Speed: What Actually Makes Someone Faster

Speed is produced by several underlying adaptations, and each requires a different type of stimulus.

Coordination is one of the most specific. To improve the coordination of a fast movement, that movement has to be practiced quickly. Slow practice does not fully develop the motor program required at maximal velocity. This is why sprinting, jumping, throwing, or other high-speed tasks need to be performed at or near the speed the athlete is trying to improve.

The quality of each repetition matters. Once fatigue causes the athlete to slow down, the training stimulus changes. High-velocity work therefore does not need to follow traditional high-volume set-and-rep structures. A small number of maximal-quality repetitions may be more useful than continuing after velocity has fallen.

Motor-unit recruitment is different because it is primarily muscle-specific rather than movement-specific. Heavy strength training and brief maximal isometrics can improve recruitment and contribute to faster performance even though those exercises are not performed at maximal velocity.

Other adaptations, however, require actual fast movement. Increased motor-unit firing rates and increased muscle-fiber shortening velocity do not appear to develop from heavy strength training alone. They require genuinely high movement speeds. Maximal intent with a slowly moving heavy load is therefore not a substitute for fast training.

Strength work can also interfere with speed when poorly managed. Excessive fatigue can promote shifts toward slower muscle-fiber characteristics, and unnecessary hypertrophy can add mass that the athlete then has to accelerate and decelerate. This is especially relevant when muscle is added distally rather than around the hips.

Actionable takeaway: Train speed through three main targets: practice the actual fast movement for coordination, use heavy work or brief isometrics to improve transferable recruitment, and include genuinely maximal-velocity work to improve firing rate and shortening velocity. Stop the work when speed begins to fall.

Maximum Strength: What Actually Makes Someone Stronger

Maximum strength can improve through several different adaptations, and those adaptations do not all transfer equally to other movements.

Coordination is one contributor. Repeated practice can make an exercise more efficient, allowing someone to lift more weight without necessarily increasing the force-producing capacity of the muscle itself. This type of improvement is highly specific to the movement and even to the load being used. Becoming more skilled at a heavy squat is therefore very useful for a powerlifter, but that coordination does not automatically transfer to sprinting or jumping.

Motor-unit recruitment is much more transferable. Improving the nervous system’s ability to activate more of a muscle increases the force that muscle can produce across different movements that use it. High recruitment can be trained through heavy lifting, brief maximal isometrics, and other high-effort contractions, provided fatigue and discomfort are kept low enough to allow high central motor command.

Hypertrophy contributes by increasing the amount of contractile tissue available to produce force. For athletes, however, the location of that muscle matters. Adding muscle where it contributes to the demands of the sport can be useful, while adding mass indiscriminately may not be.

Other adaptations can also contribute. Reduced antagonist co-activation can increase net force around a joint. Lateral force transmission can improve how efficiently muscle-fiber force reaches the tendon. Increased tendon stiffness can improve force production in slow, high-force actions by changing how quickly the muscle fibers themselves have to shorten.

The important point is that the same improvement in a strength test can come from very different mechanisms.

Actionable takeaway: Do not treat “getting stronger” as one process. Identify whether the goal is movement skill, greater muscle activation, more muscle, or another force-producing adaptation, and program specifically for that need.

Strength, Speed, and Power: Understanding the Relationship

Strength, speed, and power are performance outcomes. They are things we measure, not single adaptations that the body develops directly.

An increase in strength might come from greater muscle size, improved motor-unit recruitment, better coordination, changes in tendon behavior, or other adaptations. Speed works the same way. A faster sprint, jump, or throw tells us performance improved, but the useful question is what changed underneath that performance.

Power sits one level higher because it is the product of force and velocity. That means transferable power is improved by increasing force capability, velocity capability, or both. This is important because the load that produces the highest measured power in a gym exercise is not necessarily the load that best develops either quality. Heavy loading is better suited to high-force adaptations, while very light or unloaded movements performed at genuinely high speeds are better suited to high-velocity adaptations.

Strength also does not automatically become speed. The force a muscle can produce decreases as shortening velocity increases, so an athlete can be very strong at slow speeds while still lacking the ability to produce force at high velocities. Likewise, intending to move a heavy load quickly is not the same as actually moving quickly. Speed-specific adaptations require exposure to genuinely fast movement.

Fatigue therefore matters because it can reduce the athlete’s ability to reach the velocities required for speed development. High-velocity work should be performed while the athlete is fresh enough to actually express speed.

Actionable takeaway: Decide whether you, or the athlete, primarily needs more force, more speed, or both. Train those qualities directly and protect the quality of the stimulus by limiting unnecessary fatigue.

Cardio and Lifting: How to Do Both Without Killing Your Progress

There is an old idea in strength training that cardio kills your gains. Like most absolutes in fitness, it takes something that can happen under certain conditions and turns it into a rule that supposedly applies to everyone. Cardio does not automatically prevent you from getting stronger or building muscle, and for most people there is no reason they cannot improve their cardiovascular fitness while continuing to make progress in the weight room. The problem begins when the cardio you are doing creates enough fatigue, muscular stress, or recovery demand that it starts compromising the lifting responsible for the result you actually care about.

This is why the first question should not be whether cardio is good or bad for muscle growth. The better question is why you are doing cardio in the first place. Someone walking to increase energy expenditure during a fat-loss phase, someone doing moderate aerobic work for cardiovascular health, and someone preparing for a marathon are all technically “doing cardio,” but they are solving completely different problems. The purpose of the cardio should determine the modality, frequency, intensity, and amount you use, as well as how much of your recovery you are willing to dedicate to it.

Why Are You Doing Cardio?

For someone primarily focused on body composition, cardio is usually a tool for increasing activity and energy expenditure. In that situation, there is very little reason to immediately choose the hardest form available. Daily walking, incline treadmill work, easy cycling, or other low-intensity activity can increase expenditure while creating relatively little additional fatigue. For some people, simply increasing daily steps will accomplish what they need. If more activity is necessary, adding 20–30 minutes of low-intensity cardio after lifting sessions is a reasonable place to start and can be increased only when the goal actually requires it.

Cardio for general health serves a different purpose. Here the objective is to improve cardiovascular fitness and aerobic capacity rather than simply burn additional calories. Regular moderate aerobic work that can be repeated and recovered from makes sense, and something in the range of 20–40 minutes two or three times per week can be a practical starting point. This work does not need to become another maximal training session. HIIT can have a place, but harder work is not automatically more useful when the desired adaptation can be achieved with a lower recovery cost.

Endurance performance changes the conversation again because specificity now matters. If you want to become a better runner, you eventually have to run enough to improve at running. If you are preparing for a marathon, the volume, frequency, and specificity of the endurance work have to become large enough to drive those adaptations. At that point, cardio is no longer simply supporting your lifting program; it has become one of the primary goals of the training phase. Some reduction in the rate of hypertrophy may come with that shift, but that is not necessarily a programming mistake. It is the predictable cost of prioritizing a different quality.

Where the Interference Actually Comes From

Combining resistance training and endurance work is commonly referred to as concurrent training, and the potential reduction in strength or hypertrophy adaptations is usually called the interference effect. This has often been interpreted to mean that cardio somehow burns muscle or shuts down muscle growth, but that is an overly dramatic way to describe what is usually a much simpler problem. Concurrent training generally does not appear to produce a large reduction in whole-muscle hypertrophy under normal conditions, although some forms of aerobic work seem to create more interference than others. The practical issue is usually the total amount of stress being accumulated and whether the person can continue recovering well enough to train productively.

Three variables are especially useful when thinking about that stress: frequency, intensity, and modality. The more often you perform cardio, the harder those sessions are, and the more muscular damage or impact the modality creates, the more likely it is to compete with the resistance training you are trying to prioritize. There is no universal number of sessions where cardio suddenly becomes excessive because recovery capacity differs from person to person. Someone sleeping well, eating enough, and performing relatively low-fatigue aerobic work may tolerate a considerable amount. Someone dieting aggressively, training legs hard several times per week, sleeping poorly, and adding frequent running sessions may reach their limit much sooner.

Intensity changes the cost of the work considerably. Walking, incline treadmill work, and easy cycling generally create relatively little fatigue, which is why they can usually be performed more frequently. Hard intervals and sprint work are different. They may be more time-efficient, but they also create a larger recovery demand and overlap more heavily with the high-intensity muscular work already being performed in the weight room. If the purpose of cardio is simply to increase energy expenditure during a body-composition phase, turning every session into HIIT often creates more fatigue than the goal requires.

Modality matters for the same reason. Walking and cycling generally create less impact and eccentric muscular stress than running. Running is not inherently bad for hypertrophy, but it tends to be more expensive from a recovery standpoint, particularly as volume and intensity rise. If someone is preparing for a race, that cost is necessary because running is the adaptation being pursued. If someone is simply trying to burn a few extra calories while maximizing lower-body hypertrophy, choosing a lower-cost modality is usually the more sensible option. The principle is simple: use the least costly tool that still accomplishes the job.

The Mechanism Is Probably Less Complicated Than It Sounds

A great deal of discussion around concurrent training has focused on molecular signaling. One of the better-known explanations was that endurance exercise activates AMPK and other signaling pathways associated with aerobic adaptation, which could suppress mTOR signaling and interfere with the muscle-building response to resistance training. That explanation is interesting, but the evidence has not supported such a clean relationship. Aerobic and resistance exercise can be performed in relatively close proximity without necessarily producing the kind of suppression of anabolic signaling that the original hypothesis predicted.

There are other molecular explanations that remain possible, but from a coaching standpoint there is a much simpler explanation that matters more: fatigue reduces what you are able to do in the gym. Resistance training needs to provide enough tension and effort to stimulate the muscle fibers you are trying to grow. If hard cardio leaves you fatigued before your next lifting session, you may use less weight, perform fewer reps, produce less force, or struggle to recruit the same high-threshold motor units you otherwise could. An isolated bad workout does not matter much, but if cardio repeatedly reduces the quality of the resistance-training stimulus, the accumulated result can be less hypertrophy than you would have achieved otherwise.

That is the useful way to think about the interference effect. Cardio does not have to directly destroy muscle to interfere with muscle growth. It simply has to make the training responsible for building that muscle consistently worse.

If Muscle Is the Goal, Protect the Lifting

Once the priority is clear, the order of training becomes fairly straightforward. If size and strength are the primary goals, lifting should receive the best of your energy and recovery. That generally means resistance training comes first when lifting and cardio need to happen on the same day. Low-intensity work can often be performed immediately afterward because it creates relatively little additional fatigue. If the cardio session is harder, separating the two sessions by several hours can be useful so there is time to eat, hydrate, and regain some performance capacity before training again.

The exact number of hours is not magical. Something around three to six hours is a reasonable practical guideline when the second session is more demanding, but the larger principle is simply to avoid asking the body to perform two difficult sessions back-to-back when there is no need to do so. If the goal is hypertrophy, the resistance-training session is the one you want to protect.

There is also a difference between separating training sessions and separating training days. Coaches sometimes alternate lifting and cardio throughout the week because it appears to create more recovery between each type of training. In reality, this can leave the same muscles working almost every day. A lower-body session on Monday, running on Tuesday, another leg workout Wednesday, and more conditioning Thursday technically separates the modalities while providing very little actual recovery for the legs.

In many cases, it makes more sense to consolidate the stressors. Place cardio on the same days as lifting when appropriate, perform the lifting first, and then leave complete recovery days afterward. This concentrates the workload into fewer days and gives the muscles and nervous system longer uninterrupted periods to recover. For someone whose main goal is hypertrophy, that can be a much cleaner way to organize concurrent training than spreading some form of lower-body stress across the entire week.

How Much Cardio Should You Actually Do?

There is no single cardio prescription because the amount should come from the goal rather than from the belief that more exercise is automatically better. If body composition is the priority, start with daily movement and use steps as the first lever. If additional expenditure is needed, add 20–30 minutes of low-intensity work after lifting sessions and assess what happens before doing more. If fat loss is already progressing at the desired rate, adding more cardio simply because it is available does not accomplish anything useful.

For general health, the goal is to establish a consistent aerobic base that complements resistance training. Moderate aerobic sessions a few times per week are enough to provide meaningful cardiovascular work for many people without turning the entire program into conditioning. Higher-intensity intervals can be added if there is a reason for them, but they should not automatically replace lower-intensity work simply because they feel more difficult.

For endurance performance, the required amount becomes much more specific to the event. More running, cycling, intervals, or longer sessions may be necessary, and eventually that increased workload has to be reflected elsewhere in the program. Resistance-training volume may need to come down, lower-body training may need to be reorganized, and expectations for hypertrophy may need to change during that phase. Training resources are finite, so increasing the priority of one quality inevitably changes how much can be invested in another.

You Can Improve Both, but One Has to Take Priority

This is ultimately the part of concurrent training that people tend to avoid. You can improve multiple qualities at the same time, but you cannot assume that every quality can be maximized simultaneously. If bodybuilding is the goal, lifting should drive the program and cardio should support body composition, health, or conditioning without consistently compromising resistance-training performance. If you decide to prepare for a marathon, endurance training becomes the primary focus and hypertrophy takes a secondary role for that period.

Neither choice is better. They simply require different programs. The problem begins when someone says muscle growth is the priority while training like an endurance athlete, or says endurance performance is the priority while refusing to give it enough training volume because they are afraid of sacrificing any hypertrophy. The goal has to determine what receives the majority of your time, effort, and recovery.

The simplest way to know whether you have found the right balance is to watch the thing you are trying to protect. If your loads, repetitions, execution, and recovery continue improving while cardio is in the program, there is little reason to assume the cardio is meaningfully interfering. If your legs are constantly fatigued, performance begins to fall, soreness never resolves, or progression stalls after cardio volume increases, the dose has probably exceeded what you can currently recover from. At that point, reduce the frequency, lower the intensity, choose a less demanding modality, reorganize the week, or improve the recovery supporting the training.

Cardio and lifting are not natural enemies. The problem is usually trying to do more work than the goal requires or more work than the athlete can recover from. Determine why the cardio is there, choose the modality that accomplishes that goal with the lowest necessary recovery cost, give the priority training the best of your performance, and adjust the total dose according to what your body is actually showing you. You can improve both cardiovascular fitness and muscle mass. You simply have to be clear about which one leads when the demands begin to compete.

The Apparent Confusion About Progressive Overload

Apparently, there is a growing disagreement online about progressive overload. Most of it comes from confusing cause and effect, while different people use the same term to mean slightly different things.

Brosef’s explanation from the bench next to you usually goes like this: you get stronger by continually adding more weight to the bar. Since strength and load rise together, it must be the added weight that produced the improvement.

This explanation makes intuitive sense and works reasonably well for beginners, who often improve fast enough to add weight almost every workout. However, it puts the plates before the muscle by mistaking the visible result of progress for the process that made it possible.

The process of building strength starts when you expose the body to a challenging training stimulus. In response, the body may improve neural coordination, become more efficient at the movement, and increase its ability to produce force. Once those adaptations occur, the same weight becomes easier relative to your new capacity. At that point, you can adjust the training demand by adding weight, reps, or changing another variable to keep the stimulus productive.

This creates a repeating cycle:

Training stimulus → Adaptation → Improved performance → Adjusted stimulus

Or, more simply:

You perform a set of five reps → You get stronger → That same set becomes easier → You add some weight to keep it challenging.

Increasing the load can help drive further adaptation, but the increase works best when supported by the capacity you have already developed. When someone forces more weight before their performance has improved, range of motion often shortens, technique breaks down, and control suffers. The number on the bar went up, but the ability being trained likely did not.

Another point of disagreement is how broadly progressive overload should be defined. Some people use it almost exclusively to mean adding weight. Others include more reps, better execution, increased range of motion, or more total work. These can all change the training demand, but they do not demonstrate the same kind of progress.

Adding a rep with the same load, range of motion, and technique provides clear evidence of improved performance. Adding another set increases total training volume, which may be useful for hypertrophy, but it represents a programming adjustment rather than direct evidence that performance on a given exercise has improved. Better execution or greater range of motion may also represent meaningful improvement, although changing the conditions of the movement makes comparison less direct.

Progression works best when it responds to meaningful improvements in capacity rather than forcing the numbers upward at all costs. You apply an appropriate stimulus, recover, monitor performance, and increase the demand when your performance supports the adjustment.

This brings us back to the original confusion between cause and effect. Because the weight on the bar usually increases as you become stronger, it's easy to assume that adding weight is what created the strength. The process works as a cycle: the existing training stimulus produces adaptation, that adaptation improves performance, and improved performance allows you to increase the demand. The heavier load then becomes part of the next stimulus and may contribute to further adaptation.

Progressive overload is therefore the ongoing adjustment of training demands as the body adapts. The controversy becomes much easier to understand once you recognize that progression can be both the result of the adaptation that came before it and part of the stimulus that produces what comes next.

Strength and Training Tolerance Are Different Capacities

The ability to lift a weight and the ability to recover from lifting it are not the same thing.

A workout is usually judged by what someone can complete. If they can move the weight, maintain decent technique, and finish the set, it's assumed the training was appropriate. But completing the work only proves that they were capable of producing enough force in that moment. It doesn’t tell us how much the workout cost them or whether their body can turn that stress into progress.

Two people can perform the same exercise with the same weight and have completely different responses. One may recover quickly and return stronger. The other may experience a large drop in performance, remain sore for several days, and struggle through their next workout. They completed the same task, but the biological cost wasn’t the same.

To understand why, we have to look beyond whether the weight moved and consider what the muscle had to do to move it.

Muscle growth begins when the fibers inside a muscle experience enough mechanical tension to signal that they need to become better prepared for similar demands in the future. Heavy weights can create this tension immediately because the muscle has to produce a lot of force to move them. Lighter weights can also create it, but usually only after fatigue builds and the final repetitions become difficult.

This is why hard sets performed close to failure can stimulate growth. As the set becomes more demanding, the repetitions slow down, the body recruits more muscle fibers, and those fibers are forced to produce more tension.

However, the same set that creates the growth signal also creates fatigue and disruption. The body must restore energy, regulate calcium inside the muscle, repair damaged tissue, and return the muscle to normal before it can fully adapt.

A workout provides the reason to grow, but recovery is where that growth is actually built. The body can increase muscle protein synthesis for two different reasons. It may be using new protein to build the muscle larger, or it may simply be repairing tissue that was damaged during training.

Those processes can happen at the same time, but they don't produce the same outcome.

Imagine you're renovating a house. Some of your budget can be used to add a new room, but if you damage the roof first, much of that money has to be spent repairing what was damaged in the process.

Training works in a similar way. When a workout creates enough tension with manageable damage, more of the recovery process can be directed toward building additional muscle. When it causes excessive damage, the body has to spend more time and resources repairing what was already there.

This is why soreness isn't proof that a workout was productive. A little soreness is normal, especially after unfamiliar exercises, but feeling destroyed doesn't mean the muscle received a better growth stimulus.

The same principle applies to exhaustion. Training close to failure can be useful because the final and most challenging repetitions often create the greatest amount of tension in the muscle fibers. But that doesn't mean every set needs to continue until the weight physically stops moving.

Once the target muscle is working hard and the repetitions have slowed down, much of the useful growth stimulus may already be present. Continuing beyond that point can add more fatigue and muscle damage without adding the same amount of benefit.

The goal is to get close enough to failure that the set becomes challenging, while stopping before the cost begins to rise faster than the reward. For most exercises, leaving 1-3 good reps in reserve is enough to create a strong stimulus while making recovery easier.

This becomes especially important because strength can improve faster than training tolerance.

Someone can become capable of lifting heavier weights before their body is ready to handle much more total training. Their technique improves. Their confidence grows. Their nervous system becomes better at recruiting muscle. These changes can increase performance quickly.

However, the structures and systems that support repeated training may take longer to adapt. Muscles, tendons, connective tissue, energy systems, and recovery capacity all need time to become more tolerant of heavier loads and greater volume.

This creates a common mistake. A lifter adds weight and sets simply because they are capable of completing them. Their strength may be improving, but the amount of stress they can recover from hasn't increased at the same rate.

Good training therefore requires more than asking, “Could I finish the workout?” A better question is, "Could I complete the workout, recover from it, and return ready to perform at a greater capacity next time?"

Signs that the training dose is appropriate include stable or improving strength, manageable soreness, consistent technique, and the ability to repeat the workload without a continued decline in performance. Over time, that same workload should become easier to tolerate, or the lifter should be able to perform slightly more without creating a disproportionate increase in fatigue.

If you can survive the session but spend the rest of the week trying to recover from it, the workout may be creating more disruption than your body can productively adapt to. Being strong enough to complete the work is only part of the equation. Strength is the ability to produce force, while training tolerance is the ability to handle that force repeatedly, recover from the stress it creates, and return better prepared for the next session.

Why the New Resistance Training Guidelines Feel Both Important and Underwhelming

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recently released an updated position stand on resistance training for healthy adults. A position stand is essentially an official summary of the current evidence that organizations use to guide recommendations for practitioners, coaches, and the general public. This update revisits and expands on ACSM's 2009 guidance by synthesizing a large body of research on how different training variables affect outcomes like strength, muscle growth, power, and physical function.

When I first saw people discussing the update, I expected the conclusions to feel more surprising. Instead, a lot of them sounded like things many evidence-informed coaches already accept. You do not need to train to failure every set. Muscle can grow across a wide range of loads. Frequency is mostly a way to distribute weekly volume. Machines and free weights can both be useful. Periodization is not automatically superior for every lifter in every situation.

My first reaction was not disagreement as much as confusion. Why was this being treated like big news?

The answer, I think, is that the update is less revolutionary as an advanced coaching document and more important as an institutional correction. It moves resistance-training guidance away from rigid prescriptions and toward a more flexible understanding of what actually drives adaptation.

In other words, the big shift is not that the old methods stopped working. It is that many of the old rules should no longer be treated as universal requirements.

What the Paper Actually Did

The American College of Sports Medicine released an updated position stand on resistance-training prescription for healthy adults. This paper updates their 2009 position by summarizing a large body of research on how different resistance-training variables affect strength, hypertrophy, power, muscular endurance, and physical function.

This was not one new training study. It was an overview of reviews, meaning the authors looked at existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine what the broader literature says about resistance training.

That distinction matters because the paper is not trying to answer the same question a coach might ask when writing a program for an advanced lifter or athlete.

The paper is asking a broad question:

What resistance-training variables consistently improve outcomes across healthy adults?

A coach is often asking a more specific question:

What does this individual need, at this stage of development, with this goal, this recovery capacity, this training history, and this timeline?

Both questions are useful, but they are not the same question. That is part of why the conclusions can feel both important and underwhelming at the same time.

The Big Shift: From Rules to Ranges

Resistance training has traditionally been taught through very specific rules.

Train each muscle two or three times per week. Use a certain repetition range. Rest a certain amount of time. Progressively overload the movement. Periodize the program. Use enough volume. Train through a full range of motion. Choose the right exercises. Follow the right structure.

None of those recommendations are inherently bad. In many cases, they are useful. The problem is that useful recommendations often become universal laws.

The new position stand seems to challenge that way of thinking.

It does not say that programming variables are meaningless. It says that many resistance-training approaches can improve muscle, strength, and function when compared with doing nothing. Once training is hard enough, consistent enough, and organized around the goal, fewer variables appear to have one universally superior setting.

That is the difference between saying:

“This is a useful way to train.”

And saying:

“This is the only correct way to train.”

The first statement may be true. The second is much harder to defend.

Effective Is Not the Same as Optimal

One of the most important distinctions in the paper is the difference between training that is effective and training that is optimal for a specific outcome.

For general health and function, many forms of resistance training work. Free weights, machines, elastic bands, bodyweight exercises, circuit training, home-based training, and other approaches can all produce meaningful improvements if they are performed consistently and with enough effort.

That does not mean every program is equally good for every goal.

If the goal is maximal strength, heavier loading becomes more important because strength is highly specific to producing force against heavy loads. If the goal is hypertrophy, weekly volume and sufficient effort appear more important than forcing one exact repetition range or training frequency. If the goal is power, the program needs to include faster, more explosive intent rather than only slow, grinding repetitions.

This is where the paper can be misread.

It is not saying the details do not matter. It is saying the details matter most when they are attached to a specific outcome.

A beginner trying to become healthier and stronger does not need the same level of programming precision as an advanced lifter trying to peak a competition lift, bring up a weak muscle group, or manage fatigue across a long training cycle.

The Traditional Rules That Became Tools

The most useful way to understand the update is this:

A lot of traditional resistance-training rules should now be viewed as tools.

Frequency is not magic. It is a tool for distributing weekly volume and managing session quality.

Failure is not mandatory. It is a tool for measuring and applying effort.

Tempo is not a secret hypertrophy mechanism. It is a tool for controlling execution, reducing momentum, and keeping tension where you want it.

Exercise selection is not about choosing universally superior movements. It is a tool for directing stress toward the tissues and skills you are trying to improve.

Rest periods are not inherently anabolic or non-anabolic. They are a tool for controlling performance, fatigue, density, and training quality.

Machines and free weights are not moral categories. They are tools that load the body differently and should be chosen based on the goal, the person, and the context.

Periodization is not a magic ingredient. It is a tool for organizing training stress over time.

This does not make the variables unimportant. It makes them conditional.

The question is not, “What is the rule?”

The better question is, “What problem is this variable solving?”

Why the Periodization Finding Feels Strange

The periodization conclusion is probably one of the easiest parts of the paper to misunderstand.

At first glance, it can sound like the authors are saying periodization does not matter. That can feel wrong to anyone who has trained or coached beyond the beginner stage.

But the better interpretation is more specific.

The paper does not show that planning training over time is useless. It shows that formal periodized programs have not consistently outperformed nonperiodized programs for broad strength and hypertrophy outcomes across the available reviews.

That makes more sense when you consider who is often included in resistance-training research.

Many studies involve untrained or minimally trained participants. For those people, almost any sensible resistance-training program can work. A novice can gain strength from improved coordination, better movement skill, increased confidence, and simply being exposed to loading for the first time. Their threshold for adaptation is low.

In that context, a basic program can produce similar short-term progress to a more formally periodized program.

But that does not mean periodization has no value for people with a higher training age or athletic aspirations.

As someone becomes more advanced, the training problem changes. The issue is no longer just getting exposed to resistance training. The issue becomes continuing to create a stimulus while managing fatigue, joint stress, performance demands, skill practice, recovery, and long-term progression.

That is where periodization still matters.

It can help organize volume, intensity, exercise selection, specificity, variation, and recovery across time. It can help an athlete shift from general preparation to more specific performance. It can help someone emphasize hypertrophy in one phase, strength in another, and peaking in another. It can help manage competing qualities that cannot all be maximally trained at once.

So the takeaway should not be:

“You do not need periodization.”

The better takeaway is:

“Not everyone needs formal periodization to make progress, especially beginners. But advanced lifters and athletes often need some form of organized training structure because their problems are more complex.”

Periodization may not be a direct driver of adaptation by itself. It is a way of organizing the variables that drive adaptation.

Why This Feels Underwhelming

If you already follow modern hypertrophy and strength research, a lot of the paper may feel familiar.

It is already fairly well accepted that hypertrophy can occur across a wide range of loads if sets are taken close enough to failure. It is already common to say that failure is not required on every set. It is already known that frequency is often a way to distribute volume rather than an independent growth trigger. It is already accepted by many coaches that machines can be excellent tools, especially for hypertrophy. It is already reasonable to say that beginners do not need complex periodized programs.

So why does the update matter?

It matters because official guidelines tend to lag behind what experienced coaches and researchers are already discussing. The position stand is not necessarily introducing a brand-new way to train. It is updating the official language around training.

That is still important.

Many people still believe resistance training must follow a narrow template to count. They think they need the perfect split, the perfect rep range, the perfect exercise selection, the perfect progression model, or the perfect periodized plan before they can start.

This paper pushes back against that.

For the general population, the most important message is that resistance training is more flexible than many people think. You do not need to train like a bodybuilder, powerlifter, or athlete to receive meaningful benefits. You need a sustainable way to challenge your muscles consistently.

That is not underwhelming for the person who has been intimidated by the weight room for years.

What This Means for Beginners

For beginners, the message is simple.

Start.

Do not wait until you understand every training variable. Do not wait until you know the perfect split. Do not obsess over whether you should use machines or free weights. Do not worry about whether your program is formally periodized.

Train the major muscle groups. Use exercises you can perform safely and consistently. Work hard enough that the sets are challenging. Add weight, repetitions, sets, or control over time when appropriate. Recover well enough to repeat the process.

For a beginner, consistency matters more than complexity.

A simple program done consistently will outperform a sophisticated program that someone cannot understand, recover from, or maintain.

What This Means for More Advanced Lifters

For advanced lifters, the message is different.

This paper should not be used as an excuse to abandon structure. The fact that many variables do not show universal superiority across broad research does not mean they are irrelevant in advanced training.

As training age increases, the margin for progress becomes smaller. The workload required to create adaptation often becomes higher, while the cost of that workload also increases. Fatigue becomes more meaningful. Exercise selection becomes more specific. Recovery becomes more limiting. Weak points become harder to address. Performance goals become more precise.

At that point, programming variables matter because they solve specific problems.

Frequency may be adjusted to distribute volume more effectively.

Exercise selection may be used to bias a lagging muscle or reduce joint stress.

Failure may be used sparingly to increase stimulus without overwhelming recovery.

Volume may be cycled to manage fatigue.

Intensity may be emphasized when strength expression becomes the priority.

Periodization may be used to organize all of those variables across time.

For advanced trainees, the lesson is not that programming matters less. It is that programming should be justified by the goal rather than inherited as dogma.

What This Means for Coaches

For coaches, the update is a reminder to be more precise with language.

There is a difference between saying:

“I like this approach.”

“This approach works well for this person.”

“This is useful for this goal.”

And:

“Everyone needs to train this way.”

A lot of coaching errors come from turning useful tools into universal rules.

A coach should be able to explain why a variable is being used. Why this frequency? Why this exercise? Why this rep range? Why this rest period? Why this phase? Why this progression model?

If the only answer is, “Because that is what a good program is supposed to include,” the reasoning probably needs to be sharpened.

The value of coaching is not just knowing the variables. It is knowing when each variable matters, when it does not, and how to apply it to the person in front of you.

The Real Takeaway

The new ACSM position stand does not mean programming no longer matters.

It means the field is becoming more careful about which programming rules are truly universal and which are context-dependent.

For the general population, the most important message is that resistance training works across a wide range of approaches. You do not need a perfect program to begin. You need a repeatable one.

For beginners, that should be freeing.

For coaches, it should be humbling.

For advanced lifters and athletes, it should not be misread as a dismissal of structure. The more specific the goal and the more trained the person, the more important it becomes to organize training intelligently.

The real update is not that resistance training has changed.

The update is that the rules have become less rigid.

Many of the things we once treated as requirements are better understood as tools. Their value depends on who is training, what they are training for, and what problem the program is trying to solve.

---

Reference: American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews

Why High-Glycemic Post-Workout Meals May Work Against Muscle Growth

Glycemic load is a term used to describe the effect a food has on blood sugar. The higher the glycemic load, the more that food raises blood sugar and insulin.

Over the years, there has been growing public awareness around glycemic load and how it affects health. More people understand that certain foods spike blood sugar more aggressively than others, and that repeated blood sugar and insulin spikes can affect metabolism over time.

However, this topic is still widely misunderstood, especially in sports nutrition.

One of the most common assumptions is that high-glycemic protein meals promote muscle gain. Many commercial protein products are packed with sugar and marketed around the idea that deliberately spiking insulin after training will help drive more nutrients into muscle and produce better growth.

The logic sounds simple. Insulin is an anabolic hormone, so if you spike insulin after training, it should increase protein deposition in the muscle and improve muscle gain.

That is the idea.

But that is not necessarily what happens in real life.

In real life, high-glycemic protein meals may be counterproductive for muscle. There are two main reasons why.

First, exercise causes a temporary disruption in glucose utilization in the muscle. This is related to muscle microtrauma, or the wear and tear that occurs in muscle tissue during training. Immediately after exercise, the muscle may not tolerate a high-glycemic meal as well as people assume.

The post-workout window is often described as a time when the body can handle anything because the muscles are “primed” for nutrients. But that idea may be too simplistic. Training creates demand, but it also creates stress. The body still needs to manage inflammation, tissue damage, glucose handling, and recovery.

Second, high-glycemic meals can impair insulin function, disrupt muscle mTOR signaling, and interfere with muscle protein synthesis. mTOR is one of the key biological mechanisms involved in building muscle. If insulin sensitivity is impaired, mTOR cannot be fully activated in the way people want.

This is where the insulin-spike theory starts to fall apart.

Insulin matters, but more insulin is not always better. The goal should not be to constantly force the largest possible insulin response. The goal should be to maintain insulin sensitivity so the body can respond properly to the insulin it produces.

There is a major difference between using insulin effectively and chronically overspiking it.

Chronic intake of high-glycemic meals has been shown to cause hyperinsulinemia, a condition where insulin is repeatedly or chronically elevated. Hyperinsulinemia has been linked to uncontrollable fat gain, damage to insulin receptors, and harm to the muscular system.

That matters because muscle growth does not happen in isolation. It depends on the health of the entire metabolic system. If the diet repeatedly drives excessive insulin responses and worsens insulin sensitivity, the body may become less efficient at using nutrients properly.

In that environment, the same meal that was supposed to help build muscle may contribute to fat gain and metabolic dysfunction instead.

This does not mean carbohydrates are bad. It does not mean insulin is bad. It does not mean post-workout nutrition does not matter. The issue is the assumption that a high-sugar, high-glycemic protein meal is automatically the best way to support muscle growth.

Muscle growth requires training stimulus, adequate protein, enough total calories, recovery, and proper nutrient timing. But none of that requires turning every post-workout meal into a blood sugar spike.

A better approach is to support recovery without overwhelming the body. That means prioritizing high-quality protein, choosing carbohydrates based on the person’s training, goals, and insulin sensitivity, and avoiding the belief that more sugar automatically means more muscle.

The body builds muscle through coordinated signaling, not through brute-force insulin spikes.

High-glycemic post-workout meals may sound effective because they appear to match a simple anabolic story: spike insulin, drive nutrients, build muscle. But the body is more complex than that. If insulin sensitivity is impaired, glucose handling is disrupted, and mTOR signaling is compromised, the strategy can work against the very outcome it is supposed to support.

The goal after training is not simply to raise insulin as high as possible.

The goal is to create the internal conditions that allow the body to recover, repair, and build muscle efficiently.

Exercise Keeps You Younger at the Cellular Level

Most people think about exercise in terms of how it changes the body on the outside. They think about weight loss, muscle, strength, endurance, or how they look in the mirror.

But exercise also changes the body on the inside.

Research shows that adults who regularly engage in intense exercise have significantly longer telomeres. Telomeres are the protective caps on the ends of chromosomes. They help protect genetic material as cells divide, and they are often discussed as one marker connected to biological aging.

That matters because telomere length gives us a way to think about aging beyond the number of birthdays someone has had. Two people can be the same chronological age, but their bodies may not be aging at the same rate internally.

In a 2017 study using NHANES data, researcher Larry A. Tucker found that adults who engaged in high levels of physical activity had significantly longer telomeres than those who were less active. According to the research, people who exercised regularly appeared to be a full decade younger than their peers at the cellular level.

That is a powerful idea.

Exercise is not just about burning calories. It is not just about looking better, building muscle, or improving performance. It is one of the most important signals we can send the body if we want to preserve function, resilience, and biological youth.

The body adapts to what we ask of it. When we regularly engage in intense exercise, we are giving the body a reason to maintain itself. We are asking it to preserve muscle, improve cardiovascular function, regulate blood sugar, support mitochondrial health, and keep tissues responsive.

Telomeres are one way to see that the benefits of exercise may reach deep into the biology of aging.

This does not mean exercise makes someone immortal. It does not mean training can stop every part of the aging process. But it does suggest that regular intense physical activity is associated with measurable differences in cellular aging.

That should change how we think about exercise.

Exercise is often treated like an optional lifestyle habit, something people try to fit in when they have time. But if regular intense exercise is connected to longer telomeres and a younger cellular profile, then movement belongs in the same conversation as longevity, prevention, and long-term health.

The goal is not simply to live longer. The goal is to live longer with a body that still works.

Strength, endurance, mobility, and metabolic health all matter because they determine what kind of life a person can physically participate in as they age. Longer life has less value if the body loses the capacity to move, lift, walk, recover, and engage with the world.

Exercise helps protect that capacity.

The larger point is simple: movement is not only something we do for fitness. It is something we do to preserve the body’s ability to keep functioning well over time.

If you want to age better, exercise cannot be an afterthought. It has to become part of the way you live.

---

Reference

Tucker, Larry A. “Physical Activity and Telomere Length in U.S. Men and Women: An NHANES Investigation.” Preventive Medicine 100, July 2017, 145-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.027

A Case for the Hyperextension

Why you should include the hyperextension in your workouts

In many gyms, the hyperextension has a bit of a therapeutic image. If you do this exercise, it is because your physical therapist has advised you to. But real members of the iron tribe who do not need a physiotherapist, of course, do not do the hyperextension. They are going to deadlift. Yes right? Thought wrong, Norwegian sports scientists discovered.

Study
Vidar Andersen, of the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, compared the effects of the hyperextension [using the term Roman chair extension] with those of the Romanian deadlift and the machine back extension.

Andersen had the exercises performed by 15 female students, who had been training with weights for quite some time, with a load with which 6 reps were possible. He stuck electrodes on the subjects' bodies so that he could see how hard muscles such as the erector spinae, the biceps femoris or the gluteus maximus had to work during the upper and lower part of the movement.

Results
The figure below shows the activation of the muscle groups. Of these three exercises, the hyperextension appears to provide the best stimuli for the muscle groups. The Romanian deadlift comes in second.

Practical application
"For athletes and recreationally active people aiming to optimize the neuromuscular activation of the glutes and hamstring, we would particularly recommend the Roman chair exercise", writes Andersen.

"This exercise was in general more effective in activating these muscles, likely due to the biomechanical properties of the exercise creating a consistently large torque throughout the whole range of motion, and particularly in the upper part. It is also easier to perform with proper technique than the Romanian deadlift."

"Machine back extension was clearly inferior to the other two exercises."

Honor the deadlift
That's not to say Andersen thinks serious athletes should forget about the Romanian deadlift. The exercise certainly has its qualities.

"The Romanian deadlift maximizes its torque in a flexed hip position", Andersen continues. "As the hip is extended, the torque continuously decreases, allowing for increased velocity. These biomechanics would simulate running, and especially the top speed phase, where the hip torque is greatest in the late swing phase where the hip is flexed."

"Therefore, we recommend athletes and recreational trained to consider the purpose of the exercises before choosing which one to include in their weekly resistance-training program."

---

Source: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2021) 20, 181-7.

Strength Training works better than Cardio for fat loss

Strength training fights belly fat better than aerobic training

Men who do strength training keep their fat percentage lower in the long term than men who run, cycle or do other aerobic exercise. Epidemiologists at the University of Harvard came to this conclusion after following 10,500 men for 12 years.

Strength training and body fat
At first glance you'd think that aerobic forms of exercise such as running, cycling and rowing would offer better protection against building up excess fat than strength sports do. A weights workout burns a couple of hundred kilocalories at most, while an hour of intensive aerobic training will easily help you burn eight hundred kilocalories.

On the other hand though: after the age of thirty you lose a little bit of muscle mass each year. Because every kilogram of muscle mass you lose also lowers your daily calorie burning by a couple of dozen kilocalories, the older you are, the more easily you put on weight. You can stop this process by doing strength training. If you train really hard and eat enough protein, you can even build up more muscle mass as you age. Aerobic forms of exercise contribute little to building up more muscle mass.

Study
The researchers used data on over 10,000 healthy men that had been gathered between 1996 and 2008 in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, including information on how the waist measurement of the participants had changed over the study period. When the study began in 1986, the participants were aged between 40-75.

"Because aging is associated with the loss of skeletal muscle mass, relying on body weight is insufficient for the study of healthy aging", explained Rania Mekary, the first author of the study, in a press release. [harvard.edu December 22, 2014] "Measuring waist circumference is a better indicator of healthy body composition among older adults."

The researchers divided the men up according to the amount of exercise they got. First the researchers looked at the amount of moderate to vigorous aerobic activity [MVAA] the men got daily. The norm is at least half an hour a day of this type of exercise.

Then the researchers looked at the number of minutes a day the men devoted to strength training.

Results
Strength training offered more protection against a growing waist circumference than moderate to vigorous aerobic activity did, according to the figure below.

During the period that the researchers monitored the men, their waist measurement increased by an average of 6.6 cm. Strength training reduces this increase by 3 cm. According to this study, that happens regardless of whether you adhere to the norm for moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or not.

The researchers even calculated that if the participants had done 20 minutes of strength training daily during the 12 years of the study instead of 30 minutes of aerobic activity, they would have lost another 0.34 cm from their waist measurement. It would have been even better if they had done 20 minutes strength training a day instead of of watching TV for 30 minutes: that would have resulted in a reduction of 0.76 cm on the waist measurement.

Conclusion
The leader of the project, Frank Hu, emphasised in a press release [harvard.edu December 22, 2014] that the study does not show that aerobic forms of exercise are therefore no longer necessary. Aerobic exercise has positive effects on the cardiovascular system that strength training does not have.

"This study underscores the importance of weight training in reducing abdominal obesity, especially among the elderly", said Hu. "To maintain a healthy weight and waistline, it is critical to incorporate weight training with aerobic exercise."

Intense Workouts 2xWeek Reduce Burnout from Office Work

Resistance training and cardio training offer protection against burnout

Employees, freelance workers and entrepreneurs are less likely to succumb to a burnout if they do an intensive training session twice a week. Psychologists at the University of New England in Australia discovered that both strength training and cardio training reduce the chances of having a burnout.

Burnout
The term burnout was coined in 1975 by the American psychologist Christina Maslach. According to Maslach a burnout has three components.

The most obvious of these is emotional exhaustion, followed by depersonalisation. Depersonalisation is when someone develops a negative and often cynical attitude towards their colleagues, the organisation where they work and the work itself. The third component in a burnout is that someone's sense of personal accomplishment decreases.

Study
The Australian researchers wanted to find out whether doing sports would reduce the likelihood of developing a burnout, so they got 29 subjects, aged between 19 and 68, to train three times a week for a period of four weeks. Each session lasted at least half an hour. Twenty subjects did cardio training and 9 did weight training. A control group of 20 people did no sports at all.

Results
At the beginning and end of the four weeks the researchers got the subjects to fill in a questionnaire designed in the 1980s by Maslach to measure burnout. The figures below show that cardio training reduced emotional exhaustion and that resistance training boosted the subjects' personal accomplishment.

In addition, resistance training and cardio training both increased the feeling of psychological wellbeing and reduced the amount of stress that the subjects reported.

Conclusion
"This research provides a valuable supplement that attests to the significant benefit of exercise to both individuals and organisations in increasing well-being, reducing perceived stress, and reducing burnout", the researchers wrote.

"The positive effect of resistance training on personal accomplishment and the psychological distress reducing effects of cardiovascular exercise are exciting extensions of the current literature which, if replicated, can support health and fitness professionals in developing exercise programs for optimal physical and psychological health."

---

Reference: PeerJ. 2015 Apr 9;3:e891.

Hack your Endurance with Rhodiola & Ginkgo

Rhodiola and ginkgo combination boosts endurance (no training required)

Supplementation with extracts of Ginkgo biloba and Rhodiola crenulata increases the stamina of young men. This is shown in a human study published in 2009 in the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine.

Study
The researchers, at the University of Hong Kong, divided 67 young men into 2 groups. For 7 weeks, they gave the men in one group placebo capsules and the men in the other group capsules containing extracts of Ginkgo biloba and Rhodiola crenulata in a ratio of 1: 9.

The men took 4 capsules each day, each containing 270 milligrams of extract mixture. They took 2 capsules with breakfast and 2 capsules with dinner.

Results
The supplement increased the men's stamina. The subjects in the experimental group managed to cycle longer, and that may have been due to the increase in their bodies' ability to absorb oxygen. [VO2max]

Supplementation did not affect the test subjects' testosterone levels, but it did prevent cortisol levels from rising after exercise. That may mean that the men recovered faster.

Conclusion
"The present findings have provided evidence supporting the use of Rhodiola crenulata and Ginkgo biloba combined supplement for improving the endurance performance by increasing oxygen consumption and protecting against fatigue", summarize the researchers.

According to Russian animal study, extracts from both plants improve endurance, albeit in different ways. [Bull Exp Biol Med. 2003 Dec;136(6):585-7.]

Women and Men respond similarly to strength trianing

Women's upper body muscles respond to strength training just as well as men's

The extent to which women can strengthen the muscles in their upper body through strength training is the same as the extent to which men can do this. However, this does not imply that women can easily reach the strength level of men who work out.

Study
In 2016, Brazilian sports scientist Paulo Gentil published a study in which he got 44 male and 47 female students to do a full-body workout twice a week for 10 weeks.

The workout consisted of basic exercises such as leg press, leg curl, chest press and lat pulldown. The subjects did 3 sets of each exercise with a weight that allowed for 8-12 repetitions. The subjects rested for 2 minutes between sets.

Before and after the training period, the researchers determined the torque that the test subjects could develop during a biceps curl. 'Torque' is what athletes in the gym often refer to as 'force'.

Results
In absolute terms, the men gained more strength than the women [left in the figure below]. But in relative terms, in terms of progression over the strength already present before the training program began, the progression of the men was similar to that of the women [bottom right].

Conclusion
"Despite the physiological and hormonal differences between sexes, women demonstrated the same relative strength gains compared to men [...]", writes Gentil.

"It appears there is presently no evidence of a need to design different resistance training protocols to men and women. [...] One should not expect to find limitations in upper body strength development in women."

---

Reference: PeerJ. 2016 Feb 11;4:e1627.

The Importance of Strength Training in Combat Sports

As a Strength Coach I look at strength training as a way to improve performance by increasing strength, whereas those who participate in Combat Sports look to improve performance through perfecting technique. Classically, there has been little crossover combining the two disciplines — with the exception of people like Bruce Lee, who found technique more useful in concert with strength — however, as Combat Sports like Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) continue to grow in popularity, attracting ever more skilled fighters, the sole focus on advancing technique without increasing strength is misguided. There will plenty of people who disagree, yet for those, I challenge you to find one detriment that comes with being stronger. I couldn’t find any, which is why I believe that strength is the mother of all qualities.

“Helen Maroulis defeated Saori Yoshia to win a gold medal in Women’s Wrestling at the 2016 Olympics in Rio after incorporating strength training into her regimen. Yoshia hadn’t lost in 10 years prior to her match with Maroulis; upon walking off the mat after her loss, she was overheard as saying “[Helen] is too strong for me.” Only six months prior, Maroulis was unable to do something as fundamental as a pull-up. Despite advancing to the highest level in her sport — US Olympic Wrestling Team — her technical skill lacked the expression of strength, which was her literal weakness and the one thing holding her back from success on the world’s highest stage.”

Strength is an attribute that cannot be significantly improved through the practice of participating in Combat Sports, therefore it makes strength training a wise investment, particularly if you want to win. The purpose of increasing strength is to develop physical capacities necessary to handle the unpredictable nature and stressors of the sport. Athletes need to be prepared for all aspects of physical combat including punching, kicking, takedowns, takedown defense, arm bars, guillotine, grappling, and clinching, not to mention proper conditioning and muscle endurance. A simpler way to say it would be, to achieve victory an athlete needs to be faster, more explosive and last longer than their opponent. Also, let me make it clear before I go any further, strength does not replace technique — wrestlers should prioritize wrestling, just as martial artists should ultimately work to perfect their discipline — but improving strength will transfer to better technical performance (e.g., technique) on the mat or in the cage.

Traditionally, combat sport athletes have defined their approach to strength training through one of the following misplaced excuses:

“I don’t want to lift weights because I will get too big and bulky, it will make me slow”

Avoiding the weightroom for fear of it making you big, bulky and slow, fly’s in the face of basic physiology. This misguided idea has lead to a heavy reliance on bodyweight exercises or kettlebell circuit training as their primary methods of physical preparation. This style of training works primarily against strength and power development by prioritizing slow-twitch/endurance based muscle fibers at the expense of fast-twitch/explosive muscle fiber development which would provide the power to deliver a knockout or the explosiveness to execute a takedown.

“I don’t want to lift weights because I only need to prioritize my cardio”

Improving strength makes all imposed demands easier, this includes those placed upon the cardiovascular system. Simply put, having stronger muscles allows the athlete to complete any task with less effort (i.e., less energy) and therefore have more reserve. More specifically, when developing the cardiovascular system it is necessary to understand that energy systems are optimized given the demands of the sport. Prioritizing only one energy system with long-slow distance running works against high threshold muscle fibers making explosive movements more taxing and decreases the ability to withstand a blow to the head due to losses in strength. Furthermore, the over-reliance on easy work generally comes with a sacrificing of quality for quantity, further increasing injury risk. A study on American Boxers published in 1990 concluded that an association could be made between lower body overuse injuries and the jogging and rope jumping the boxer did for preparation.

“I don’t want to lift weights because it will decrease my flexibility”

Flexibility is passive, what difference does it make if you’re athlete can stretch themselves in to a position. What really matters is that an athlete is able to demonstrate strength throughout the entire range of motion. You can spend hours doing static stretching or you can perform full range of motion exercises during your strength training. With proper range of motion and antagonistic muscle group training an athlete can optimize range of motion throughout a joint as there is equal balance between muscle groups.

“I don’t want to lift weights because I can get hurt”

Guess what, you’re in a full contact sport! Seriously though, many sport-related injuries stem from muscular imbalances — discrepancies in strength between opposing muscle groups — due to the repetitive stress of consistently overloading the same patterns without addressing the importance of structural balance. There is an optimal balance of strength between muscle groups that control a joint, but if the muscles on one side of the joint are disproportionately stronger than muscle on the opposing side, injury risk can increase. For more on structural balance, check out: Importance of Structural Balance for Injury Prevention.

“I don’t want to lift weights because it is not sport’s specific”

Many people get into trouble by thinking traditional strength training exercises and methods don’t translate well into improving performance because they don’t use the same movements that are part of an athletes technique and skill. Somewhere along the line “functional training” became interchangeable with “specificity” or “sport’s specific training” which tries to replicate the specific motor patterns and skill from the sport and add some component of resistance or instability to it. They argue that such efforts are necessary to make an exercise more transferable to on the mat performance. While goodhearted, this is a misguided attempt. For example Boxing Strength Coach Moritz Klatten had the following to say about using bands to simulate punching movements…

it is a terrible idea because the bands provide the most tension at the end of the movement, and as such they will negatively impact coordination patterns by decelerating the arms toward the end of the movement rather than the biceps. When the fighter goes back to punching without bands, they often decelerate too early or late — deceleration too late causes harmful hyperextension of the elbow, and too early reduces punching power.

The last thing you want to do as a Strength Coach is to work against the progress of your athlete or increase risk of injury. The same logic can be applied to the flawed theories behind unstable surface training or the belief that ladder drills will make an athlete more agile (see Ladder Drills Do Not Increase Sport Performance).

We need to get away from the idea that “sport specific” exercises are necessary for Combat Sport training — or most sports, for that matter — because the only sports where specific exercises directly translate to performance are Olympic Weightlifting (Snatch and Clean & Jerk), Gymnastics (Pull-Ups and Dips) and Powerlifting (Squat, Bench and Deadlift). It is important to understand that while slight variabilities in origin or insertions may exist from person to person, muscles function fundamentally the same across all populations, whether you are an elite UFC fighter or an office worker. Therefore, improving a combat athlete’s performance with strength training is not a matter of finding the best “functional” exercise to replicate a “sport’s specific movement,” but instead it is developing a proper understanding of biomechanics and applying that knowledge towards a strength training program that selects exercises to train muscles in the best way possible… for this fundamentals work best.

Push. Pull. Hinge. Extend. Rotate. Carry. Sprint.

While wrestling requires greater isometric strength because of the holds, Judo requires greater eccentric strength to complete throws and Boxing/MMA requires powerful concentric contractions for striking, the fundamentals are undeniably the best place to start. The following are a fundamental list of exercises that will better prepare the Combat Sport athlete for their next competition:

Push: Incline Press
The Incline Press is key to building strength in the chest and elbow extensors. Pressing motions are necessary for the development of punching power as they are powerful internal rotators of the Humerus (as well as the Lats!). and assisting with defense movements.

Primary muscle groups worked: Chest Musculature, Elbow Extensors, Deltoids

Pull: Pull-Up
The Pull-Up is one of the best upper body exercises to develop strength. Pulling motions are important when trying to controlling an opponent as Lats are used in pulling to pass guard.

Primary Muscles groups worked: Latissimus Dorsi, Biceps Brachii (long head, short head), Brachioradialis, Forearm Flexors

Hinge: Conventional Deadlift
The Conventional Deadlift is the best bang for your buck exercise as it trains the most muscles in the body out of all exercises. It preferentially works the muscles of the Posterior Chain — Hamstrings, Spinal Erectors, Lats, Traps — which is where power is derived from. Traps are used in the shrugging of your shoulders to defend against a rear naked choke.

Primary muscle groups worked: Hamstrings, Gluteal musculature, Spinal Erectors, Latissimus Dorsi, Rhomboids, Trapezius (upper and mid fibers), Core Musculature (Transversus abdominis, Multifidus, Internal and External obliques, Rectus abdominis), Forearm Flexors

Extend: Back Squat

The Back Squat trains the entirely of the legs, hips as well as the low back and core. Anytime you extend your hips or knees, you are using some percentage of what you can squat – Hips extend to apply force on the elbow in an arm bar.

Primary muscle groups worked: Quadriceps, Adductors, Gluteal Musculature, Spinal Erectors, Core Musculature (Transversus abdominis, Multifidus, Internal and External obliques, Rectus abdominis), Gastrocnemius, Soleus

Rotate: External Rotation
The External Rotation exercise is often overlooked but necessary for optimal Structural Balance of the shoulder. Optimal ratios of strength across musculature can improve punching power and the isometric contraction of a clinch.

Primary muscles works: Infraspinatus and Teres Minor

Carry: Heavy Carry
The Heavy Carry challenges the body to move under load. Remaining upright under a heavy load forces strength adaptations in the lower back and core musculature that translate to holding your position on the mat or in the cage. Additionally, grip strength is developed from carrying the weight enabling an athlete to easily establish wrist control.

Primary muscle groups worked: Trapezius (upper and mid fibers), Core Musculature (Transversus abdominis, Multifidus, Internal and External obliques, Rectus abdominis), Spinal Erectors, Forearm Flexors, Gluteal Musculature

Sprint
The Sprint helps to build explosive power through repeated effort. Combat sports revolve around the ability to execute a powerful movement, followed by a brief “rest” usually under an isometric contraction, they deliver another quick movement. While endurance is necessary for this exchange, long-slow distance is not the way to optimally train for such an event. Sprints of long, medium and short distance should be utilized in 400m, 200m, 60m respective.

Primary Energy Systems used: ATP-PC and Lactic

Whether it be pushing, pulling, or extending from a standing position to the same biomechanical patterns from a laying position, combat sport athletes cannot have any weak muscle groups. The stronger athlete with better technique and stamina will win. Therefore, the future of combat sports is not going to be dictated by past practices of bodyweight exercises or distance running, but by those who seek to optimize power and performance as well as injury prevention through structural balancing by adopting a strength training program that allows them to elevate the expression of their technical expertise in a way the competition isn’t ready for… Besides no one ever lost because they said they were “too strong.”

---

Success Stories

Kristy Wolterbeek - Amateur MMA Fighter

Wantuir Spenciere - PanAm World Champion & Amateaure MMA Figther

Herica Tibrucio - Pro Invicta Fighter

Deep Thoughts, Even Deeper Squats

Are deep squats bad for my knees? The prevailing wisdom on this topic would lead you to believe that squatting below parallel will cause injury to your knees by placing an unusual strain on your ligaments leaving the knee unstable and prone to injury. This theory was brought to light in the late 1950’s when Dr. Karl Klein was trying to understand why there happened to be a rise in the number of colligate football players sustaining serious knee injuries. He suspected it was due to the use of full ROM squats in university strength programs so he crafted a special instrument to analyze the knees of several of these football players who frequently performed deep squats.

In 1961, Dr. Klein released his findings, which recommended the squat be limited to a parallel depth. His reasoning stated that the use of deep squatting is detrimental to athletic development and “should be discouraged from the standpoint of its debilitative effect on the ligamental structures of the knee.” The following year, Dr. Klein’s findings were picked up by Sports Illustrated which became the catalyst to spread the fear of deep squatting. Next the American Medical Association weighed in on the topic cautioning against the use of deep squatting. It went so far as the Marine Corps even eliminated the squat-jumper exercise from its physical conditioning programs.

There has been a lot of pushback on this theory ever since its inception almost 60 years ago. Dr. Klein’s findings have failed clinical replication, even with the use of his special instrument. Fortunately, now in the present day we can use the advancement in exercise science and biomechanics research to settle this debate once and for all.

When we squat, our knee sustains two inversely related forces – shear and compressive – meaning that when the knee flexes during the squat, compressive forces increase while shear forces decrease. These shear forces are measured by how much our bones – femur and tibia – want to slide over one another in opposite directions. These forces challenge the small ligaments of ACL and PCL to hold our knees together and limited excessive forward and backward movement. In contrast, compressive force is determined by the amount of pressure the body is pushing on two parts. There are two areas that sustain this compressive force; 1) the meniscus as it absorbs the opposing stress between the tibia and the femur, and 2) the backside of the patella (kneecap) as pressure increases through the descent of a squat.

Science tells us that the ligaments inside our knees are under very little stress at the bottom of a squat due to the mechanics of this inverse relationship. Harmful shear forces are dramatically decreased due to an increase in compression and it seems that the deeper we squat the safer it is on the ligaments of the knee. The most well-known ligament, the ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament), is under little stress in the bottom of a squat.  In fact the stress to the ACL during a squat is actually highest during the first four inches of the squat decent (around 15-30° of knee flexion)* and continues to decrease the deeper the descent. The lesser known ligament, the PCL (Posterior Cruciate Ligament) sustains it’s max forces just above a parallel squat (around 90° of knee flexion).

It seems that Dr. Klein’s detrimental claims of the deep squat stretching out our ligaments, ultimately leaving them unstable is but a myth that just wont die. Science has since shown repeatedly that squatting deep may have a protective effect on our knees by increasing stability. In 1986, researchers compared knee stability among powerlifters, basketball players and runners. After a heavy squat workout, the powerlifters actually had more stability in their knees than did the basketball players did.  In 1989, another group of researchers were able to show that competitive weightlifters and powerlifters had knee ligaments that were less lax than those who never squatted. The prevailing research continues to show that the deep squat is a sage exercise to include in a healthy athlete’s training program.

-Adapted from The Squat Bible by Aaron Horschig

LADDER DRILLS DO NOT INCREASE SPORT PERFORMANCE

Good luck being able to see a defender coming while you are staring at your superb footwork!

Ladder drills have become hailed as a top training tool for producing athleticism, but do the claims about creating faster feet really equal more speed and greater agility?

Ladder training typically involves following a set footwork pattern – moving the feet inside and outside the rungs of a ladder that is laid flat on the ground – where the goal becomes to increase speed while maintaining the pattern. These drills have become hailed as a top tool for producing athleticism, from youth leagues to the pros, yet the science of creating faster feet does not equal more speed or greater agility come game time. In fact, drills using speed and agility ladders under the guise of increasing on-field performance is counterproductive.

Before we dive in, let’s all agree that…

• Everything done in a gym should be seen as physical preparation for sports not performed in the gym. Any attempt to correlate athletic performance to any drill is futile due to the chaotic nature of sports and the processing of multiple variables in any instant of gameplay.

• For any training modality to work effectively, it has to replicate or produce similar benefits of the end goal. This means the given exercise or tool used should closely replicate the speed, force application, change of direction, as well as the metabolic and neural demands of the activity. If it doesn’t, then it will not produce the desired results.

• And when it comes to youth or beginner, everything works in the trainers favor to improve all aspects of strength, endurance, quickness, etc. (However, it could be argued that doing body weight squats would have the same benefit.) Additionally, ladders can be a great tool for developing neuromuscular coordination and provide an excellent multi-planar dynamic warm-up at any sporting level.

That said, this article is aimed at addressing why ladder drills do not increase athleticism or on-field performance by improving speed and agility.  It should be seen that producing speed is more than the ability to move your feet fast, just as agility is more than the proficiency of learning footwork patterns. If we think about the ground as a springboard from which we draw speed, it is not how fast you can dance over it, but how much force goes into it, and how an athlete overcomes inertia to generate a powerful movement; then we can see how ladder drills do not increase performance in your sport of choice, unless it happens to be salsa dancing. Therefore we need to have a better understanding of speed and agility:

Speed is defined by the following equation: (Stride Length x Stride Frequency) / Time. Research has shown that the fastest athletes are not faster because they take more strides, but because they cover more ground with each stride. This is possible because they put more force into the ground enabling them to cover a given distance in a shorter amount of time. It is a matter of power generation; driving the foot against the ground, enables the extensor mechanism from the hip extensors (the all-powerful glutes and hamstrings), the knee extensors (quadriceps), and the plantar flexors of the ankle to propel the body in a forward motion. When you apply greater force into the ground with a forward lean and at a horizontal angle in a smaller time, you generate more speed. As that force increases there is an inverse relationship between ground contact and distance covered. Taking steps that are more powerful than your competitor, will ultimately allow you to outrun them, at least in a straight line. An example would be how Usain Bolt can complete a 100 meter sprint with a stride count of 42, while everyone else in the field managed to 46-48; his stride length was much higher (force) but his stride frequency was about the same.

Agility is the ability to decelerate one’s momentum, stop, overcome inertia and accelerate one’s body mass in another direction in as little time as possible. Essentially, if you’re running straight forward and a defender jumps out of the bushes, you want to be able to create a powerful movement that allows you to turn or change direction in a split second. The most effective way to change direction involves having the legs move outside of vertical alignment of the center of mass, and driving them into the ground at as horizontal of an angle as possible to create a strong impulse against the pull of momentum to continue in another direction. From a physics perspective, momentum along with impulse and inertia, are critical components of agility. The ability to decelerate and stop one’s momentum in as short distance/period of time as possible requires great amount of relative unilateral strength and power, particularly in the extensor mechanism musculature of the lower extremities. Equally important, impulse can be found in the period of time where switching from eccentric action (deceleration) to concentric action (acceleration) occurs. Thus, the quicker an athlete can decelerate, overcome inertia, shift impulse momentum and propel in another direction the more agile an athlete is seen to be.

Given the above description on speed and agility it should be seen that performance is inherently predicated on the application of speed in concert with the impulse of agility. The ability to generate forward momentum/force is equally as important as being able to act and react to the chaotic unpredictability of an outside stimulus. With this understanding of performance we can see that any drill that is directed toward constricting an athlete to tip-toe through a series of 15 x 15 inch boxes without posing a challenge to displacement of an athlete’s center of mass or an effort in creating forward momentum through the development of proper mechanics will only serve as a deterrent to the claims of improving performance.

There is very little to gain with the incorporation of ladder drills, as such drills are merely displays of an already present athleticism. Natural athletes learn skills quickly and replicate movement efficiently within a very short period. Within a few weeks of practicing with a ladder, an athlete can become very proficient in the drill, yet when it comes to performing in the game there is very little transfer. Why? Because ladder drills are learned patterns without the influence of an outside stimulus, like a ball or a defender coming at you, and all the hours and effort spent learning how to tip-toe properly while staring at the ground is only working against the athlete who needs to see and react. When athletes who use these drills as a main focus are required to respond in a chaotic environment like a game, their own muscle memory could work against them—tip-toeing gracefully around a defender instead of creating a quick and powerful movement, only to get blasted by a guy the athlete didn’t see because they’ve been trained to staring at the ground. Simply put, fast feet do nothing if you don’t go anywhere. Getting better at predetermined movement patterns is not indication of on-field performance as there is very little transfer from a learned movement to a chaotic gametime environment. In the end, there is no way to practice the perfect pattern for football, soccer, hockey, ultimate frisbee, or any other sport for that matter. It is a requirement to react powerfully and quickly, and there certainly isn’t any benefit to staring at the ground.

Instead of wasting precious time on ladder drills, a strong focus on strength and power development with emphasis on both bilateral and unilateral movements are the best approach, not only for performance but injury prevention as well. An example would be the following:

• Bilateral Strength – Squats and Deadlift variations

• Bilateral Power – Olympic lifts, Box Jumps and Depth Jumps

• Unilateral Strength – Split Squat variations and Step-Ups

• Unilateral Power – Olympic lifts, Sprints and Penta-Hops

Thinking of the springboard example used earlier, the ground is where we draw speed, how much force we apply to it is the amount of speed we are going to get out of it. Elite-level sprinters can produce over 360 pounds of force per leg when moving at top speed. Good luck tip-toeing your way to those numbers. Force into the ground equals forward motion, this is because speed is a matter of force production and being agile is the ability to react, absorb and overcome inertia, therefore the ability to maintain strength and generate power is the real solution to generating more speed and creating better agility. Once an athlete has corrected any structural imbalances, increased relative strength and reactive/ballistic ability, then and only then is it acceptable to place emphasis on drills utilizing the ladder. However it is important to remember that no drill is a better substitute than having the athlete play their specific sport, as the ladder will never juke one way or try to cross you over.

---

Recommended Reading:

Buy on Amazon

Buy on Amazon

Buy on Amazon

Fixing the Flaws: A Look at the Ten Most Common Biomechanical Weak Links in Athletes

Written on January 31, 2008, by Eric Cressey

Even the best athletes are limited by their most significant weaknesses. For some athletes, weaknesses may be mental barriers along the lines of fear of playing in front of large crowds, or getting too fired up before a big contest. Others may find that the chink in their armor rests with some sport-specific technique, such as shooting free throws. While these two realms can best be handled by the athletes’ head coaches and are therefore largely outside of the control of a strength and conditioning coach, there are several categories of weak links over which a strength and conditioning specialist can have profound impacts. These impacts can favorably influence athletes’ performance while reducing the risk of injury. With that in mind, what follows is far from an exhaustive list of the weaknesses that strength and conditioning professionals may observe, especially given the wide variety of sports one encounters and the fact that the list does not delve into neural, hormonal, or metabolic factors. Nonetheless, in my experience, these are the ten most common biomechanical weak links in athletes:

1. Poor Frontal Plane Stability at the Hips: Frontal plane stability in the lower body is dependent on the interaction of several muscle groups, most notably the three gluteals, tensor fascia latae (TFL), adductors, and quadratus lumborum (QL). This weakness is particularly evident when an athlete performs a single-leg excursion and the knee falls excessively inward or (less commonly) outward. Generally speaking, weakness of the hip abductors – most notably the gluteus medius and minimus – is the primary culprit when it comes to the knee falling medially, as the adductors, QL, and TFL tend to be overactive. However, lateral deviation of the femur and knee is quite common in skating athletes, as they tend to be very abductor dominant and more susceptible to adductor strains as a result. In both cases, closed-chain exercises to stress the hip abductors or adductors are warranted; in other words, keep your athletes off those sissy obstetrician machines, as they lead to a host of dysfunction that’s far worse that the weakness the athlete already demonstrates! For the abductors, I prefer mini-band sidesteps and body weight box squats with the mini-band wrapped around the knees. For the adductors, you’ll have a hard time topping lunges to different angles, sumo deadlifts, wide-stance pull-throughs, and Bulgarian squats.

2. Weak Posterior Chain: Big, fluffy bodybuilder quads might be all well and good if you’re into getting all oiled up and “competing” in posing trunks, but the fact of the matter is that the quadriceps take a back seat to the posterior chain (hip and lumbar extensors) when it comes to athletic performance. Compared to the quads, the glutes and hamstrings are more powerful muscles with a higher proportion of fast-twitch fibers. Nonetheless, I’m constantly amazed at how many coaches and athletes fail to tap into this strength and power potential; they seem perfectly content with just banging away with quad-dominant squats, all the while reinforcing muscular imbalances at both the knee and hip joints. The muscles of the posterior chain are not only capable of significantly improving an athlete’s performance, but also of decelerating knee and hip flexion. You mustn’t look any further than a coaches’ athletes’ history of hamstring and hip flexor strains, non-contact knee injuries, and chronic lower back pain to recognize that he probably doesn’t appreciate the value of posterior chain training. Or, he may appreciate it, but have no idea how to integrate it optimally. The best remedies for this problem are deadlift variations, Olympic lifts, good mornings, glute-ham raises, reverse hypers, back extensions, and hip-dominant lunges and step-ups. Some quad work is still important, as these muscles aren’t completely “all show and no go,” but considering most athletes are quad-dominant in the first place, you can usually devote at least 75% of your lower body training to the aforementioned exercises (including Olympic lifts and single-leg work, which have appreciable overlap).

Regarding the optimal integration of posterior chain work, I’m referring to the fact that many athletes have altered firing patterns within the posterior chain due to lower crossed syndrome. In this scenario, the hip flexors are overactive and therefore reciprocally inhibit the gluteus maximus. Without contribution of the gluteus maximus to hip extension, the hamstrings and lumbar erector spinae muscles must work overtime (synergistic dominance). There is marked anterior tilt of the pelvis and an accentuated lordotic curve at the lumbar spine. Moreover, the rectus abdominus is inhibited by the overactive erector spinae. With the gluteus maximus and rectus abdominus both at a mechanical disadvantage, one cannot optimally posteriorly tilt the pelvis (important to the completion of hip extension), so there is lumbar extension to compensate for a lack of complete hip extension. You can see this quite commonly in those who hit sticking points in their deadlifts at lockout and simply lean back to lock out the weight instead of pushing the hips forward simultaneously. Rather than firing in the order hams-glutes- contralateral erectors-ipsilateral erectors, athletes will simply jump right over the glutes in cases of lower crossed syndrome. Corrective strategies should focus on glute activation, rectus abdominus strengthening, and flexibility work for the hip flexors, hamstrings, and lumbar erector spinae.

3. Lack of Overall Core Development: If you think I’m referring to how many sit-ups an athlete can do, you should give up on the field of performance enhancement and take up Candyland. The “core” essentially consists of the interaction among all the muscles between your shoulders and your knees; if one muscle isn’t doing its job, force cannot be efficiently transferred from the lower to the upper body (and vice versa). In addition to “indirectly” hammering on the core musculature with the traditional compound, multi-joint lifts, it’s ideal to also include specific weighted movements for trunk rotation (e.g. Russian twists, cable woodchops, sledgehammer work), flexion (e.g. pulldown abs, Janda sit-ups, ab wheel/bar rollouts), lateral flexion (e.g. barbell and dumbbell side bends, overhead dumbbell side bends), stabilization (e.g. weighted prone and side bridges, heavy barbell walkouts), and hip flexion (e.g. hanging leg raises, dragon flags). Most athletes have deficiencies in strength and/or flexibility in one or more of these specific realms of core development; these deficiencies lead to compensation further up or down the kinetic chain, inefficient movement, and potentially injury.

4. Unilateral Discrepancies: These discrepancies are highly prevalent in sports where athletes are repetitively utilizing musculature on one side but not on the contralateral side; obvious examples include throwing and kicking sports, but you might even be surprised to find these issues in seemingly “symmetrical” sports such as swimming (breathing on one side only) and powerlifting (not varying the pronated/supinated positions when using an alternate grip on deadlifts). Obviously, excessive reliance on a single movement without any attention to the counter-movement is a significant predisposition to strength discrepancies and, in turn, injuries. While it’s not a great idea from an efficiency or motor learning standpoint to attempt to exactly oppose the movement in question (e.g. having a pitcher throw with his non-dominant arm), coaches can make specific programming adjustments based on their knowledge of sport-specific biomechanics. For instance, in the aforementioned baseball pitcher example, one would be wise to implement extra work for the non-throwing arm as well as additional volume on single-leg exercises where the regular plant-leg is the limb doing the excursion (i.e. right-handed pitchers who normally land on their left foot would be lunging onto their right foot). Obviously, these modifications are just the tip of the iceberg, but simply watching the motion and “thinking in reverse” with your programming can do wonders for athletes with unilateral discrepancies.

5. Weak Grip: – Grip strength encompasses pinch, crushing, and supportive grip and, to some extent, wrist strength; each sport will have its own unique gripping demands. It’s important to assess these needs before randomly prescribing grip-specific exercises, as there’s very little overlap among the three types of grip. For instance, as a powerlifter, I have significantly developed my crushing and supportive grip not only for deadlifts, but also for some favorable effects on my squat and bench press. Conversely, I rarely train my pinch grip, as it’s not all that important to the demands on my sport. A strong grip is the key to transferring power from the lower body, core, torso, and limbs to implements such as rackets and hockey sticks, as well as grappling maneuvers and holds in mixed martial arts. The beauty of grip training is that it allows you to improve performance while having a lot of fun; training the grip lends itself nicely to non-traditional, improvisational exercises. Score some raw materials from a Home Depot, construction site, junkyard, or quarry, and you’ve got dozens of exercises with hundreds of variations to improve the three realms of grip strength. Three outstanding resources for grip training information are Mastery of Hand Strength by John Brookfield, Grip Training for Strength and Power Sports by accomplished Strongman John Sullivan, and www.DieselCrew.com.

6. Weak Vastus Medialis Oblique (VMO): The VMO is important not only in contributing to knee extension (specifically, terminal knee extension), but also enhancing stability via its role in preventing excessive lateral tracking of the patella. The vast majority of patellar tracking problems are related to tight iliotibial bands and lateral retinaculum and a weak VMO. While considerable research has been devoted to finding a good “isolation” exercise for the VMO (at the expense of the overactive vastus lateralis), there has been little success on this front. However, anecdotally, many performance enhancement coaches have found that performing squats through a full range of motion will enhance knee stability, potentially through contributions from the VMO related to the position of greater knee flexion and increased involvement of the adductor magnus, a hip extensor (you can read a more detailed analysis from me here. Increased activation of the posterior chain may also be a contributing factor to this reduction in knee pain, as stronger hip musculature can take some of the load off of the knee stabilizers. As such, I make a point of including a significant amount of full range of motion squats and single-leg closed chain exercises (e.g. lunges, step-ups) year-round, and prioritize these movements even more in the early off-season for athletes (e.g. runners, hockey players) who do not get a large amount of knee-flexion in the closed-chain position in their regular sport participation.

7 & 8. Weak Rotator Cuff and/or Scapular Stabilizers: I group these two together simply because they are intimately related in terms of shoulder health and performance.

Although each of the four muscles of the rotator cuff contributes to humeral motion, their primary function is stabilization of the humeral head in the glenoid fossa of the scapula during this humeral motion. Ligaments provide the static restraints to excessive movement, while the rotator cuff provides the dynamic restraint. It’s important to note, however, that even if your rotator cuff is completely healthy and functioning optimally, you may experience scapular dyskinesis, shoulder, upper back, and neck problems because of inadequate strength and poor tonus of the muscles that stabilize the scapula. After all, how can the rotator cuff be effective at stabilizing the humeral head when its foundation (the scapula) isn’t stable itself? Therefore, if you’re looking to eliminate weak links at the shoulder girdle, your best bet is to perform both rotator cuff and scapular stabilizer specific work. In my experience, the ideal means of ensuring long-term rotator cuff health is to incorporate two external rotation movements per week to strengthen the infraspinatus and teres minor (and the posterior deltoid, another external rotator that isn’t a part of the rotator cuff). On one movement, the humerus should be abducted (e.g. elbow supported DB external rotations, Cuban presses) and on the other, the humerus should be adducted (e.g. low pulley external rotations, side-lying external rotations). Granted, these movements are quite basic, but they’ll do the job if injury prevention is all you seek. Then again, I like to integrate the movements into more complex schemes (some of which are based on PNF patterns) to keep things interesting and get a little more sport-specific by involving more of the kinetic chain (i.e. leg, hip, and trunk movement). On this front, reverse cable crossovers (single-arm, usually) and dumbbell swings are good choices. Lastly, for some individuals, direct internal rotation training for the subscapularis is warranted, as it’s a commonly injured muscle in bench press fanatics. Over time, the subscapularis will often become dormant – and therefore less effective as a stabilizer of the humeral head – due to all the abuse it takes.

For the scapular stabilizers, most individuals fall into the classic anteriorly tilted, winged scapulae posture (hunchback); this is commonly seen with the rounded shoulders that result from having tight internal rotators and weak external rotators. To correct the hunchback look, you need to do extra work for the scapular retractors and depressors; good choices include horizontal pulling variations (especially seated rows) and prone middle and lower trap raises. The serratus anterior is also a very important muscle in facilitating scapular posterior tilt, a must for healthy overhead humeral activity. Supine and standing single-arm dumbbell protractions are good bets for dynamically training this small yet important muscle; scap pushups, scap dips, and scap pullups in which the athlete is instructed to keep the scapulae tight to the rib cage are effective isometric challenges to the serratus anterior.

Concurrently, athletes with the classic postural problems should focus on loosening up the levator scapulae, upper traps, pecs, lats, and anterior delts. One must also consider if these postural distortions are compensatory for kinetic chain dysfunction at the lumbar spine, pelvis, or lower extremities. My colleague Mike Robertson and I have written extensively on this topic here. Keep in mind that all of this advice won’t make a bit of difference if you have terrible posture throughout the day, so pay as much attention to what you do outside the weight room as you do to what goes on inside it.

9. Weak Dorsiflexors: It’s extremely common for athletes to perform all their movements with externally rotated feet. This positioning is a means of compensating for a lack of dorsiflexion range of motion – usually due to tight plantarflexors – during closed-chain knee flexion movements. In addition to flexibility initiatives for the calves, one should incorporate specific work for the dorsiflexors; this work may include seated dumbbell dorsiflexions, DARD work, and single-leg standing barbell dorsiflexions. These exercises will improve dynamic postural stability at the ankle joint and reduce the risk of overuse conditions such as shin splints and plantar fasciitis.

10. Weak Neck Musculature: The neck is especially important in contact sports such as football and rugby, where neck strength in all planes is highly valuable in preventing injuries that may result from collisions and violent jerking of the neck. Neck harnesses, manual resistance, and even four-way neck machines are all good bets along these lines, as training the neck can be somewhat awkward. From a postural standpoint, specific work for the neck flexors is an effective means of correcting forward head posture when paired with stretches for the levator scapulae and upper traps as well as specific interventions to reduce postural abnormalities at the scapulae, humeri, and thoracic spine. In this regard, unweighted chin tucks for high reps throughout the day are all that one really needs. This is a small training price to pay when you consider that forward head posture has been linked with chronic headaches.

Closing Thoughts

A good coach recognizes that although the goals of improving performance and reducing the risk of injury are always the same, there are always different means to these ends. In my experience, one or more of the aforementioned ten biomechanical weak links is present in almost all athletes you encounter. Identifying biomechanical weak links is an important prerequisite to choosing one’s means to these ends. This information warrants consideration alongside neural, hormonal, and metabolic factors as one designs a comprehensive program that is suited to each athlete’s unique needs.

Pearls of Wisdom

Pearls of Training Wisdom from Ed Coan, Charles R. Poliquin and Matt Wenning

Bench Press

Correct Grip Width

Grip width is a function of your biomechanics and needs to be set according to this. Biomechanics change from athlete to athlete due to shoulder width, length of the humerus and length of the forearms. A simple way to figure this out is to go into your natural push-up position, the body automatically selects the grip width you’re the strongest in and feels the best. That’s your competitive bench press grip. Just because you´re allowed to grip wider doesn´t mean it’s good for you.

Bench More with Structural Balance

Train your rotator cuff muscles and scapular retractors for a big bench and healthy shoulders. How are you supposed to bench big weights if you can´t even stabilize them? That’s like putting a Lamborghini engine into a Civic while still relying on the Civic’s breaking system. You´re just begging for an injury. 

Drive your head into the bench on the concentric phase of the lift

This activates your neck extensors and puts another 2-7 kg on your bench. Strong neck extensors potentiate every upper body lift.

Squat

Always keep your Sternum high

And pick a spot somewhere in front of you that’s slightly above to look at. This ensures that your head is high at all times. Your eyes dictate where the body goes. Look down and you’ll round forward.

Warm up your weak and/or inactive muscles before you train

Pick 3 exercises to address them and try to get those muscles working. Don’t smash yourself on the warm up, just potentiate those muscles. If you sit on your ass the whole day your glutes are most likely inactive and the lower back will take over a large portion of the work. I´m sure you experienced this at some point: your lower back is completely fatigued after squatting. That’s because your glutes are not firing.

60-70% of your total training volume should be traction based exercises for your spine

Heavy squatting and deadlifting always compress your spine so make sure you decompress it when doing your accessory work for more longevity.

Deadlift

The deadlift has a disadvantage to the bench press and the squat

This is because there´s no eccentric movement preceding the concentric phase. In the other two lifts it´s possible to correct your form on the way down but with deadlifts you can’t. That’s why the starting position is most important.

Deadlift cycles are the shortest due to their demand on the nervous system

Stretch your hip flexors statically before deadlifting

This will put another 5-15 kg on your deadlift. Tight hip flexors inhibit the strength of your hip extensors.

Endurance vs. Conditioning

The statement is simple – Endurance is the most overrated of all sports specific qualities. Why Because endurance is neither necessary nor the limiting factor in most sports. Conditioning is. Where is the difference?

Definition of Endurance and Conditioning as follows:

Endurance is the ability to maintain a certain effort with minimal fatigue – A classic example is a marathon. At a marathon it´s crucial to run 2+ h in one go with minimal fatigue.

Conditioning is the ability to repeat a certain effort with minimal fatigue – Classic examples are team sports like Soccer, American Football, Basketball and Ice hockey. In those sports it is crucial to keep fatigue between the first and the last sprint (and all the others in between) as minimal as possible.

Most Olympic, Team- and Combat Sports are cyclical, that means certain efforts must be repeated. A 100m sprinter has to repeat his performance in heats, semi-finals and finals. A thrower has 6 attempts per competition and an olympic weightlifter has 3 per discipline.  If the performance decreases too much from attempt to attempt then his conditioning is the limiting factor.

A more extensive example is soccer. Depending on the position of a player he runs about 8-12km per game. From which he runs 400-1200m above 85% of his top speed. The remaining 8-10km are walking, trotting and hardly relevant for the game.

These 400-1200m are crucial. The average sprinting distance is about 17m. Sprints over 30m, thats the distance between mid- and penalty line, are very rare.

The critical distance is 0-5 m. That´s the famous “one step faster”. Based on player statistics of the English Premier League, players with the highest salary, regardless of their position have one thing in common, they are the fastest over 0-5m.

At an average sprinting distance of about 17m and a game-relevant total distance of 400-1200m those are about 24 to 70 sprints per game. Assuming a uniform load density, it is a load of 2-3 seconds followed by a 1:20-4:00 minute break. I sprints are repeated with minimal rest its more than 3 in a row before the ball is out of sight.

So what is critical for a game in this case in terms of physical qualities?

Endurance or Conditioning?

Critical are those 24 to 70 sprints in under 90 minutes game time and their repetition with minimal fatigue, not endurance. Endurance isn´t relevant in soccer because of the short bursts of sprints they do.

To run 10-60 minutes at once has very poor correlation with the ability to repeat 24 to 70 sprints in 90 minutes with minimal fatigue.

2 FORMS OF ENDURANCE

Endurance at high intensity – that is the ability to maintain a stress of high intensity upright with minimal fatigue. A good example is a 100m sprinter. A sprinter reaches his top speed after 60-70m. From 60-70m the critical factor becomes maintaining the top speed as long as possible without getting tired. In this case we speak of speed endurance. Usain Bolt is a great example for this. His greatest advantage over his opponents, and the reason why he is even more dominant over 200m than over 100m, is his exceptional speed endurance, the ability to maintain his top speed with minimal fatigue and leave all his opponents behind after 60-70m.

Endurance at low intensity – that is the ability to maintain a stress of low intensity upright with minimal fatigue. A good example is the marathon. In a marathon it´s crucial to maintain a performance for 2+ h with minimal fatigue. In one go and without interruptions.

Intensity – definition: Intensity is the load of a performance in relation to the maximal performance. A performance at high intensity for example is a sprint over 50 meters at maximum speed or BB Back Squats for 3 reps with 90 % of 1RM. In contrast to this, a performance of low intensity is a run over 10000m at maximum speed or squats for 25 reps with 50 % of 1RM. That means intensity is not defined on the subjective level of effort but correlates performance with maximum power/effort.

Both forms of endurance, especially the last one, are not relevant in most Olympic-, Team- and Combat Sports because the duration of the load in those sports is far lower.

In most Olympic-, Team- and Combat sports conditioning is critical. The ability to repeat a performance with minimal fatigue.

2 FORMS OF CONDITIONING

Conditioning at high volume – the ability to repeat a certain performance very often with minimal fatigue.  The best example is soccer, where depending on the position of the player the average sprinting distance has to be repeated up to 70 times per game with minimal fatigue.

Conditioning at low volume – the ability to repeat a certain performance a few times with minimal fatigue. Best example is Olympic Weightlifting. There you only have to repeat an attempt 3 times per discipline and competition – so 3 Reps of the Snatch and 3 Reps of the Clean & Jerk, thats it.

The lower the volume, the more critical becomes the performance during the attempt itself. It is not that crucial to repeat that performance often.

The higher the volume, the more critical is the ability to repeat it. Therefore in weightlifting the ability to repeat a performance is less important than the absolute performance, namely to move maximal weight. In comparison with weightlifting soccer players need lower maximal- and explosive strength level than weightlifters – but higher levels of conditioning. As the ability to repeat maximal Sprinting Speed for the 90 minute game is critical.

TRAINING ENDURANCE VS. CONDITIONING

The training for Endurance and Conditioning is obviously very different.

The Training of Endurance basically includes a higher volume of total work, a lower -if any – number and duration of breaks and lower average intensity of effort. While the training of conditioning basically comprises a lower total volume of work and an increased number and duration of breaks at higher average intensity of effort.

51 rounds divided into 3 blocks á (9 rounds, 3 minutes pause, 5 rounds, 3 minutes pause, 3 rounds) with 10 minute pauses between the blocks. The rounds have to be executed with minimal 85% of world record time.

That´s a solution for a 1500m short track speed skater whose limiting factor is endurance over 1500m. That means he fatigues too much in the last 3-5 rounds of the 1500m race which is 14,5 rounds.

This is a program written by the legendary short track speed skating Coach Yves Nadeau, whose athletes won 204 medals at World Championchips and the Olympic Games since 1983.

Sample training program for Conditioning in Soccer

This is a modified strongman medley used to condition a soccer player

A1 Forward Sleddrag, 20m, 5s rest
A2 Prowler Push, High Handle, elbows extended, 20m, 5s rest
A3 Sprint, 20m, 120s rest
Repeat 4-10 times depending on the current Conditioning Level of the Athletes

This is a solution for a player or a team whose physically limiting factor is fatigue in the latter part of the game.

The ability to repeat multiple blocks of three 20m efforts with minimal rest has clearly a higher correlation to soccer-specific performance than 10-60min straight jogging. To train the sprinting power, speed and conditioning at the same time a combination of strength- and condititoning training in the weightroom can also be utilized. To see how it looks in detail, here is an example of a squat training program for conditioning in Ju Jitsu.

Sample training program for Conditioning in Ju Jitsu

 12 sets of 4 reps of BB Back Squats with a 30X0 tempo and 60s rest.

From workout to workout increase the average- and maximal weight used.

That´s a solution for a fighter whose physical limiting factor is fatiguing from effort to effort. The higher intensity and resistance on the squats allow for training conditioning and power of a single action at the same time.

This is the program used for preparation of YPSI Athlete Romy Korn for the Ju Jitsu World Championship 2014 in Paris where she became World Champion in the 70+ kg weightclass at a bodyweight of 71,2kg with all her opponents outweighing her by 15+kg.

Conclusion: For a coach it is crucial to identify whether endurance and/or conditioning are necessary for a certain sports and disciplines. And to assess which the limiting factor of the individual athlete is. So the training program can be specifically tailored to the needs of the individual sport and the limiting factor of the individual athlete. To maximise the efficiency of training and therefore increase pPerformance on the field, court, ice or mat.