Sensible Training (REPOST)
Robert Spector
that will never die (HIT vs. Whateveryouwannadefineperiodizationas) is back
again. I'm glad that some of the "vets" of the "holy" wars of the past
aren't getting back into this one again. We have too many battle scars (I'm
now a one-fingered typist).
Thus, I am reposting this article which is one of the best I've ever read,
written by Ken Leistner. You can make things complicated with training -
or you can make the *concepts* easy. Your choice...although there are
some other interesting lessons from this story.
Oh yeah, have a Kleenex tissue ready, cuz the part about Robert Sizer is
a real tear-jerker <sniff, makes me cry every time>
Ciao,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally printed in the January 1976 issue of IronMan
magazine. The following is the full article in its
entirety. It is one of my favourite articles, written by Ken Leistner,
a well-known powerlifter and strength trainer. Leistner used to write
in IronMan magazine a few years ago under the column "The Steel Tip" which
was dedicated to powerlifting. If you have copies of these issues, I
would strongly recommend them, as he is IMO a great writer, and very
knowledgeable in the iron game.
Reading this article which was published almost 20 years ago, it is
IMO interesting to note that things are the same now, as they were 20
years ago. Some of the anecdotes you might say to yourself "hey, that
sounds like so-and-so". Ironic that after all these years, IMO things
have gotten *more* confusing in strength training. It seems that people
for whatever reasons, have made things much more complicated than what
they really are. But enough of my commentary, it is just my opinion
and only that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENSIBLE TRAINING - A LOGICAL APPROACH TO SIZE AND STRENGTH
By Dr.Ken Leistner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all the numerous changes that have taken place in the field of
weight training over the years it has never been truer that "the more
things change the more they remain the same". Armed with the accurate
information collected over the years it is possible for anyone to improve
their strength, their muscular endurance (to a certain extent), their
cardiovascular endurance, and their appearance (a subjective evaluation)
if the interested party is willing to take the brief time necessary to
analyze the conditions necessary for inducing muscular growth stimulation.
The requirements haven't changed over the years, and the nonsense put forth
by the commercially interested and biased parties hasn't changed either.
But most importantly, the irrational approach taken towards training
hasn't changed a great deal either, and has prevented the vast majority
of weight trainees from reaping even a small portion of the possible
benefits made available by the use of the barbell.
Robert Sizer, a former pro-football player, All-American
at Richmond University and at one time the most outstanding high school
football player in the state of Virginia, was perhaps the first successful
athlete in the area to pursue weight training in an attempt to improve
his athletic ability at a time that this was believed to make one
"musclebound", slow and uncoordinated.
Sizer was an 180lb offensive lineman, that by accounts was stronger and
faster than most men weighing 250lbs at the time. At 15 YEARS OF AGE
he could squat with 450 lbs (for reps), and bench press 420 lbs.
Sizer trained with a barbell fashioned out of concrete wheels that his
father made for him. In the beginning he admitted he didn't really
know what he was doing. "All" he did was train hard and brief with heavy
weights on the major exercises.
Remarked Sizer:
"Unfortunately, as I became exposed to more people who were involved with
training, I left my old methods behind and became bogged down in a progress-
stifling method, or more accurately, methods of training...No one showed
me how to train; I just went at it like I did everything else, and the hard
work on each and every set brought results. But when I saw the other
fellows doing things a bit differently, I adopted many of their techniques,
not to my benefit".
The point? There are basic considerations one has to take into account when
inducing muscular growth stimulation, and this, of course, is the whole
point of utilizing weights. Some of the necessary conditions that must be
met for optimal results are:
- using heavy movements over a full range of motion
- continuing every set of every exercise to a point of momentary but complete
muscular failure
- using "basic" exercises, i.e, compound movements that work the major
muscular structures of the body, like the squat.
- training at a level of maximum intensity
- limiting the amount of work done
- providing the necessary requirements for growth to occur
- ensuring that the exercise is truly progressive
Much of this is so obvious that it needs no further explanation, but
considering the almost unbelievable amount of false information available,
without such a basic understanding the trainee will not be able to formulate
a program that will bring results in a manner that is proportionate with
the effort expended.
The only way to produce maximum possible increases in muscle tissue mass
is by the production of maximum power. This can only be done by utilizing
exercises that engage as much of the particular mass as is possible, and
only when working over a full range of possible motion. And while it
is almost impossilbe to engage 100% of the available fibers, much more
growth stimulation will occur if the exercise is carried out over as
great a range as is possible. This also assists in the development of
increased flexibility, as a heavy weight will pull the involved bodyparts
into a fully extended position at the beginning of the movement and will
also provide "prestretching" of that involved muscle. It is now apparent
that the most important requirement for inducing maximum growth is intensity.
Carrying an exercise to the point of momentary but complete failure
ensures that one is training at a point of greatest possible intensity
(assuming that the trainee is putting forth effort and "not going through
the motions" and thus "failing" long before reaching a point of actual
muscular failure). There is no way to gauge the amount of effort being
put forth unless one goes to the point of failure. That implies, simply,
that 100% of momentary possible effort was put forth.
Also, it is only by working this hard that one can engage the maximum
possible amount of muscle fibers. And unless this maximum amount of
fibers is worked, growth will be retarded, if not impossible. Many
trainees fear this. They are afraid of working as hard as is actually
required, and thus they often return to their prior methods of training
improperly. It is much easire to perform 4 sets of 8 reps of a particular
movement than it is to complete one set *correctly*; for example, doing
15 reps in proper form to a point where it is momentarily impossible to
move the barbell with the involved bodypart.
I recently had the "pleasure" of training (for only one session, thankfully)
with one of the leading bodybuilders in the United States. I
convinced him to try "my way" of doing things, and he finally consented.
I coaxed him through a set of leg presses, using approximately 300lbs,
and he completed 18 reps. This was followed by a set of full squats,
using a fairly light weight (approx. 185 lbs), and he terminated the set
long before his strength had been taxed. We then did standing presses
and chins, and he did manage to go to a point of failure, although he
did take momentary "breaks" during the sets to complain that the "weight
is just too light to feel so heavy" and other such gems of wisdom.
The result? He called me the next day to tell me that he was very sore
but that he was going to return to his prior method of training because
"your way is just too hard". He further admitted that he thought that
I was correct - trainng to failure, using a weight, any weight that would
allow a reasonable number of repetitions, was the proper way to train -
but that he preferred an admittedly improper training method because it
was "easier". I explained that while the human body could be damaged
by doing "too much work," the body's defense mechanisms made it almost
impossible to bring about injury by training "too hard. You'll
regurgitate or faint before you cause any real damage to the body, *if*
you trained even that hard," I said.
"Well, I'll just stick to what I'm doing," he said. "But, hey, thanks
for the time you gave me." Indeed. (And I should of course point out
that "my way" of training is not really *my* way. I had nothing
whatsoever to do with the development of such common sense principles.
I've just had the sense to utilize what is rational, correct, and
result-producing).
Common sense would indicate that if one is training at the proper level
of intensity, an increased amount of work would be neither desirable
nor possible. ONE set of 15-20 reps in the full squat, performed with
proper form and done until the trainee can no longer rise from the
full squat position, will do more for building the strength and size of
the involved muscles than any such number of improperly performed sets
of any other leg exercises, including the full squat. And how many
sets of full squats, done as described, do you think you could perform in
a single workout? How many such sets would you *want* to perform? Thus
it becomes obvious that the amount of work must be limited.
One also walks a very thin line in inducing muscular growth. You must
work hard enough to induce growth, but not so extensively as to deplete
a very definite (but unknown) amount of recovery ability. One can train
properly in that all exercises are performed in correct style, taken
to a point of momentary failure, etc., but if too much work is done, the
system will not be able to provide the necessary factors for growth. Yet
many trainees train four, five, six and sometimes even more per week.
Athletes who are preparing for a season of activity will express surprise
that they progressed little while lifting weights three or four days per
week, running distance and sprints on their "off" days and practicing
the skills needed for their particular activity an additional two or three
times per week. Their ability to recover has been depleted, and until that
ability is restored, no amount of additional work will induce muscular
increases. Thus training must be limited to no more than three days/week
and in some cases only two/week. And for some extreme cases, training once
per week will serve to induce maximal amounts of growth.
Why so-called compound movements? Before I actually knew anything about
proper training (and this is not to imply that I know even a fraction of
what there is to know now), I realized that there was something, an
indefinable something, that wasn't "right" about a number of bodybuilders
who trained in the gym where I also trained. (This is not to be misconstrued
as a criticism of all bodybuilders. Many have a great deal of athletic
ability and fine, athletic-appearing physiques.)
One such man was an advanced trainee (in the sense that he had been
training a number of years and had won a number of local physique titles).
However, he was missing a certain athletic quality, a harmonious look.
My brother put the finger on it when he observed, "He looks like a
bunch of bodyparts pasted together. He's all there, big and all,
but the total picture looks awkward-no grace, no glow, no..." The
point had been made.
The human body's muscular structures
are such that I was amazed at the first autopsy I witnessed. After
reading GRAY'S ANATOMY and seeing a number of anatomy charts, I had
assumed that one could discern individual muscles. This isn't the case.
They are so interbound and interwoven, it becomes obvious why so many
years of medical training are necessary to figure the entire mystery
out. Muscles work in conjunction with each other. Furthermore,
greatest growth stimulation will come by working the largest muscles
in the body. A secondary growth effect occurs when the major
muscle masses are worked, and the statement that the "small muscles
will take care of themselves if you work the big ones" is true because
of this effect. Thus the greatest possible growth will occur if movements
are employed that will engage the major muscular structures of the body.
(More on the selection of exact exercises, later).
In addition to inducing growth stimulation, other factors are necessary
for increasing the amount of muscle tissue mass. These include sleep,
nutrition, and a number of psychological variables such as motivation,
resistance to pain and "psyching up", amoung others. Each of these
factors is important.
Though the term "progressive exercise" has been used as a catchall to
describe weight training activities, most trainees rarely make any attempt
to actually have progressive and productive workouts. The "theory" is
so logical as to be almost ridiculous, yet it is so often, if not always
overlooked. If one were to add 5 lbs to the barbell every two or three
workouts, or add another repetition, performed in proper style, with the
same weight one used in the preceding workout, growth would occur (assuming
that all other previously mentioned factors were taken into consideration and
those considerations met), as the system would be constantly exposed to an
ever-increasing load. This is progression.
Arthur Jones stated that, with curls as the example when it is possible
for a trainee to curl 200 lbs in good form *without* body swing, "then
his arms will be as large as they need to be for any possible purpose
connected with any sport just short of wrestling bears". This sums
up progression pretty well.
I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it's just a matter of always
adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, "If you could
get to the point where you're squatting 400lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged
deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200
for 10 resp, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning
with 100 pounds, don't you think you would be big - I mean awfully big?
And strong?" Obviously!
Knowing the basic considerations, it is possible to construct a sensible
weight-training program, one that will serve almost anyone's purpose.
However, to further clarify matters, I will discuss the choice of the
actual exercises. Some are more result-producing than others, and
some are also less dangerous.
The available equipment should include a barbell, a squat rack (or some
type of high stand that can be used to support a barbell), an
overhead bar (or pipe) for the purpose of chinning and two pipes, heavy
chairs or parallel bars for the purpose of performing parallel bar dips.
If more equipment is available, fine; it will add variety to the program.
But more equipment is not necessary to build one to his maximum possible
size and strength. The best exercises for the major musculature structures
of the body are full squats, stiff-legged deadlifts, standing presses,
chins with the palms facing you, parallel bar dips, barbell curls, bent-
over rowing motions, pullovers on a bench, shrugs and situps. (I include
this exercise only as a means of covering the entire body. The abdominals
will receive quite enough work during the performance of other exercises.)
A very productive program would look like this:
1) Full Squats - 15-20 reps
2) Pullovers - 10 reps
3) Standing Presses - 10 reps
4) Chins - 10 reps
5) Dips - 12 reps
6) Barbell Curls - 10 reps
7) Shrugs - 15 reps
8) Stiff-Legged Deadlifts - 15 reps
How many sets of each exercise? One. Two. Certainly never more than
three, and if you are working properly, one set of most of these exercises
should be more than enough for anyone. Why are these exercises chosen as
opposed to some others? Very frankly, personal preference has much to do
with this. However, some considerations may clarify my prejudices.
There are no bench presses recommended. Contrary to popular belief the
bench press is not a very good exercise for the development of the pectoral
muscles. It is fairly good for the development of the anterior deltoid and
triceps, but the standing press develops these muscles as well or better
(better being defined as more quickly, more directly, with the production
of more power or work during an actual repetition of the exercise), as does
the parallel bar dip. However, if you care to do bench presses or presses
behind the neck in a standing position, feel free to do so. Perhaps you
can alternate pressing movements every few weeks, every few workouts, every
other workout. You will never suffer from lack of variety.
Why chins with palms facing (curl grip)? While some prefer chins to a
behind-the-neck position with a palms-pronated grip, the curl grip gives
a higher order of work to the biceps and a greater range of movement to the
latissimus muscles. Why stiff-legged deadlifts as opposed to regular
deadlifts or cleans? Again, substitute the regular deadlift on occasion,
but bear in mind that the stiff-legged deadlift gives the spinal erectors
and biceps femoris more direct work than the regular deadlift. The "power
clean", while valuable for some purposes, is not necessary for the
development of the muscles in question, and due to the speed of movement
it places unnecessary demands on the connective tissue of the involved
bodyparts.
Obviously there is room for deviation in the choice of exercises. One
can at times substitute one pressing movement for another, use dumbbells
instead of a barbell, etc. However, the basic routine should be utilized
with little alteration, as all the major muscular structures of the
body will receive maximal growth stimulation (and if previously mentioned
points are taken into consideration).
How often should one train with this program? A maximum of three times
weekly. For some, two sessions a week will provide the necessary
stimulation without exceeding the recovery ability. Perhaps three
workouts one week, two the following week. It is expected that the
intelligent individual will be able to discern for himself what is
necessary. (It does constantly amaze me, though, how many persons,
"intelligent" in other areas, successful in their professions, are
helpless in approaching their training and yet are perfectly willing to
pursue a course that is unproductive for years).
Any time that progress is not forthcoming analyze your approach
and if any changes need to be made, it will probably along the lines of
reducing the amount of work being done.
If the precepts put forth here seem simple, it is only because they are.
Complexly so. Unfortunately, most trainees do not want to hear the
simple truth. They feel safer looking endlessly for secrets, miracle
potions - almost anything other than admitting that they are not willing
to work *hard* enough for the results they desire (a rather common condition
actually, but one most often denied).
An example? I was in a very well equipped athletic training center in
Minnesota a few months ago and was approached by a young man of approximately
25 years of age. After speaking with him for a few moments, I recalled
that I had instructed him in the use of proper exercise style while working
with one of the [now defunct] World Football League teams. This athlete
had been an outstanding player at a small Midwestern college but had been
released by the professional club. We spoke:
"I haven't really been doing too well lately. I want my arms to be bigger,"
he said. I noticed that they were fairly large already and remarked that
perhaps they were as big as they would ever get, in muscular condition, at
his present bodyweight. "Well they were once alot bigger."
He told me that he weighed approximately 25 lbs more at that time than he
did presently. I pointed this out and told him that his arms had been
larger then, as had the rest of his muscular structures.
"But I was fat at that weight," he said. I repeated that perhaps his arms
were as large as they were going to be in muscular condition, considering
his height, and other hereditary factors, length of muscle, etc. "I won't
accept that. They have to get bigger!" As it was, he refused to train
his legs and lower back as "I think those parts are already big enough."
This was a well-educated young man who had "been around" was doing graduate
work in a related field (related to weight training) and yet displayed
a somewhat less than rationale attitude to his training.
One more example? A former lacrosse and football player who had been, a
number of years prior to our conversation, moderately successful in physique
competition and, when initially beginning his weight training activities
fairly strong (as evidenced by a bench press of a single rep of close to
400lbs).
"I'm tired of changing my routine every week. There must be some answer,"
he said. Unfortunately, he trained in a gym with a current Mr. Universe
titleholder. "[blank] suggested that I do more chest work." I suggested
he stop wasting his time and perhaps attempt a routine very similar to
the one outlined above. He agreed and struggled through it, using 150 lbs
for 12 squats, 30 lb dumbbells for his pressing and similar weights for
the remainder of the routine.
"You mean to tell me that after 10 YEARS of fairly continuous training,
that's your limit? You're using 1/4 the weight you used 8 years ago."
I was incredulous.
"I know I'm having trouble believing it myself." was his response.
"If this is the result of so-called proper training, you ought to let it
go and concentrate on becoming a millionaire." He was college-educated,
was in possession of two advanced graduate degrees, and highly successful
at his chosen profession.
"But Frank [blank, bodybuilder with some titles] told me that I didn't need
to do any really heavy movements for development." I merely told him
to look at the workout that he had just taken, compare the results of
his efforts over the previous 10 years of training, and evaluate the
validity of his method. "Well, I don't know. If I could just win one
contest it would have been worthwhile".
Rational? What is too high a price to pay? It wouldn't be as absurd as it
is if all of the wasted effort wasn't totally unnecessary. As Bob Sizer
remarked:
"If I would have know what proper training consisted of, if someone
would have been there to show me, I would have taken everything to failure,
would have done a few basic exercises and probably would still be playing
football. Even at my age." He smiled.
It's for Bob Sizer and the many people like him that this article was
written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Rob
Robert....@ablelink.org