Added to data collecting

Getting bigger, faster and stronger typically means you can move more weight. So with that said, I aim to get people to move more weight. I have been tooling around with different clusters, super sets, drop sets, eccentrics and isometric contractions to see what is seemingly the best route. I have an answer...ALL OF THEM! Don't be confused. All of these methods are excellent and should be used in athletic and muscle development. What I have found to be the true foundation is tonnage. Tonnage can be described as the total amount of weight lifted within a set. Example: 10 reps of bench at 135lbs is 1350 total pounds lifted. Now the tempo of the lift and rest intervals (amongst other co-factors) will emphasize the strength quality, I am simply talking about total tonnage in a set and different ways of achieving maximum numbers. I chose an intra set rest/pause vs. a cluster to see which could provide more tonnage.


The exercise for we chose for the demo was a 2-3-4 board flat bench press. The cluster for this example was done with a 10 second rest with the weight racked with each board change (this does mimic a cluster). The rest/pause was used with the weight locked out for a few seconds while we changed boards. I am aware that by racking the weight for a short time does allow for the body to rebuild energy substrates (things the body breaks down to help performance) making it an obvious choice to improve tonnage. To a lesser degree the same could be said for holding a weight in the lockout position. The locked out position can be useful to help store elastic energy as well as rebuilding of substrates that can improve the amount of reps per set. Needless to say, as much as I new the cluster would be superior, I was not prepared for how much more. Take a look:








Set #1 (14) reps at 185 lbs. = 2590lbs

Set #2 (24) reps at 185lbs = 4440lbs WOW!! That is a lot more weight!



So I still say use many different variations in your lifting, but if your focus is tonnage than the cluster or cluster is far superior.

Life is not a book

I find myself constantly looking for new training ideas. You know, the next big program. To mine and my crews benefit, we have had good fortune with our success. Although I do not discount that we have put research into our why's and how's, I do not believe that to be the main reason for our progess.

Collecting training as well as nutritional data sets you up for ways to become more intuned with your body. As I have learned from the past, life is not a book. Books even with the most intimate of details are still merely a template for growth. Taking a concept and applying it is the only way to determine if this theory is right for my right now.

Where I am most fortunate is having a group of individuals with similar goals. I have the luxury of applying a single method to multiple people with very different lifes and collecting group based data that can be priceless in my quest of getting better as an athletic coach. I can compare reps, rest, tempo, different activation techniques, plyo's, CNS intensive training amongst others and develop a hypothesis in a very short time.

Without taking the data and assessing it, how does one determine the outcome of a particular way of eating or training? So write down your training and food to better learn what's best for you.

Are all methods equal as long as there is progress?

I had the opportunity today to spend time with/train a local coach with an impressive resume. Let me start by saying this guy was top notch. Did not bring attitude except for training. But anyways, he was a scholarship football player from the Big Ten and Cal State Fullerton. At 6'2" 235 and single digit bodyfat, he was impressive. We spent as much time talking as we did training. The majority conversation stemmed around this days training methods. The training went like so:

-Myofascial release

-Dynamic mobility

-Athletic/explosive movement (band assisted broad jumps for neural training and coordination)

-GBC (total body) with non compete muscle pairings

A typical day in the gym for me, for him, not so much.  What was interesting was his sincere disassociation with the methods we used.e.g.. warm ups, order, tempo's, % of weight used, choice of rep ranges..etc. So as we talked about what we were doing and why, he consistently made comparisons to his different coaching techniques and techniques his coaches used on him. He determined that there must be multiple schools of thought that work equally, "the best fit for you is what you are most comfortable with" and why shouldn't he? I mean he is bigger and stronger than me and played sports at an elite level. Yet I stood with a smirk, not being arrogant (well maybe a little), but reassured that I could improve even the most elite of athletes.  Now, I am no expert on every aspect of training. I love to learn new things and believe this industry is in constant change. What I have trouble with is the general belief in comfort and familiarity being a motto to train by. This violates every training principle for growth both neurologically and muscularly. 

Adaptation is the enemy. So is the lack of a plan, improper order of exercises, exercise choices related to your goals and a general lack of understanding proven training principles. 

So as much as I can say with contentment that there can be progress with many different training styles, they will not all yield the best possible results. What helps me sleep is knowing that I can make a difference even with elite athletes as long as I stick to some principles:

1) Log your training to follow progress. 

2) Apply progressive overload to your training weekly.

3) "Methods are many, principles are few". Stick to principles (sets, reps, weight, tempo, rest)

4) Strive for continued improvement.

5) Believe in yourself as much as your program.

Out