapted from Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, & Plasticity: The Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation by Richard Lieber (page 62), shows how muscle force rapidly decreases with increases in concentric contraction velocity, and how much more force your muscles can produce contracting isometrically and eccentrically.

This is part of the reason you can’t lift a heavy weight as fast as you can lift a lighter weight, and why you lift more slowly as you fatigue. This is also why it is more effective to increase the resistance and the tension on your muscles by increasing weight than by increasing velocity. Although more force is required to accelerate a weight more rapidly to increase velocity, since the faster you lift the less force you can produce you will have to use a lighter weight. By moving more slowly you can use a heavier weight, especially if you increase the relative time spent performing the much stronger eccentric portion of the repetition.

Keep in mind while the force-velocity curve, load and tension are important they are only a few of many factors which must be considered and balanced against each other. The slower you lift the more weight you can use for a given time under load, but you do so at the expense of mechanical work which appears to contribute to microtrauma. Also, although you can only lower as much weight as you lift (unless you have a person or machine assist you during the positive) the duration of the positive and its length relative to the negative also affect the load you can use since concentric contractions are more fatiguing.

For example, whether you perform five positive emphasized reps using a ten second lifting and three second lowering cadence or five negative emphasized reps using a three second lifting and ten second lowering cadence, your reps and time under load will be the same, but the negative emphasized will be easier with the same weight (this is also a good example of how mechanical definitions of work and power and even average resistance over time are poor ways of measuring what’s happening during exercise; same mechanical work, same power, same resistance, same time under load, different levels of difficulty).

Shouldn’t we be trying to make exercise harder though? Absolutely, but there are many ways to do this, and one is by manipulating your speed of movement and the relative duration of the positive and negative to increase the load you can use and the tension on the target muscles for a given time under load which increases your average intensity. Negative emphasized reps are only easier than normal or positive emphasized reps if you use the same weight. If you use a heavier weight, however, you can increase the tension without reducing your time under load, metabolic stress, or mechanical work.

Continuing with the previous example, whether you perform the positive emphasized or negative emphasized protocol if you use a weight that would allow you to achieve momentary muscular failure after the same number of reps and time under load your intensity of effort — how hard you are working relative to your momentary ability — would be one hundred percent. However, since you can use a heavier weight for negative emphasized reps the intensity of effort at the start of the exercise would be higher as would your average intensity of effort.

As a general rule, also taking into consideration safety and efficient loading, you should move at least slowly enough during exercise to be able to reverse direction smoothly, without bouncing or jerking the weight, to be able to maintain correct body positioning and/or alignment over the full range of the exercise, and to be able to focus on contracting the target muscles. If you’re not sure how slowly you need to move to do this at first, it is better to move too slowly than too quickly. However, beyond some point, moving more slowly during the positive relative to the negative can decrease the load you are capable of using. If you perform the positive too fast have to reduce the load due to the force-velocity curve. If you perform the positive too slow relative to the negative, you will have to reduce the load due to a faster rate of fatigue. Somewhere in between there is an optimum range of positive and negative cadences that provide the best balance of being able to produce a higher level of force during the positive and having a high enough ratio of negative to positive duration to allow for heavier loads and more tension without the total rep being so long the mechanical work is significantly reduced. I don’t know what this cadence might be, but I am currently experimenting with negative emphasized protocols and will be proposing a study designed to answer this question to a few people I know in research.

It is important to keep in mind I’m only speculating about the greater mechanical work increasing microtrauma, that tension also increases microtrauma, and that either way, microtrauma is only one of many factors which stimulate improvements in strength and size. While all else being equal it is plausible, I am not aware of any good evidence that more mechanical work per time, which requires a faster contraction velocity and lower load, produces more microtrauma than less mechanical work per time, with a slower contraction velocity and heavier load. The results of Ellington Darden PhD’s recent experiments with a single extremely slow negative emphasized rep, of Mike Mentzer’s and John Little’s static holds, and of Ken Hutchins’ SuperSlow and timed static contraction show little or no mechanical work is required to stimulate impressive increases in strength and size if the tension is high enough.

It is also important to keep in mind that load is not as important as tension (and it is possible to significantly increase load while reducing tension on the target muscles by limiting exercise to the portion of the range of motion where the lever against them is small), and all of this assumes you are using strict form and either training on machines with properly designed cams or performing free weight and body weight exercises in a manner resulting in relatively congruent strength and resistance curves. How you perform each repetition is far more important than how many repetitions you perform or how much weight you lift.

While it is unknown whether there is an ideal speed of movement during exercise or an ideal ratio of positive to negative speed, the force-velocity curve makes it clear that repetitions should be performed slowly, rather than quickly. From the second edition of Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, and Plasticity: The Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation by Richard Lieber page 60:

Muscles are strengthened based on the force placed across them during exercise. The force-velocity relationship of muscle indicates that high velocity movements correspond to low muscle force, and that low velocity movements correspond to high muscle force. Since strengthening requires high force-producing exercises, the velocities must, necessarily be relatively low. High velocity movements may have other beneficial effects (e.g. improve muscle activation by the nervous system), but not at the muscle tissue level. The take home message – keep velocity low for strengthening.

…page 83

It has been experimentally determined from biochemical studies that the cross-bridge connections between actin and myosin attach at a certain rate and detach at a certain rate. These rates are referred to as rate constants. At any point, the force generated by a muscle depends on the total number of cross-bridges attached. Obviously, this number represents the net balance between the number of cross-bridges attached versus detached. Because it takes a finite amount of time for cross-bridges to attach (based on the rate constant of attachment), as filaments slide past one another faster and faster (i.e., as the muscle shortens with increasing velocity), force decreases because of the lower number of cross-bridges attached. Conversely, as the relative filament velocity decreases (i.e., as muscle velocity decreases), more cross-bridges have time to attach and to generate force, and thus force increases.

…and from the fourth edition of Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications by George Brooks on page 390 it says,

As compared to lifting light loads, isotonic responses to given stimuli when lifting heavy loads results in a greater latent period, slower movement, and less movement. The effect of strength training is to make the load appear lighter. The force-velocity relationship is hyperbolic in nature. Greater loads produce slower speeds but greater tension.

I usually delete hate mail and comments containing personal attacks for the same reason I avoid arguing with idiots; the time it takes to read and respond to them could be used more productively to write articles and books that actually help people. However, some times arguing with idiots and responding to these things can be productive, because even if you can’t help them to understand or win them over, if they bring up an important topic the discussion can benefit other people who are listening or reading.

Last night, an upset and obviously confused reader submitted the comment below:

What a shame and a misleading falsehood that you never encourage people to use the best equipment available, Nautilus and medx. You are not an expert, but another shyster looking to make money without providing the truth while trying to hawk your grossly inferior equipment. You do not fool me.

Apparently he either hasn’t read much I’ve written about the subject or doesn’t understand it. I suspect what got this Nautilus “true believer” worked up was the following comment in my recent e-mail newsletter:

For those of you who asked about the squat rack, I’m still working on the modular hip belt squat/weighted chin-up and dip lever and stands and tweaking the safety spotter design but anticipate it will be in prototype by the end of summer. If you’re torn between a heavy duty squat rack, a UXS, and a Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise, but only have space for one, this is it.

I have always encouraged people to use the best equipment available to them and I have specifically recommended Nautilus, MedX, and other well-designed brands like Avenger, David Fitness and RenEx to trainers who have consulted me on equipping their personal training studio or gym. This is not always possible or practical, however, because not all gyms and training studios have these machines and many people who work out at home don’t have the space or budget for them.

Notice I didn’t say the rack was better than the Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise, but only that it is a better option “if  you only have space for one” because it allows for the performance of a greater variety of exercises.

Fortunately, your results from exercise have far more to do with how you train than what equipment you use. Many free weight and bodyweight exercises can be just as safe and effective as machine exercises when done correctly, and are usually safer and more effective than using improperly designed machines. For my articles, books and videos to be as helpful to as many people as possible, it is necessary to write about training properly using the equipment most people have access to, which is why I have focused a lot on free weight and body weight exercises in recent years. Not because I recommend them over Nautilus or MedX machines, but because they are the best option most people have.

The same goes for my UXS bodyweight multi-exercise station and the rack I am designing. While they may not be as good as many Nautilus or MedX machines for some of the individual exercises they certainly aren’t “grossly inferior”. The UXS provides the ability to perform dozens of exercises in the space of a single machine at a small fraction of the cost of a line of Nautilus or MedX, and even more will be possible with the rack. It is a far more affordable and space efficient option for a home gym or personal training studio than buying a dozen or more Nautilus or MedX machines, and the UXS does what it does very well. In fact, during the first stage of Project: Kratos clients who had previously trained on MedX machines said their workouts on the UXS felt more challenging, and one client wrote,”[it] was BY FAR the most taxing and intense workout I have completed.” The rack incorporates many features of the UXS and is being designed in response to requests from customers for a rack attachment. If you want both it makes more sense to design the bodyweight exercise station around a rack than the other way around.

If you’ve got forty to fifty thousand dollars to spend on a line of Nautilus or MedX machines and the space for them I highly recommend them. I have used and trained people on both and they’re great machines. However, if you have a very small budget or limited space  a UXS and/or a basic rack and free weight set-up will allow you to safely and effectively perform a variety of exercises for all the major muscle groups.

If you’re buying equipment for a home gym or training studio, don’t forget to check with an architect to determine the live load the floors were designed to support where you plan to place the equipment. You shouldn’t have any problem if you are placing them on a concrete slab in your garage or basement, but most residential flooring is only designed to handle a live load of around forty pounds per square foot, and will not support the weight of most commercial exercise machines. Also, if you are planning to put machines in your basement you need to consider the load your stairs were designed to handle and break the equipment down into light enough parts to move without causing damage.

I guarantee if you took a thousand people and trained all of them using the exact same methods but randomly divided them into one group that only used machines and another that only used free weights, there would be no significant difference in the average strength and size gains between them, and you couldn’t can tell by looking at them which they used. Properly designed machines are great, and there are advantages to using them, but in the long run, again, how you train is far more important than what equipment you use.

As for the question of my expertise, an expert is someone who has comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. I’ve been training and consulting for people professionally for over twenty years, and have worked with and learned from some of the most knowledgeable people in the field, and am highly regarded by many recognized experts in high intensity training, including the late Mike Mentzer who referred to me along with Doug McGuff and Greg Anderson as “leading HIT theorists”, John Little, who said, “Drew Baye is without question one of the premiere personal trainers in the world. His knowledge of exercise science and its application to one’s personal fitness goals and aspirations is exceptional in the health and fitness industry”, Doug McGuff who thanked me and Ellington Darden in the acknowledgements of Body by Science for “[our] excellent web sites and writings”, and Ellington Darden, PhD, who included a chapter I wrote in his book The New Bodybuilding For Old School Results. I don’t claim to be the most knowledgeable or skilled trainer or writer in the world, but I’ve helped thousands of people get stronger, leaner, and better conditioned through my one-on-one training and writing, so I’m pretty sure I know what I’m doing.

Of course I am looking to earn money teaching and writing about exercise, but I do so by providing people with honest information and products and services which are of value to them. My commitment to this has actually cost me a lot of money over the years. I turn down tens of thousands of dollars of potential yearly advertising revenue because I refuse to sell ad space or links to web sites with questionable or fraudulent information, products, or services. I quit my job as the director of education for a national personal training when it became obvious they were compromising the standards for instructor certification and didn’t care, and due to the CEO’s unethical behavior. I gave away hundreds of dollars worth of consultations to people who took a particular certification I was recommending to make up for the mistake when I later found out their testing standards were practically non-existant. When I started taking prescription drugs that increase testosterone I announced it publicly rather claiming recent muscle gains and fat loss are due entirely to training and diet, like many others do. Also, unlike some other trainers I know, I have continued to teach high intensity training rather than go along with many more profitable but less safe and effective trends like boot-camps and CrossFit. If I only cared about money and not about the truth, I’d have a lot more of it than I do. I don’t, because my integrity is more important to me than the money.

Question: I can do a lot of bench dips, but I can’t do one on the parallel bars. I would also like to be able to do pull-ups, but can barely do one. I work out at home and do not have a pulldown or dip machine or an assisted pull-up and dip machine, just a power rack with a pull-up bar and a dip attachment. What can I do to work up to being able to do these exercises?

Answer: There are two things you can do to improve your ability to perform these and other bodyweight exercises. The first is to strengthen the muscles involved using other exercises and modifying the exercise to make it easier. The second is to decrease the amount of weight you have to lift, either with assistance from other muscle groups, using elastic bands, or by losing body fat unless you are already very lean.

To strengthen the muscles you use to perform parallel bar dips you can perform push-ups, bench presses, chest flys and lying triceps extensions. To strengthen the muscles you use to perform pull-ups you can perform bodyweight rows using a waist-high bar, bent over rows, pullovers, and arm curls.

I recommend starting with chin-ups (shoulder-width underhand grip) rather than pull-ups (wide overhand grip). A closer, underhand grip puts your biceps in a stronger position and involves other muscle groups like your chest and rear delts more, making the exercise easier. This also makes the chin-up (and close, underhand grip pulldown) a better choice for building strength in general than the pull-up (and wide, overhand or parallel grip pulldown) which isolates the lats more.

There are three ways you can make dips and chin-ups easier while working up to doing them normally. The first and simplest is to place a bench, stool, or step ladder below you and use your legs for assistance. Provide as little assistance with your legs as required to perform the lifting phase or “positive” of each repetition, then try to perform the lowering phase or “negative” with no assistance from your legs.

Performing these exercises with assistance from your legs is much safer than using an elastic band to reduce the amount of weight you lift since there is no risk of the band slipping or breaking and striking you. Unlike bands, which provide progressively less assistance as you go higher, you can provide as much or little assistance with your legs as you require over the full range of motion.

You can also perform negative-only repetitions, performing all of the positive work with your legs, carefully handing off your weight from your legs to your arms while holding yourself motionless at the top or “end point” of your range of motion, then very slowly lowering yourself with your arms, attempting to take a full ten seconds to perform the negative. If you do this, be very careful not to jump up during the positive or shift the weight from your legs to your arms too quickly, and stop when you are not able to hold yourself motionless at the end point when handing off or able perform the negative slowly enough to take at least five or six seconds.

Another way to make these easier is to reduce the range of motion, only performing the easier top half of the dip and bottom half of the chin-up. Gradually increase the range as you become stronger until you are performing full-range repetitions. If you still need to make it easier you can stop and rest for a few seconds between reps. This is called rest-pause training. Gradually reduce the rest time as you become stronger until you are performing the repetitions continuously.

You should perform these at the beginning of your workouts, starting with the one you have the most difficulty with, or after starting with a leg exercise like barbell or bodyweight squats.

To learn more about how to perform chin-ups, pull-ups, and dips and how to reduce or increase the difficulty of these and other bodyweight exercises read Project Kratos: Bodyweight High Intensity Training Program Handbook and watch my bodyweight high intensity training discussion and demo video.

While skill and tactics are the most important factors in surviving a gun fight, being stronger and better conditioned gives you several advantages which can mean the difference between being a survivor and a statistic. The stronger you are in general, the better and more quickly you will be able to move, the more stable your shooting platform will be regardless of your stance or position, and the more accurately you will be able to shoot whether standing, crouching, kneeling, prone, on your back or side, or whatever the terrain and available cover and concealment requires. The better your cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, the less your accuracy and mobility will be compromised by fatigue.

While it is important for any strength training program to provide balanced work for all the major muscle groups, shooters should pay special attention to their shoulders, arms, forearms and grip. Increasing your arm and shoulder strength increases shoulder stability reducing felt recoil and improving recoil management, especially when using pistols which are usually fired with the arms extended without the benefit of a shoulder stock for added stability. Increasing your grip and forearm strength improves your control and and helps prevent “limp wrist” malfunctions like stovepipe jams, failure to return to battery, and failure to chamber a round when using an automatic pistol.

Most people who work out train their arms and shoulders, but the forearms and grip often get neglected. This is unfortunate, because in addition to the specific benefits to shooting a strong grip and forearms allows you to better apply the strength of your other muscles to tasks which require gripping or holding things for lifting, carrying, pulling, or climbing, and using sports implements and heavy tools.

For general grip and forearm strengthening, the best exercises are gripping, wrist curls, wrist extensions, and reverse (overhand grip) arm curls with a thick bar, but to improve grip and forearm strength specifically for shooting I recommend also performing wrist adduction or ulnar deviation and wrist abduction or radial deviation.

Of the various types of grip strength you can train for, crushing strength is the most important for shooting. Crushing grip strength can be worked using using torsion spring grippers like the Captains of Crush and extension spring grippers like the Ivanko Super Gripper, or a plate loaded gripping machine if your gym has one. I do not recommend the type of torsion spring grippers commonly sold in sporting goods stores, as these tend to provide too little resistance to be used effectively by a man with even average grip strength. They’re fine for children or women just starting out, but most men will need a gripper that is much harder to close, ideally hard enough that you are only able to complete between six and ten strict repetitions.

If you don’t have a gripper you can work your crushing strength with static holds using a thick bar or thick handled cable attachment (static holds using a regular-diameter bar improves support strength rather than crushing strength) or simultaneously work your crushing and wrist extension strength performing thick bar reverse curls. If you don’t have one of these you can inexpensively convert regular bars into thick bars using products like Fat Gripz which fit over the bar increasing the gripping diameter.

I recommend also using thick bars for wrist curls and extensions, since reducing the finger flexion required to grip the bar improves your range of motion by preventing insufficiency of the pollicis longus, flexor digitorum superficialis, and flexor digitorum profundus during flexion (active) and extension (passive), since these muscles flex both your fingers and your wrists.

Because the axes your wrists flex and extend around are not perpendicular to your forearms, for optimal wrist alignment when using a barbell your wrists should be slightly wider than your elbows during wrist curls and slightly narrower than your elbows during wrist extensions. This positioning is not necessary when using dumbbells, since they allow your wrists to flex and extend independently in different planes.

Ulnar deviation (bending your wrist in the direction of your little finger) and radial deviation (bending your wrist in the direction of your thumb) is often performed using a sledge hammer, but you can also use an adjustable dumbbell with weight added to one side, or any handle with an end that can be attached to a cable or band.

If using a sledge hammer, as you get stronger you can increase the resistance by increasing the distance between your grip and the head of the hammer. If you do this I recommend adding lines to the length of the handle about one inch apart using pin striping or paint for precise positioning and progression.

To perform ulnar deviation hold the handle by your side with the weight behind your hand. Slowly bend your wrist back to raise the weight. If you’re using a sledge hammer start out by gripping the handle only a few inches from the weight, test the difficulty. If it isn’t at least moderately hard to lift, move your grip a little further away and test again. Continue until the weight feels heavy enough that you will only be able to complete a moderate number of repetitions. If you’re using a dumbbell or a handle attached to a cable or band, start with a moderate weight, test, and increase if necessary.

To perform radial deviation hold the handle by your side with the weight in front of your hand. Slowly bend your wrist forward to raise the weight. Adjust your grip if using a sledgehammer or the weight if using a dumbbell or handle attached to a cable or band until the weight feels challenging enough.

Since your grip and forearms get a lot of work during other exercises, especially heavy pulling movements like deadlifts, barbell rows, pulldowns, and weighted chin-ups, and since there is a lot of overlap in the muscles involved in each of these exercises, you don’t need to do all of them every time you train. Instead, alternate between performing the following two sequences at the end of your workouts:

A:

1. Wrist extension
2. Wrist curl
3. Gripping

B:

1. Ulnar deviation
2. Radial deviation
3. Thick bar reverse curl

The following is an example of how these grip and forearm specialization sequences can be combined with a basic full-body A/B routine. Lift and lower the weight under strict control, completing as many repetitions as possible in good form. Perform one set of each exercise using a weight that allows you to get between six and ten strict reps, and increase the weight by five pounds or five percent — whichever is smaller — whenever you are able to perform ten or more in good form. Allow no more than two minutes of rest between exercises and try to reduce this time as your conditioning improves to increase the cardiovascular and metabolic demands of the workout. Work out only two or three non-consecutive days per week to allow your body adequate time between workouts to recover and adapt. If you train with a high enough level of effort this is as much as you need. Use the other days to practice at the range or perform dry fire drills at home.

Workout A:

1. Squat or Leg Press
2. Chin-up or Underhand-grip Pulldown
3. Chest Press
4. Overhand or Parallel-grip Row
5. Shoulder Press
6. Stiff-leg Deadlift or Trunk Extension
7. Neck Extension
8. Neck Flexion
9. Wrist extension
10. Wrist curl
11. Gripping

Workout B:

1. Deadlift
2. Parallel Bar Dip
3. Parallel-Grip Pull-up or Wide-grip Pulldown
4. Incline Chest Press
5. Underhand-grip Row
6. Heel Raise
7. Weighted Crunch or Abdominal Machine
8. Ulnar deviation
9. Radial deviation
10. Thick bar reverse curl