I’m about to leave for a weekend at the beach for our fifth wedding anniversary, so I’m going to keep this brief.  There are just a few comments I want to make while they’re on my mind.

Someone recently asked about a “sports specific” workout. A good workout for an athlete is one that safely and effectively works all the major muscle groups in the body, with the highest priority increasing the athlete’s resistance to injury during practice and competition. This does not mean doing a bunch of plyometrics and Olympic lifts and so-called “functional” exercises that mimic the skills of the sport while using weights or weighted implements. What it does mean is performing exercises for all the major muscle groups based on muscle and joint function, not sport movements, in a manner that strengthens without being unnecessarily hard on the joints. Additionally, it means performing exercises specifically to strengthen the areas of the body most often injured to minimize the chance or severity of injury to those areas. Direct neck work for athletes in contact sports, knee extension and flexion for runners, etc.

While we’re on the topic of knee flexion, properly designed seated leg curl machines (with a coupled movement arm) are better than prone leg curl machines for several reasons. Earlier leg curl machine designs used a prone body position because they were based on the designs of leg extension and leg curl attachments developed for flat benches. The seated position for later knee extension machines was obvious since this was the position they were performed in on the bench, but rather than design knee flexion machines based on joint function, earlier machines just copied the exercise as performed with the equipment already available.

A prone leg curl is superior to an improperly designed seated leg curl machine, however (just about every leg curl machine other than Nautilus, MedX, and SuperSlow Systems). The worst seated leg curl designs incorporate a pad which presses down on the top of the thighs, often with handles for the user to hold to brace against being pulled forwards. This is a very poor method of countering the changing reactionary force over the range of the exercise, and these designs typically have a seat bottom which extends all the way to the back of the knees rather than ending just a little past the ischial tuberosities of the pelvis (the “sit” bones), which means not only are you sitting on the muscles you are attempting to contract, but you also have a restraining pad pushing the thighs down into the seat.

On a prone leg curl machine the weight of the thighs is on the quadriceps, not the hamstrings which you are trying to contract, which is a big improvement.

A properly designed seated leg curl also has the advantage of easier entry and exit and with the coupled movement arm reactionary force is countered without the need for the user to pull (prone designs) or push (seated designs with thigh pads and handles) with the arms to maintain proper positioning and alignment. It is also easier for people to learn the exercise when the movement is occurring in front of them (Ken Hutchins’ heirarchy of motor learning difficulty).

The optimal seat design for the leg curl is very different than what is optimal for a leg extension, which is also a big problem for companies which make “combo” machines providing both functions. The Exerbotics leg curl is a great example of how not to design a leg curl machine:

1. A thigh restraint with handles is a very poor solution for countering reactionary force and maintaining proper positioning and alignment during seated leg curls. The Exerbotics machine uses a thigh restraint with handles instead of a coupled movement arm (which can be designed to work in both flexion and extension with a simple position change).

2. The seat bottom should only extend far enough to provide support for the pelvis so the user is not sitting on the hamstrings while trying to contract them. The thigh restraint pressing down on the thighs makes this even worse. The Exerbotics seat bottom extends too far.

3. A seat belt is required for optimal countering of reactionary force during leg extensions while minimizing tension in the neck and shoulders from pulling up on the handles, and also a better solution for countering forwards reactionary force along with a coupled movement arm during seated leg curls. The Exerbotics machine has no seat belt.

Although the point isn’t to bash Exerbotics specifically, since most equipment companies get this stuff wrong, I should point out in addition to the problems related to using motorized resistance the rest of Exerbotic’s machine designs contain numerous flaws.

On a related topic, one of the other considerations of machine design is avoiding positions of active or passive muscular insufficiency – something Arthur Jones was actually trying to do in the design of the early Nautilus compound biceps and triceps machines. Although I much prefer triceps extensions and arm curl machine designs which position the upper arms at around 90 degrees of shoulder flexion, those machines certainly produce an intense sensation when used correctly. Jim Flanagan put me through a set on the Nautilus compound triceps and biceps machines (pictured above, with Jim Keen in the compound triceps machine, and the compound biceps machine to his right) and shortly afterwards I did a set of weighted dips and weighted chin ups and the effect was impressive. The pump was almost uncomfortable and my arms still feel “heavy” almost 24 hours after the workout.

Have to head out to the beach so that’s all for now, but there’ll be more on this later.

Over the past few years the concept of “paleo” or “evolutionary” eating has been gaining popularity. Not surprisingly, various “experts” have popped up with blogs, books and programs based on the concept; some good, some not, some nuts, and many with totally different takes on it. Unfortunately, this has caused confusion for people interested in learning more about it, and some of the more absurd takes on it have provided mainstream detractors with fodder for criticism and straw-man arguments.

The general principle, that we should eat in accordance with our evolution, is correct. This does not, however, mean we need to eschew all modern fruits and vegetables (the results of thousands of generations of selective breeding bearing little resemblance to what our paleolithic ancestors ate) or dairy (some cultures have been herding for thousands of years and consuming dairy long enough to have adapted to it) or start eating insects and grubs (however nutritious) or eat all of our meat raw (our ancestors have been cooking food for over 200,000 years).

The goal of “paleo” or “evolutionary” eating is not to replicate the exact diets of our pre-agricultural ancestors, but the general nutritional make-up and resulting energy intakes.

Keep in mind the actual diets of our ancestors varied between regions and seasons as well as over time, depending on the environment, and that we have evolved to opportunistic omnivores and can thrive on a wide variety of foods. Additionally, what and how much of it you should eat (or not eat) will depend on your genetic make-up, general activity levels and goals.

My opinion on this is what we do not eat is more important than the specifics of what we do, and our health and fitness would be most improved by reducing intake of what Kurt Harris refers to as “neolithic agents of disease”. Namely, grains, legumes, excessive sugar, and excessive linoleic acid (omega-6 fatty acids). I discuss the reasons for this in Opinions On Nutrition.

Paleo Exercise?

Similarly, it has become popular for some trainers to claim exercise should replicate the physical challenges our paleolithic ancestors faced, and recommend things like climbing trees, jumping off of rocks, and running around barefoot through the woods as exercise. They argue our ancestors never had to hunt down and kill a barbell or defend themselves against a hungry Nautilus machine thus these things are “unnatural” and not optimal for improving health or fitness. While all of these things can have an exercise effect, and I am a fan of being barefoot, the same principle applies to exercise as nutrition.

The goal of a proper exercise program is not to replicate the exact physical challenges our paleolithic ancestors faced, but to expose the body to the same general physiological demands of those challenges while minimizing the risk of injury and factors which would undermine long term health.

Just because anthropologists will never discover a cave full of barbells or a 200,000 year old Nautilus machine does not mean training with them is somehow “unnatural” or at odds with our evolution. When used properly these tools are capable of producing the same general physical stresses that stimulated increased muscular strength and endurance, metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning, improved flexibility, improved resistance to injury, etc. in our ancestors, and that is the goal of exercise.

In a way, the “paleo reenactment” trend is similar to the “functional training” trend as they are both based on misunderstanding of specificity and transfer of strength and other factors of fitness. It is not necessary to replicate or mimic an activity during exercise for an exercise to improve one’s ability to perform that specific activity, and it isn’t necessary to replicate or mimic the exact physical challenges our ancestors faced for our bodies to be stimulated to improve general factors of physical fitness. While the skills involved are specific, the general factors of functional ability—muscular strength and endurance, metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility, etc.—will transfer between any activities. Improvements in fitness from training with barbells or machines will transfer to any other physical activity. The only thing that will not transfer to everything else is the specific skills.

If you enjoy running, jumping, climbing, etc., by all means do so. Play is also an important part of overall physical and mental well-being. However, if your goal is optimal exercise you have to consider both the requirements for effectively stimulating the desired physical improvements and the requirements for minimizing the undesired factors like injury or excessive wear or stresses that can lead to a loss of functional ability or undermine health later in life.

In the comments following a previous post about negative emphasized repetitions someone brought up that Ryan Hall debunked the inroad theory of growth stimulation and there was a request for his comments on this. I asked and received permission from Ryan to share something he wrote about this previously, which follows.

I will be interviewing Ryan on this topic next week, so if you have questions about this please post them in the comments section below. I will not be addressing the questions in the comments section here, but they will be included in my interview with Ryan which will be posted next week.

Ryan Wrote,

As you and I have discussed on the phone before, the concept of inroad is extremely flawed and not indicative of what is actually occurring physiologically.  I wish I could take a shot-gun and blow the concept of inroad away, but I guess the written word accompanied by supporting data will have to suffice.  Concentric failure or short term muscle fatigue is not necessarily indicative of microtrauma / long term force decrement, as evidenced by the following studies:

Development of T-tubular vacuoles in eccentrically damaged mouse muscle fibres
Ella W. Yeung, Christopher D. Balnave, Heather J. Ballard, J.-P. Bourreau and David G. Allen
Journal of Physiology(2002), 540.2, pp.581–592

Vacuole formation in fatigued skeletal muscle fibres from frog and mouse: effects of extracellular lactate
Jan Lannergren, Joseph D. Bruton and Hakan Westerblad
Journal of Physiology (2000), 526.3, pp. 597—611 597

Stretch-activated ion channels contribute to membrane depolarization after eccentric contractions
Todd A. McBride, Bradley W. Stockert, Fredric A. Gorin, and Richard C. Carlsen
Appl. Physiol. 88: 91 – 101, 2000.

Uncoupling of in vivo torque production from EMG in mouse muscles injured by eccentric contractions
Gordon L. Warren, Christopher P. Ingalls, Shree J. Shah and R. B. Armstrong
Journal of Physiology (1999), 515.2, pp. 609—619

In isolated muscle fiber studies and animal models, non fatiguing eccentric protocols produced significant and extended force decrements over fatiguing isometric protocols.  In many cases, force production in the isometric groups returned to pre-stimulus values within hours, even though the muscles were stimulated to the point where force production was no longer possible (complete short term fatigue).  Whereas in the eccentric groups, force production did not reach pre-stimulus values for a much longer time interval (10-14 days).  In the McBride et al study (2000) the lower repetition eccentric group experienced a longer force decrement (14 days) as compared to the higher eccentric repetition group (10 days).  Although, this was likely due to the intensity (tension) and not necessarily the repetition number (greater tension requiring a lower repetition number).

Warren et al (1999) showed the following:

“Peak torque declined by 43% from the first to the last contraction in the ECC protocol, whereas peak torque did not change significantly during the CON protocol. Immediately after the ECC protocol, isometric torques were significantly decreased at all stimulation frequencies with the greatest relative deficits (i.e. 83—-89 %) occurring at stimulation frequencies ≤ 125 Hz (Fig. 3); at stimulation frequencies ≥ 250 Hz, the percentage decreases in isometric torque were 47-—49 %. In the 14 days following the ECC protocol, isometric torque showed a progressive recovery, but even at 14 days post-protocol, torques at all stimulation frequencies were lower than baseline levels by 12—-30 %. Immediately after the CON protocol, isometric torques measured at stimulation frequencies ≥ 250 Hz were increased by 5—-7% while torques at ≤ 100 Hz were decreased by 18—-25% (Fig. 3). Isometric torques measured at all stimulation frequencies were not different from baseline levels 1 day after the CON protocol and did not change until 14 days after the CON protocol. Fourteen days after the CON protocol, isometric torques measured at stimulation frequencies ≥ 125 Hz were significantly greater than baseline levels by 10—-11 %.”

See also:

Topical ReviewMuscle damage from eccentric exercise: mechanism, mechanical signs, adaptation and clinical applications
U. Proske and D. L. Morgan
Journal of Physiology(2001), 537.2, pp.333–-345

These studies demonstrate that the concept of “inroad” is flawed.  We are dealing with two different physiological phenomena.  The first is short term muscle fatigue / force decrement due to metabolic perturbations, substrate depletion, and possibly short term changes in the t-tubules.  The second is long term force decrement resulting from damage to the contractile and non-contractile cytoskeletal proteins, plasma membrane, and longer term changes in the t-tubules (such as the formation of vacuoles) accompanied by other disruptions in the E-C coupling system distal to the neuromuscular junction.

I had a great workout earlier, so good I ended up needing a bit of floor time before I was able to train my wife (who cheerfully snapped photos of me laying exhausted on the floor):

1. MedX Neck Extension
2. MedX Neck Flexion
3. Stiff Leg Deadlifts on the Nautilus XPLoad
4. Weighted Dips on the Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise
5. Weighted Chin Ups on the Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise
6. MedX Leg Press
7. MedX Shoulder Press
8. MedX Row
9. Calf Raise on the Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise

All of the exercises were performed using a negative emphasized protocol, except the calf raise which was performed in a negative accentuated manner. Negative emphasized reps are something I talked about with Ryan Hall several years ago, and and am revisiting because he reminded me of it in a recent phone conversation, and shared some compelling reasons for giving it a try. I also discussed the method a while back with Wayne Westcott, who did a study comparing negative emphasized repetitions and other advanced high intensity techniques and wrote about it in Building Strength and Stamina (Chapter 5: High Intensity Strength Training).

Westcott compared the effectiveness of several advanced high intensity training techniques with experienced trainees who had plateaued rather than previously untrained subjects like most strength training studies, and found negative emphasized repetitions beat all the rest. The negative emphasized group experienced the greatest increases in strength over a six week period, compared with the standard Nautilus 2/4 protocol, breakdowns, assisted reps, and SuperSlow.

Negative emphasized reps consist of a moderately-slow three second positive, followed by a very-slow ten second negative, with emphasis on very controlled turnarounds due to the ability to handle heavier weights. Surprisingly, during a previous negative emphasized workout while performing the MedX shoulder press  I encountered the “runaway negative” discussed on the Renaissance Exercise web site earlier this year, as an indicator of highly efficient inroad (which their protocol emphasizes). This shows despite emphasizing load and muscular tension over metabolic stress, the negative emphasized protocol still produces fast enough fatigue (most likely due to greater microtrauma) to overwhelm the relatively higher and more slowly-reduced negative strength.

It’s important to mention that fatigue or “inroad” is about more than metabolic stress. Microtrauma, which is achieved more effectively with higher loads, also contributes to fatigue by reducing the cross bridges that can be formed and even the number of muscle fibers able to contribute to force production. This is something I’ll be covering in more detail later.

I usually perform between seven and ten repetitions, taking around 8 seconds per rep (three to lift, three to lower, plus turnarounds or a “squeeze technique” on simple and compound pulling movements), so to maintain a relatively consistent time under load I’m using a range of three to five with the negative emphasized repetitions.

In a way, this negative emphasized protocol is a reversal of Ken Hutchins’ original guidelines for SuperSlow training which appear in chapter 9 of The Nautilus Advanced Bodybuilding Book by Ellington Darden. At that time (early 1980’s) Hutchins’ recommended a time under load of thirty to seventy seconds (two to five repetitions) using a ten-second positive positive movement and a four-second negative.

While the guidelines for SuperSlow training were meant to optimize fatigue by emphasizing the more metabolically-demanding positive while keeping the duration of the stronger and less metabolically-demanding negative shorter (in part due to the unloading caused by excessive friction in earlier machines), negative emphasized repetitions optimize the other important elements in stimulating muscular strength and size gains: tension and microtrauma.

This doesn’t mean negative emphasized repetitions don’t also have a considerable metabolic effect. Performed with an adequately heavy weight and relatively short rest intervals between exercises, the protocol is just as effective for metabolic conditioning as any other method performed for that purpose.

Since it is possible to handle more weight due to both the longer negative and fewer reps per time it is even more important to maintain strict form during the turnarounds, especially the lower one.

When teaching new clients turnaround technique, I tell them to approach the start and end points of the exercise as they would a stop sign while driving. You don’t wait ’til you get to the sign to slam on the breaks, then slam gas pedal and blast off through the intersection. You gradually slow to a stop, then gradually accelerate. Do the same during an exercise; anticipate the start or end point and gradually slow to a stop so that you are barely moving when you reach it, then barely start moving in the other direction and gradually accelerate to a controlled speed.

Think smooth, continuous, controlled. Proper exercise form resembles the slow, flowing movements of Tai Chi Chuan hand forms, not the quick, rapid movements of boxing drills.

After a few negative emphasized workouts you’ll get a feel for when you’ve only capable of one more negative, and when you reach that point you should perform the final negative as slowly as possible.

Although you are attempting to move extremely slowly, at some point you will be contracting as hard as you can just to maintain a controlled speed. When this happens you should be trying to reverse the direction of movement rather than just slow it down. You won’t be able to, but I’ve found  it makes a big difference to think about trying to reverse it rather than thinking about just trying to slow it down.

Even if using equipment or performing free weight exercises in a manner providing a resistance curve congruent with your strength curve, which would normally result in failure occurring randomly over the range of motion of the positive, failure seems to most frequently occur around the start point with this protocol, especially if the final negative is performed as I described.

Considering you’re much stronger during the negative than the positive if you can’t reverse the movement during the negative you can be pretty sure you’re not going to be able to lift the weight again, unless the resistance curve is off and the start is too light. If that’s the case and you do fail at some point during the positive, just because you’ve reached positive failure doesn’t mean the exercise is over and you should just set down the weight.

If failure occurs at some point during the positive, continue to contract as intensely as possible, but do not alter your positioning or alignment or sacrifice form in any way for the sake of completing the rep. Just continue to contract as intensely as possible for as long as you can. If the weight selection was correct, this shouldn’t be long, and after a short period it should take everything you’ve got to slow down the negative as described above.

Every couple of years Bo Railey, founder of Exercise Inc. in Indianapolis, hosts a seminar on high intensity training. Each of Bo’s seminars has had a great line up of speakers and topics but this years has been one of the best.

Unfortunately, one of my favorite speakers from previous HIT seminars, Ryan Hall, was unable to attend. Although I was disappointed I would not hear his presentation or get to hang out with him at this year’s seminar, I was honored Bo asked me to stand in for Ryan as the first speaker of the day. I was a little overwhelmed at first because although I’ve done a lot of speaking before this is the HIT seminar. That, and since the line-up change was somewhat last minute my presentation was entirely extemporaneous.

Rather than talk about exercise performance, program design, nutrition, or any of the usual topics I decided to talk about teaching exercise. The presentation seemed to go pretty well and I took questions throughout rather than at the end, which was probably a good idea since once I got warmed up I probably could have talked for half the day.

Tony Scelzo gave a phenomenal talk about marketing and how to build and leverage strategic relationships to generate more referrals, including how to better identify your market, lead generation and conversion, creating long term value, and making more effective use of social media. If you’re a business owner or sales person in any field I highly recommend checking out his blog, tonyscelzo.com

Bill DeSimone was up next, and discussed the biomechanics of the spine and other joints and applications for various exercises. More specifically, Bill focused on the importance of and how to maximize the effectiveness of an exercise for the targeted muscles while avoiding potentially harmful forces so one can continue to train productively throughout their life.

After Bill’s presentation we took a break for lunch, and I spent some time talking with seminar attendees. As much as I enjoy and learn from all of the presentations, one of things I like most about these events is the chance to talk with the other speakers, trainers and “HITers” from all over the country. I wish everyone could have stayed a few more days because there were so many people I didn’t get a chance to talk to and I would have liked to have spent more time with everyone I did speak with before and after the seminar. In addition to being a great opportunity to improve your knowledge and skills as both a trainer and in business Bo’s HIT seminars are a great place to meet, socialize and network with some of the best trainers in the world. It doesn’t hurt that Indianapolis has some great restaurants as well.

Lunch was followed by a great presentation by Danny O’Malia on customer service and how to motivate your employees to give it if you’re a business owner. Interestingly, one of the things Danny talked about was examples of South West Airlines’ great customer service, and Sunday morning at the airport I noticed while South West Airlines’ ticket line was pretty long, United Airlines barely had a line. Like the other speakers, Danny shared some great information, illustrative anecdotes, and most importantly practical advice for putting it all together and building a culture of customer service in your business.

After Danny’s presentation, Vee Ferguson from Exercise Inc put seminar co-host Stephanie Railey through a demonstration high intensity workout. Unlike most of what passes for training in most gyms and what is typical of high intensity training workouts on youtube and many bodybuilding web sites, the workout was a display of both expert instructional ability by Vee and a highly skilled performance by Stephanie, who demonstrated the intensity of training that has kept her in great physical condition well into her third trimester.

Before the final presentations by Mark Sisson and Doug McGuff, MD, one of the clients from Exercise Inc shared how their life was transformed by their program. Despite having followed what he believed to be a healthy, vegetarian diet and performing lots of “cardio” for years he was in the worst shape and health of his life. He talked about how Exercise Inc helped him lose all the fat he gained while becoming stronger and better condition, using the dietary guidelines from Mark Sisson’s Primal Blueprint, and the slow, high intensity training described in Doug McGuff and John Little’s book Body by Science.

This was a great lead in to Mark Sisson’s presentation, as Mark also shared his experience with the health problems and injuries resulting from his high carb diet and high volume endurance training that led him to investigate and develop his Primal Blueprint diet and training guidelines.

Mark explained how fat is our body’s preferred fuel source and the consequences for health and fitness of consuming excessive carbohydrate in general, and grain and simple sugars in particular. He also covered eating strategies for optimizing body composition and athletic performance, including the advice that endurance athletes “train low carb, compete high”, and how being better adapted to using fat for fuel would give them an advantage in endurance competition compared to athletes that were “sugar adapted”, since they’d start out with similar glycogen stores, but the more efficient fat metabolism would allow them to perform better after muscle glycogen stores were depleted.

Mark also talked about how primal eating and intermittent fasting were complimentary, explaining how being better adapted to using fat as fuel would allow your body to more efficiently access your fat stores during a fast.

Doug McGuff’s presentation included the science behind Mark’s eating strategies, explaining what happens at the cellular level with excessive carbohydrate consumption versus a healthy intake (which is much lower than the typical American diet) and how it affects fat gain or loss and overall health. Doug then discussed how high intensity strength training complements a proper diet and is the most effective approach for improving body composition.

Afterwards, we all hung out with the seminar attendees and answered more questions and I had the opportunity to spend some time catching up with Jeff Turner before heading out to dinner with Bo and Stephanie Railey and the other speakers, as well as Chad Morris and Matt Hedman.

Thanks again to Bo and Stephanie and to all the other speakers for making this year’s HIT seminar such an incredible event, and thanks to everyone who attended!

If exercise is performed with a sufficiently high level of effort very little volume is required to stimulate the maximum possible improvements in fitness and functional ability. Although the optimum training volume varies between individuals based on genetics and other factors, on average it is far below what most people believe is necessary and what they are told by the mainstream fitness media and most personal trainers and “experts”. Compared to what most people believe is necessary for an effective workout the high intensity training workouts I recommend are very brief.

During a recorded phone discussion with several HIT trainers host Dave Durell asked us about how clients respond to the very brief workouts we have them do when most people believe results are proportional to the time invested and usually expect hour long workouts, especially more advanced clients who may only do a few exercises per workout. My favorite response was from Dave Mastorakis, who said he tells clients they pay him for results, not his time. I would go a step further and say the client is paying to get better results with less training time. The reduced time required is one of the benefits of a proper exercise program.

To understand this it is important to keep in mind the workout does not directly produce any improvements in fitness. If properly performed the workout stimulates the body to produce the improvements. How effectively exercise does this is directly proportional to the intensity of the workout rather than the volume of exercise performed or time spent working out.

The body then requires adequate time between workouts to produce the improvements the workout stimulated. If too much exercise is performed over a period of time the stress on the body will exceed what it is capable of recovering from and adapting to, and if the body isn’t allowed adequate time between workouts the process of recovery and adaptation will be interrupted. The optimum training frequency also varies between individuals based on genetics, diet, sleep and other factors, but like workout volume it is also far below what most people believe is necessary.

It is also important to make a clear distinction between exercise and recreation. Keep in mind what we are selling as trainers is not the process or experience of working out, but the physical changes the client wants. We are health professionals and educators, not entertainers.

When you pay to see a concert, movie or sporting event you are paying for the experience, and you expect to be entertained for a certain period of time. If the band only played half an hour or if the movie were edited down to half it’s advertised length or if one of the teams or competitors forfeit after only a short period of play you’d feel ripped off.

However, if your dentist told you a procedure you required was only going to take half as long as expected, or the auto body shop told you your car was ready several days earlier than estimated, or if your physical therapist said you only need to spend half as much weekly time in therapy to regain function you would be happy.

Although some people enjoy the process of working out or experience legitimate benefits from time spent exercising like stress relief, if questioned the majority of people who buy personal training would tell you what they really want is a change in their body. Most want to look better, feel better, and perform better.

A properly performed high intensity training program will produce results that are equal to or better than what is possible with typical, higher volume exercise programs in a small fraction of the time and with far less frequency. Most high intensity training programs consist of only two or three weekly workouts requiring less than thirty minutes to complete, and some trainees get better results working out for as little as ten to fifteen minutes once weekly or less.

This efficiency benefits both clients and trainers.

By giving clients the results they want with a smaller time investment you are giving them more time to spend with family or friends, pursue other interests or earn money. Shorter sessions also mean you can train at least twice as many clients per day as trainers who schedule by the hour, increasing your potential income, or if you prefer you can make roughly the same amount of money working half as long. Less frequent training is also more affordable for a larger number of people, which significantly increases your potential market.

Some trainers try to earn more by working with more than one client at a time. While this is more efficient for and increases the potential income of the trainer it does so at the expense of the quality of instruction clients receive and the effectiveness of their workouts. Many personal trainers who do this don’t actually train their clients so much as they direct their workouts. They tell them which exercises to do, how many reps, etc. but with their attention divided between two or more people they are not providing the kind of detailed instruction clients should expect when they pay for training.

During the initial consultation, I use the sun tan analogy to explain the need for brief, infrequent workouts to new clients.

The Sun Tan Analogy

Exercise is a type of stress we apply to the body to stimulate an adaptive response. The key word being “stimulate”. Exercise does not directly produce any improvements in the body, it stimulates the body to produce those improvements as an adaptive response to enable it to better handle the same stress in the future. In many ways, it is like getting a sun tan.

Exposure to sunlight does not directly produce a tan. The ultraviolet radiation in sunlight stimulates melanocytes in the skin to produce more melanin as a protective mechanism, darkening the skin. The brighter the sun, the more intense the radiation, the stronger the stimulus. The same situation occurs with exercise or any other stress – the more intense the stress the greater the stimulus for adaptation. If the sky is cloudy you can lay out all day and not stimulate any noticeable tanning because the intensity of ultraviolet radiation would be too low, but if the sun is high and the sky is clear you only have to lay out a little while to stimulate a tan. The same thing happens with exercise. If the level of effort is low you can do a large amount of exercise but not stimulate much in the way of improvements, but if the level of effort is very high very little is required for good results.

If a stress is intense enough to stimulate a significant adaptive response though, there will be a limit to how much the body can handle within some period of time. Up to a point, intense sun exposure will stimulate a tan, beyond that it starts to damage the skin, causing a burn. Up to a point intense exercise will stimulate improvements in strength, metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning and other aspects of fitness, but beyond some point the demands of the workout exceed what the body is able to recover from and adapt to and eventually can cause a loss of strength and conditioning, a situation called “overtraining”.

If you lay out to tan or use a tanning bed, when you’ve finished you don’t go back out or back to the bed and do it again five minutes later. The body needs time to recover before being exposed to the same stress again or the process of recovery and adaptation is interrupted and you risk damage. The same is true of exercise. After a workout your body requires time to recover from the effects of the workout and produce the improvements the workout stimulated. Although the amount varies between individuals, most people underestimate how much time they need for recovery between workouts.

If done properly the most exercise anyone requires for best results is around three half-hour workouts per week and many people get better results training only twice weekly or less. Longer or more frequent training will not produce better results and eventually leads to plateaus and overtraining.

Many people are skeptical at first, but it usually only takes a few workouts for them to get it. One of the things I brought up in our discussion of this topic was that I suspect a big part of the reason so many people have a hard time with the idea that workouts should be very brief and infrequent or that single set training is effective is most people have never really done and therefore can’t appreciate how hard one, properly performed, all-out set to failure is.

I’ve been in a lot of gyms over the past two decades, and watched thousands of people work out. Outside of a few private HIT studios I have almost never seen proper form used or taught, and personal trainers were usually some of the worst offenders. Sadly, watching a lot of youtube videos it would seem even many HIT trainers don’t really understand proper form or know how to teach it. That’s a discussion for another time, though.

In my experience if you teach your clients the difference between stimulating and producing results and the relationship between intensity, volume and frequency of training and train them properly so they get the results they want they will understand and even appreciate the necessary reductions in training volume and frequency as they become more advanced.

Hard workout today:

1. MedX Neck Extension
2. MedX Neck Flexion
3. Weighted Chin Up on the Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise (OME)
4. MedX Shoulder Press
5. MedX Leg Press
6. OME Wrist Curl with thick bar attachment
7. OME Wrist Extension with thick bar attachment

Total workout time was around 15 minutes. I’ll do it again in 3 or 4 days. Normally I’d take a little longer, around 20 minutes or so – not because I do more exercises but because I rest longer between sets – but I had to get it done before my next client arrived for his workout.

Why so little? Because if done properly that’s all it takes. The most important factor in stimulating increases in muscular strength and size, as well as all the other possible benefits of exercise, is the degree of effort. The effort put into a workout is what determines its effectiveness, rather than the volume of work performed. If the level of effort is high enough, very little exercise is required, but no amount of exercise will produce much in the way of results if the effort is not high enough and if too much of any type of exercise is performed the results will be worse, not better.

I’m often asked what I think about programs like P90X, Insanity, and similar popular training programs, and one of the first things I usually point out is the volume of exercise is way too high while the quality – both in terms of type of exercise and the manner of performance instructed – is very low.

To save myself the time of having to answer the same questions about these programs over and over, the following is a brief summary of what is wrong with them, and what you should be doing instead.

Form

I’ve watched some of the videos and the form on the exercises is atrocious. Too fast, and little attention to proper form despite paying lip service to it. Very fast, sloppy reps.

What you should be doing instead: Move in a slow, controlled manner, especially when reversing direction between lifting and lowering the weight. Don’t just make the weight go up and down, take your time with it and focus on intensely contracting the target muscles throughout the entire exercise.

Volume

These programs include almost an hour of exercise plus an additional and completely unnecessary fifteen minutes or so of abdominal work a few days a week. These programs have you doing way too many exercises and sets. Unless you’re taking steroids this is overtraining, and even if you are this volume of exercise is completely unnecessary and counterproductive. With proper training and diet you could achieve the same or better results with less than one hour of training per week, and in some cases less than thirty minutes.

Speaking of which, the results you see in the testimonials have everything to do with the diet and almost nothing to do with the idiotic training program. I’ve had men lose over 30 pounds of fat and women around 20 with less total training time over a period of two months than the P90X or Insanity programs require in a single week.

What you should be doing instead: One hard set of only one or two exercises per muscle group, working out no more than three non-consecutive days per week. Advanced trainees should do less, rather than more exercise.

“Muscle Confusion”

The concept of “muscle confusion” is nonsense based on a misunderstanding of motor learning principles. Muscles do not become resistant to stimulation from a particular exercise, they only appear to because improvements are faster initially due to neural adaptations and slow down after around six to eight weeks when adaptation starts to be more due to hypertrophy. Changing exercises too frequently is a huge mistake. I’ve already addressed this in detail in The Ultimate Routine.

What you should be doing instead: Don’t constantly vary your workouts. Consistently follow a well designed workout or routine that effectively works all the major muscle groups and focus on getting as strong as possible on that. If you plateau it’s more likely you need a reduction in workout volume or more recovery time between workouts and not to “confuse” your muscles by changing exercises.

Abdominal or “Core” Workouts

Fifteen minutes of abdominal work is neither necessary nor beneficial. One or two exercises for the abdominal muscles, a flexion and a rotation or lateral flexion movement are all that is required. Maybe four, if you’re doing an occasional abdominal specialization workout, but even this should only take a few minutes to complete, and the reason for doing so is to strengthen the muscles, not to improve abdominal definition. Getting ripped abs is almost entirely a matter of diet and has very little to do with abdominal exercises or workouts.

What you should be doing instead: Only one hard set of only one or two abdominal exercises at the end of your workout, which should take no more than one to three minutes. If you want ripped abs you need to focus on your diet.

Plyometrics

Plyometrics are incredibly stupid. They are relatively ineffective for building strength, unnecessary for developing speed or explosiveness or improving rate of force development, and carry a very high risk of injury. They have no place in any training program.

What you should be doing instead: If you want to develop speed or explosiveness simply focus on getting stronger. All these different things are expressions of strength, rather than different types as some people believe. You don’t need to train one way for “maximum strength”, another for “speed strength” another for “explosive strength” or any of the other types these people come up with to make their programs more complex and scientific sounding than they need to be.

Cardio

Cardio is included in these programs with the claim it is beneficial for both fat burning and cardiovascular conditioning, however it is very inefficient for fat burning and unnecessary for cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning if you’re already performing a proper high intensity strength training program. Additionally, the high impact and repetitive nature of the movements is more likely to cause injuries and contribute to joint problems in the long run, unlike high intensity strength training which is much safer for the joints when performed properly.

What you should be doing instead: If you want to become leaner you don’t need extra activity to burn calories – which is generally a very inefficient waste of time – you need to eat fewer calories and consume a diet which creates a hormonal situation conducive to fat loss. If you want to improve cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, high intensity strength training will do that, and you can emphasize it further by limiting rest between exercises.

Supplements

The P90X and Insanity programs also encourage the use of supplements, including a meal replacement shake and other products sold by Beachbody. While some supplements are beneficial, they are not at all necessary to achieve incredible results from training. The same seems to be the case with other companies and makes me wonder if the workout programs were developed secondary to the supplements as a means of marketing them, kind of like every new training program introduced on certain bodybuilding web sites.

What you should be doing instead: Whatever your training goals, whether you want more muscle, less fat, better performance or health, your biggest nutritional concern should be your diet. Get that in order first, then if you can identify a legitimate need or benefit, consider supplementation. Be very skeptical of supplement advertising, though. Most claims are complete bullshit.

But what about those testimonials?

Beachbody, the company that sells P90X, Insanity, Hip Hop Abs and similar nonsense have done one thing right – marketing. Their infomercials are well done and they have some impressive testimonials. However, as I already mentioned, the results those people achieved were mostly due to the diet. They could have done the same or better faster and with only a small fraction of the total training time. As Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones was fond of saying, the fact that a particular method produced some result is not proof the same or better results could not have been achieved by some other means, more quickly and more efficiently.

In combination with proper nutrition a high intensity training program will produce better results than any of the currently popular DVD programs, and it will do so more quickly, more efficiently, and more safely.

How you train – effort, volume, frequency, form, etc. – is far more important than the equipment you use, or whether you use equipment at all. That being said, there are major differences between training with bodyweight and weights and both have advantages and disadvantages.

The biggest advantage to bodyweight training is most exercises can be done almost anywhere since all that is required is adequate floor space, and various types of chin ups and pull ups can be performed anywhere there is a reachable bar, or if you’ve got a strong grip, anywhere you can securely hang a strong towel or thick piece of rope. It is both convenient and time efficient.

Whether a person travels frequently where they don’t have access to weights, doesn’t have equipment at home, can’t or doesn’t like going to a gym, or just prefers to train at home or outdoors, they can still train effectively performing just body weight exercises.

A variety of portable apparatus are now being sold for body weight training but most are unnecessary and overpriced. They are often marketed on the premise one needs to perform a huge variety of exercises, when all that is actually needed is a few basic movements that only require a few square feet of flat ground and something to hang from. Most of the more useful apparatus for bodyweight training (parallettes, chin up bars, parallel bars for dipping) can be easily and inexpensively constructed or found in some form in the local playground.

The biggest disadvantage to bodyweight training is resistance progression is not as straightforward or as easily quantified as with weight training.

As you become stronger and better conditioned you must increase the resistance you work against during exercise to stimulate further improvement. Resistance – the force your muscles work against during exercise – is the product of a variety of factors, the two biggest being mass and lever.

Resistance progression with barbells, dumbbells or machines is simple and easy to quantify, record, and compare over time. As you become stronger you increase the weights used – the mass – proportionally. The movements (levers encountered) do not vary significantly.

With bodyweight training the mass – your body – does not increase in proportion to your strength. If you’re losing fat your body is providing progressively less resistance, and muscle mass does not increase in equal proportion to strength (e. g. you don’t gain 10 pounds of muscle mass for every additional 10 pounds you can lift on average). To increase resistance without resorting to weight belts or vests you have to increase the lever the muscles are working against. This is accomplished by performing progressively more challenging variations of an exercise or progressively more challenging exercises for each muscle group.

It is possible to become extremely strong and muscular using body weight exercise alone. You’ve got to be pretty strong to perform multiple, strict repetitions of one-armed chin ups or push ups, one-legged squats, or handstand push ups. A disadvantage of using lever variation instead of weight increase to progress resistance is every new exercise is a new skill to be learned and some bodyweight exercises, particularly unilateral (one-armed or legged) exercises can initially be as much or more of a skill challenge than a strength challenge (I recommend being very cautious with unilateral exercises as the risk of injury is greater). By comparison, with weights once you have learned and developed proficiency in the skill of performing a particular exercise you can focus more on simply becoming stronger.

Some claim this is an advantage and that these skills will translate to other activities. While the strength gained from bodyweight exercise will transfer to other activities, skill is very specific and balance or exercise movement skills do not transfer to other balance tasks or movements.

Weight belts and vests provide an effective and more easily quantified form of resistance progression, but these aren’t always practical for those who choose to train with bodyweight due to travel requirements or who train outdoors away from home. Lugging around a heavy weight vest or a dipping belt and weight plates defeats the purpose.

My personal preference and recommendation for those who can is to train primarily with weights, whether barbells, dumbbells or machines. Once the basic skills are learned more focus can be given to the effort put into training, and resistance can be increased in a more consistent, measurable and relatively precise manner. Even then an occasional bodyweight workout can be a fun challenge or change of pace, especially outdoors in good weather. For those who train primarily with body weight the occasional workout with weights will provide a more objectively quantifiable benchmark of strength increases.

This is an updated version of my answers to questions asked by BodyweightCulture.com about strict versus kipping pull ups. The following are their questions (in bold), my answers, and some additional comments.

Question:

Exactly how are pull ups executed, when you and your pupils do them?

Answer:

I prefer to have trainees perform chin ups (supinated grip) to pull ups (pronated grip) since this puts the biceps in a stronger position making the upper arm less of a “weak link” in the exercise.

The grip is just inside of shoulder width – too much closer or wider and you start to lose some range of motion – and the torso is angled back so the arms are about 20 to 30 degrees off the body in the starting position.

Additional comments: There are a few reasons for this angle, and a similar body position relative to the angle of pull should be used for underhand-grip pulldowns. First, because of the structure of the shoulder joint and the angle of the glenoid fossa this is about as high as most people’s shoulders will go when the shoulder is actively flexed when the upper arms are moving in the planes resulting from this grip width. Going higher than that in that plane can aggravate the shoulders. If a wider grip width is used to provide a better shoulder angle the degree of supination can be uncomfortable for the wrists. The hands can be pronated to allow a wider grip, but then the biceps are in a weaker position and the upper arms become more of a weak link.

Second, when doing a chin up or pulldown with this grip width this torso angle results in the muscles of the upper back and shoulders working against a larger moment arm and staying under more tension in the finished position than if the torso is straight up and down.

In the bottom position, at the start, the elbows are just barely bent, and the arm, shoulder and back muscles are kept tense – no “slack” is allowed in the system.

Additional comments: It is important for the safety of the involved joints that extremes of range of motion are not attempted. All of the benefits of full range exercise – including improvements in or maintenance of flexibility – can be achieved with only a moderate degree of stretch and that stretch should only be felt in the muscles and not in or near the joints. Start conservatively, work up to a moderate stretch in the muscles, but do not force it. Be especially cautious during exercises where the moment arms increase significantly as you approach the stretched position.

Trainees start on a step or use a bar that they can reach from a standing position without jumping. At the start, they are told to tense their biceps, back of the shoulders, and upper back, and slowly lift their feet while keeping the body motionless, gradually transferring their weight from their legs to their arms. Once they have  transferred all their weight from their legs to their arms, they are told to slowly begin to pull their throat towards the bar and raising their chest to their forearms – concentrating more on their biceps and bending the elbows at first, and then on pulling the elbows towards the sides of the ribs as they approach to top. The positive movement should take approximately four seconds. When they get to the top they are told to hold the position for about two seconds, then slowly “turnaround” and lower themselves in approximately four seconds.

Additional comments: The best option for this is the UXS multi-exercise body weight station which has an angled chin up bar of optimal diameter which can be gripped from a standing position by most

The second best option for this is the Nautilis Omni Multi Exercise, which has an adjustable chin up bar to accommodate users of different heights and steps to start from.

It is important to be able to start without jumping so both the width and hand positioning of the grip are as good as possible, and jumping is not practical if wearing a dipping belt with several heavy weight plates suspended between the legs. A bench or step of appropriate height also makes unloading and dismounting safer.

As they get close to the bottom they are told to anticipate the start point and slow down to meet it, so when they get there they can immediately but smoothly start the next rep, without allowing the muscles to relax at any point, and without any yanking, jerking or body sway that might increase force on the joints or provide any assistance from momentum.

Starting with the third rep they are told when they get to the top or “end point” to hold motionless and squeeze the biceps and back as hard as they can for two seconds before gradually “unsqueezing” and slowly lowering themselves.

The exercise is continued to the point where it is impossible to perform another repetition in correct form. At that point the trainee is told to continue to contract as hard as possible for a few more seconds (without cheating) and if there is no movement after about five seconds or so they are told to lower themselves as slowly as they can.

If a trainee can’t perform at least five strict repetitions at this cadence with bodyweight I’ll have them perform a static hold in the top position instead, periodically testing their ability to perform dynamic chin ups. When a trainee is able to perform eight or more repetitions in good form weight is added using a dipping belt.

Additional comments: For those who use bodyweight as their primary form of resistance due to convenience, travel, etc. I recommend an adjustable weight vest rather than a dipping belt and weight plates, as it is less cumbersome for travel and more versatile (can be used for many other bodyweight exercises.

The goal of the slower, stricter reps is to maintain constant tension on the target muscles throughout the exercise while minimizing the stress on the joints, as opposed to distributing the work throughout the body which occurs when kipping.

Although far less mechanical work is performed, the metabolic demand is still very high. The ideas that one must perform a lot of mechanical work to increase metabolic demand and that fast movement in exercise is necessary to improve or transfers to more power in other movements are wrong.

Mechanical work is not necessary for metabolic work – if you hold a heavy weight or hold yourself motionless in the mid-range position of a body weight exercise you will not be performing any mechanical work, but the muscles are performing metabolic work to maintain tension. You can increase the metabolic work by increasing mechanical work or by increasing tension – both are effective if metcon is the goal, but increasing tension and maintaining a controlled speed will be safer for the joints in the long run. You don’t need high power production for metabolic conditioning as long as you have adequate tension for an adequate duration.

Additionally, if the goal is getting as strong as possible and improving the development of the arms, shoulders and back, it is more effective to maintain a higher tension on the muscles continuously over the full range of the exercise than to “cheat” the body up.

How you perform each repetition is far more important for both effectiveness and safety than how many. A few high quality reps will provide far more benefit than a much larger number performed sloppily. The goal is to make every second, every inch of movement as demanding as possible for the specific muscles being targeted and as metabolically taxing as possible on the body as a whole.

Question:

What is your preferred equipment for pull ups? (Stable bar, suspended bar, rings, etc.)

Answer:

I prefer a stable bar – less skill is required so trainees can focus more on contracting the target muscles and less on trying to adjust to a moving bar.

Question:

Have you tried both kipping and strict vertical pull ups in your own training?

Answer:

I’ve done kipping pull ups to demonstrate how not to do them on occasion, but only perform strict chin ups in my workouts.

Question:

What purpose do pull ups serve in your program?

Answer:

Specifically to increase the strength of the upper arms, shoulders, back and abs (when additional weight is used), and generally to improve metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning as part of the overall workout.

Additional comments: Weighted chin ups hit the abs harder than most people realize.

Question:

What advantages do you see of kipping pull ups over strict vertical pull ups?

Answer:

Kipping pull ups provide no advantage from a purely physiological standpoint – they are less effective for building strength in the involved muscles and no more effective for metabolic or cardiovascular conditioning, while increasing the wear and tear on the joints. However, the kipping movement is a component of some gymnastic and parkour skills and should be practiced by someone with an interest in developing those skills. General strength and conditioning and skill practice should be considered and practiced as separate activities though. Much of the confusion about exercise, functionality, etc. results from ignorance of transfer and failure to distinguish between the two.

Additional comments: Over nearly two decades of training I have never had a client injured doing chin ups as I describe here. However, I have trained and spoken with quite a few people who have sustained shoulder injuries doing kipping pull ups.

Question:

What advantages do you see of strict vertical pull ups over kipping pull ups?

Answer:

Strict pull ups or chin ups are safer for the joints involved and more effective for increasing the strength of the arms, shoulders and back. As long as an appropriate load and duration are used, due to the continuous tension they will produce a comparable metabolic demand to a set of kipping pull ups involving more mechanical work.