Showing posts with label strength. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strength. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Eyes Have It - sometimes: using eye position to enhance strength
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
I was fascinated by Geoff Neupert's article in the latest Power by Pavel Newsletter (issue 209, 08/09/10) about his experience using eye position in the press. Geoff is the author of Kettlebell Muscle. Absolutely awesome to see eye position highlighted in relation to how that action can support movement practice. That support is rather dependent on where and how in a compound move it's being used, and also what else may be happening in our somato-sensory systems. So let's look at eye position and postural reflexes and how they support muscle action a little more.
Geoff writes:
Geoff reports that this didn't work for him. When we understand the roll of vision in position, that result is not surprising, so we'll come onto why. He then proposes a revised move with a different head, jaw and eye position: the neck back a bit, chin up a bit and eyes slightly up.
Geoff says of this approach:
Test Early; Test Often The key thing to me in this article is that Geoff did "test" his new approach: did it improve his press? he says so an i believe him. Yet while he proposes a new technique for his press, and has some interesting theory to support it, whether or not that approach will be universally successful may be as likely as eyes down through the lift was successful for Geoff. May be. Dunno, maybe.
The take away from this story, at least for me, is less about a new technique that will work for everyone and more about: test it, because what works for you mayn't work for me, or for you later today, no matter how well we hypothesize why something works after the fact.
Let me step back a bit and say here's why i'm not surprised by GN reporting that eyes looking down *through the whole press* would likely/potentially not be a good idea: there's more going on than shoulder flexion in the press.
Eye Position and Reflexes when Reflexes work. Let me back up even further and say that the eyes are tied to reflexes that support extension, flexion, adduction, abduction, rotation. By reflex we mean involuntary automatic and near immediate response to a stimulus. Intriguingly, sometimes these reflexive responses can get buggered up, (and with the eyes, have particular effects on posture, among other things) but more on that anon.
When things are working right, we see looking down triggers flexion, looking up triggers extension looking in one direction triggers complementary adduction/abduction/rotation in the direction viewed.
Eye position is then used to complement/strengthen what can most benefit from that reflex. That may change throughout a lift. And what if while one thing is extending something else is flexing? What do we need help with the most? We'll look at an example to try in a sec.
Strengthening what needs to be strengthened throughout a lift
As an example of how eye position might change in a lift, let's take a look at the example from Geoff's article, the kettlebell press. The press is a rich movement: one may need eyes down to support shoulder flexion at the beginning of the lift coming out of the rack, then eyes towards the horizon and looking at the bell when the delts are at the weakest point, so strengthening rotator cuff movements, and post sticking point, eyes up to support the triceps extending (thanks to conversations last year with Zachariah Salazar Z-Health Master Trainer and RKC on these multiple positions in the press). In Pavel's pressing, as RKC Ken Froese pointed out to me, his eyes seem to follow the bell throughout, which may be great for someone with even strength, but not for someone with say a shoulder issue.
So keeping eyes down throughout the movement may be less productive for some people if where the weak link in the move shifts, and changing eye position will enhance that.
Try this at Home: A chin up (hands supinated) uses extension of the shoulder/lats firing, but it also uses elbow flexion (biceps coming into a curl). So what needs more help for you in a chin? Best way to find out: test either/or positions, depending if one's weaker link is shoulder extension/lats (eyes up) or biceps flexing (eyes down). Try both: what works better for you -when? Which is which may change as training progresses, or for just about any other reason, as we'll see below.
When reflexes seemingly aren't firing normally
Why would a doctor whack a knee if a reflex always fired as it was supposed to? We wouldn't need to test something that always works one way. Same thing with eye responses as demonstrated in what are referred to as postural reflexes, richly informed by the visual (and vestibular and proprioceptive) system(s):
Sometimes due to trauma or sometimes a long flight and jet lag, one's postural reflexes get really muted or actually cause the inverse effect reflexively in the body. There are tests for this (if you visit with a z-health certified coach who's done i-phase, for instance, they'll know these position/vision tests). The important thing to get is that our muscular responses - things as seemingly simple and immutable as flexion and extension - are intertwined with the somato-sensory system (visual, vestibular and proprioceptive function), and that these intertwined systems are constantly dealing with various stimuli. As Reiman and Lephart found in 2002:
Obviously, if one's visual responses to a direction are screwed up (say looking down doesn't strengthen your bicep curl, or cue an appropriate postural reflex), then using your eyes in a movement in that direction is also likely not going to help - in some cases it may seem to work against you if your body doesn't like that eye position, performance is going to suffer - until the thing gets fixed. And it is addressable.
Repetez après la model: Test It. So rather than getting super prescriptive about what will achieve what, great to have some heuristics about reflexes and eye position and of course form. But great too (a) to be sure to be able to refine application - like multiple eyes positions may be needed throughout a move and (b) to know that those reflexes are working as designed and (c) just test it.
If an eye position doesn't work - doesn't provide a performance boost or takes away from one - try something else. And if in a simple move like a biceps curl where eyes down should make that curl stronger and it doesn't work, maybe check with that qualified coach who knows how to work with these positions in case it's either a technique thing or something else that may need a bit of work.
We are Complex Integrated Systems There are 11 systems in the human being. They all interact with one another, from our skin to our reproductive system. There's no way we're going to be able know, a priori, what will unequicoably work for ourselves, little own everyone at all times. only salespeople seem to make such unequivocable claims about their products - it slices; it dices. always for everything. Really? What other domain is so certain?
In my main domain of human factors, this is why we can't make claims about the effectiveness of an interface based on how it works for ourselves alone, but have to test it rigerously so that we can say with some statistical power that it is effective to some degree, and even that is constrained like: for people aged x-y with these particular skill sets, they were able to use this tool to complete this task A% better than the previous tool design. Without that - even though we've developed that design with the best models of human performance from motor control to cognition available to us - the best we can say in our domain is "we liked it; why don't you give it a try and let us know if it worked for you."
Broken Record: Test it. Frequently, regularly. Vision is a potent system - the top of the somato sensory hierarchy. Makes sense that when it's firing well, it can help our other systems respond well. To use eye position to enhance a lift, therefore, means testing the eye position to see what action in a lift may need that enhancement - presuming that our visual reflexes are working as they're supposed to work. So again, if eyes down doesn't enhance that biceps curl, may be time to check vision, too. If it is, check eye position with the move. Test various positions through the move.
It's a really simple principle. It means having strategies to deal with a weak result to help make improvements. but at the very least it gives us information about tuning what we're doing.
Citation
Related Posts
I was fascinated by Geoff Neupert's article in the latest Power by Pavel Newsletter (issue 209, 08/09/10) about his experience using eye position in the press. Geoff is the author of Kettlebell Muscle. Absolutely awesome to see eye position highlighted in relation to how that action can support movement practice. That support is rather dependent on where and how in a compound move it's being used, and also what else may be happening in our somato-sensory systems. So let's look at eye position and postural reflexes and how they support muscle action a little more.Geoff writes:
For the last four years, until recently, I promoted a neutral head, eyes down posture for presses and jerks, thinking that this would increase flexion at the shoulder and therefore increase shoulder mobility and allow for the weight to go up easier.
Geoff reports that this didn't work for him. When we understand the roll of vision in position, that result is not surprising, so we'll come onto why. He then proposes a revised move with a different head, jaw and eye position: the neck back a bit, chin up a bit and eyes slightly up.
Geoff says of this approach:
This is excellent: Geoff tested the move to see if it worked better for him, today. Testing a technique is critical as adaptation is pretty individual; testing that neutral head / eyes down thing sooner might have been a good idea too for addressing four years of press frustration.I then corroborated my findings with what the absolute best in the world do, confirmed my position, applied my "new" techniques, and started making progress once again.
 | |
| For more ideas on how to train these eye muscles, see Eye Heatlh: How Fast can you switch focus? |
Test Early; Test Often The key thing to me in this article is that Geoff did "test" his new approach: did it improve his press? he says so an i believe him. Yet while he proposes a new technique for his press, and has some interesting theory to support it, whether or not that approach will be universally successful may be as likely as eyes down through the lift was successful for Geoff. May be. Dunno, maybe.
The take away from this story, at least for me, is less about a new technique that will work for everyone and more about: test it, because what works for you mayn't work for me, or for you later today, no matter how well we hypothesize why something works after the fact.
Let me step back a bit and say here's why i'm not surprised by GN reporting that eyes looking down *through the whole press* would likely/potentially not be a good idea: there's more going on than shoulder flexion in the press.
Eye Position and Reflexes when Reflexes work. Let me back up even further and say that the eyes are tied to reflexes that support extension, flexion, adduction, abduction, rotation. By reflex we mean involuntary automatic and near immediate response to a stimulus. Intriguingly, sometimes these reflexive responses can get buggered up, (and with the eyes, have particular effects on posture, among other things) but more on that anon.
When things are working right, we see looking down triggers flexion, looking up triggers extension looking in one direction triggers complementary adduction/abduction/rotation in the direction viewed.
Eye position is then used to complement/strengthen what can most benefit from that reflex. That may change throughout a lift. And what if while one thing is extending something else is flexing? What do we need help with the most? We'll look at an example to try in a sec.
Strengthening what needs to be strengthened throughout a lift
As an example of how eye position might change in a lift, let's take a look at the example from Geoff's article, the kettlebell press. The press is a rich movement: one may need eyes down to support shoulder flexion at the beginning of the lift coming out of the rack, then eyes towards the horizon and looking at the bell when the delts are at the weakest point, so strengthening rotator cuff movements, and post sticking point, eyes up to support the triceps extending (thanks to conversations last year with Zachariah Salazar Z-Health Master Trainer and RKC on these multiple positions in the press). In Pavel's pressing, as RKC Ken Froese pointed out to me, his eyes seem to follow the bell throughout, which may be great for someone with even strength, but not for someone with say a shoulder issue.
So keeping eyes down throughout the movement may be less productive for some people if where the weak link in the move shifts, and changing eye position will enhance that.
Try this at Home: A chin up (hands supinated) uses extension of the shoulder/lats firing, but it also uses elbow flexion (biceps coming into a curl). So what needs more help for you in a chin? Best way to find out: test either/or positions, depending if one's weaker link is shoulder extension/lats (eyes up) or biceps flexing (eyes down). Try both: what works better for you -when? Which is which may change as training progresses, or for just about any other reason, as we'll see below.
When reflexes seemingly aren't firing normally
Why would a doctor whack a knee if a reflex always fired as it was supposed to? We wouldn't need to test something that always works one way. Same thing with eye responses as demonstrated in what are referred to as postural reflexes, richly informed by the visual (and vestibular and proprioceptive) system(s):
Visual and vestibular input, as well as joint and soft tissue mechanoreceptors, are major players in the regulation of static upright posture. Each of these input sources detects and responds to specific types of postural stimulus and perturbations, and each region has specific pathways by which it communicates with other postural reflexes, as well as higher central nervous system structures.There's even work to suggest that blinking or performing visual sacades may improve postural stability.
Sometimes due to trauma or sometimes a long flight and jet lag, one's postural reflexes get really muted or actually cause the inverse effect reflexively in the body. There are tests for this (if you visit with a z-health certified coach who's done i-phase, for instance, they'll know these position/vision tests). The important thing to get is that our muscular responses - things as seemingly simple and immutable as flexion and extension - are intertwined with the somato-sensory system (visual, vestibular and proprioceptive function), and that these intertwined systems are constantly dealing with various stimuli. As Reiman and Lephart found in 2002:
Motor control for even simple tasks is a plastic process that undergoes constant review and modification based upon the integration and analysis of sensory input, efferent motorWe occaisionally really get how intertwined these actions are if we ever have an inner ear infection, or find ourselves experiencing sea sickness or dizziness.
commands, and resultant movements.
Obviously, if one's visual responses to a direction are screwed up (say looking down doesn't strengthen your bicep curl, or cue an appropriate postural reflex), then using your eyes in a movement in that direction is also likely not going to help - in some cases it may seem to work against you if your body doesn't like that eye position, performance is going to suffer - until the thing gets fixed. And it is addressable.
Repetez après la model: Test It. So rather than getting super prescriptive about what will achieve what, great to have some heuristics about reflexes and eye position and of course form. But great too (a) to be sure to be able to refine application - like multiple eyes positions may be needed throughout a move and (b) to know that those reflexes are working as designed and (c) just test it.
If an eye position doesn't work - doesn't provide a performance boost or takes away from one - try something else. And if in a simple move like a biceps curl where eyes down should make that curl stronger and it doesn't work, maybe check with that qualified coach who knows how to work with these positions in case it's either a technique thing or something else that may need a bit of work.
We are Complex Integrated Systems There are 11 systems in the human being. They all interact with one another, from our skin to our reproductive system. There's no way we're going to be able know, a priori, what will unequicoably work for ourselves, little own everyone at all times. only salespeople seem to make such unequivocable claims about their products - it slices; it dices. always for everything. Really? What other domain is so certain?
In my main domain of human factors, this is why we can't make claims about the effectiveness of an interface based on how it works for ourselves alone, but have to test it rigerously so that we can say with some statistical power that it is effective to some degree, and even that is constrained like: for people aged x-y with these particular skill sets, they were able to use this tool to complete this task A% better than the previous tool design. Without that - even though we've developed that design with the best models of human performance from motor control to cognition available to us - the best we can say in our domain is "we liked it; why don't you give it a try and let us know if it worked for you."
Broken Record: Test it. Frequently, regularly. Vision is a potent system - the top of the somato sensory hierarchy. Makes sense that when it's firing well, it can help our other systems respond well. To use eye position to enhance a lift, therefore, means testing the eye position to see what action in a lift may need that enhancement - presuming that our visual reflexes are working as they're supposed to work. So again, if eyes down doesn't enhance that biceps curl, may be time to check vision, too. If it is, check eye position with the move. Test various positions through the move.
It's a really simple principle. It means having strategies to deal with a weak result to help make improvements. but at the very least it gives us information about tuning what we're doing.
Citation
Morningstar, M., Pettibon, B., Schlappi, H., Schlappi, M., & Ireland, T. (2005). Reflex control of the spine and posture: a review of the literature from a chiropractic perspective Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 13 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1746-1340-13-16
Riemann BL, & Lephart SM (2002). The Sensorimotor System, Part II: The Role of Proprioception in Motor Control and Functional Joint Stability. Journal of athletic training, 37 (1), 80-4 PMID: 16558671
Rougier P, Garin M (2007). Performing saccadic eye movements or blinking improves postural control. Motor control, 11 (3), 213-23 PMID: 17715456
Related Posts
- Why I - train for the sprain
- THe other side of the gym - training the somato-sensory system
- more stuff about integration of systems: z-health overviews.
PDF
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
How get strong if (part of) our muscles aren't actually on?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
So that seems like a dumb question, doesn't it: how do we get strong if our muscles aren't actually on? After all, we work out; we get lots of reps in - we seem to get stronger, and then someone says about that plateau we're hitting "maybe the reason you're not getting that press is that you're weak." Excuse me? You talking to me?
That happened to me today. As some of you know i'm trying to get the 24kg KB press - hence the wee recent chat with Dan John about pressing. But today, at the 9S strength and suppleness course, one of the components was getting some muscles checked to see if they were firing on demand. Eg, anterior delt. Pretty important in pressing. What did i learn? It wasn't staying on through a good part of the range of motion possible of that muscle. Let me clarify - part of the muscle wasn't staying on through the ROM. In my case, close up to the origin was having a hard time. Just part. Consequence? Sucky press progress.
So we looked at ways to help a person (a) learn the range of motion of the muscle with respect to its action on a joint and (b) how to cue the person to get that part of that muscle to come on in that range of motion. Gotta tell you there were a lot of "Oh so that's what that muscle feels like when it's working" comments.
The big deal here is that we're talking about parts of the whole muscle - not the big "my glute med isn't firing" but "this part of my glute med at this ROM is not firing."
Why would we Care to get More Muscle going?
Contractions: Muscle fibers are wee wee things making up the body of a muscle. Motor units - nerves going to the bundles of muscles - don't all come on at once. But they also don't come on part way. THere's no dimmer switch to a muscle. They're either on or off. The strength of a contraction is relative to the number of motor units that come on. Another cool point is that the ratio of motor units to fibers changes depending on body parts. Hands, feet and eyes have for instance way way higher rations of motor unit to fibers than say the legs or the forearms. There's also issues around the squencing of motor units firing in a contraction, but we'll set that aside for the moment
So the potential to see the effect of motor unit shut down may be greater in the bigger muscles with fewer individual motor units per fiber.
Main point: If a bunch of motor units are not being recruited, or they turn off part way through a motion, we get squishy bits or what feels like dead zones in the body of the muscle.
Conversely, the more motor units firing, the more fibers get triggered, the more force can be produced, the more easily we lift - or the more load we lift and the smoother the lift that can keep the muscle on throughout the action. THis is likely a gross oversimplification that does not take into account recruitment patterns and wind speed etc, but it seems to work as a general model.
Example I had the pleasure to work with a great guy and super coach, big guy too, muscle wise, who said that he had trouble with his squat - his DL overtook it completely. By comparison his shoulders are beautiful. So let's see if those massive delts may also be associated with sans squishy recruitment.
WHen muscle testing his shoulders - the delts and the teres major in particular - everything was solid throughout the range of motion. No squishy bits (unlike mine). Wow. When we tested the quads it was quads be gone. They were just a sea of squishy bits. Wow.
Now, obviously this guy could squat me on his back all day long no problem, so he's not "weak" in the 99lb sand kicked in his face kinda way. But it's plain that he could be stronger and faster if more of the muscle was willing to come on.
Aside: Nervous System Perspective. Everything's connected.
In many cases that weekend, we worked on muscles, helped folks get squishy bits to come on more fully, and tested that yup performance was going up. And in some cases pain was going down at the same time.
With super coach's quads, we did not get so much action back in the legs. A bit of history revealed that super coach's biggest issue is plantar fascitis right now and that's his priority. It may be that in his case, his nervous system is not willing to pour more juice into his quads to let him go heavier if his base is in pain. Poor feet feeling, not so safe for adding greater load. Could be. So wisely super coach is focusing on what his bod is telling him to do.
In other cases, helping one muscle to fire better, helped an entire system to opening up and got people to a whole new level of happy.
Plugging in Muscle Work.
Learning to feel what a muscle feels like - what it's role is in a movement is an interesting exercise.
Here's where some kinesiology can help
- by knowing what muscle is reponsible for what action in a movement, we can see if it's doing its job to support that movement.
This approach to performance checking is another reason why we all need a knowledgeable coach. If progress is stalling it may be that it can be addressed more rapidly by a quick anatomy function check to see if something needs a little attention to be brought to it to come to the party than looking at 20 different lift variations to see if that's the ticket. It's not to say that those lift variations aren't key plateau busters, but for them to function optimally, it would be better for them to be situated on an optimally functioning base, no? Accelerate progress.
A coach can cue our awareness of the muscle, it's ROM and check when it's coming off and help us practice attention to keep that part of a muscle on.
Tuning
Muscle work like this, it seems to me, is tuning. It's not the single factor foundation thing in itself that will solve all ills or create training shortcuts. It's a refinement on top of good movement quality to begin with and *then* tuning the muscles within this quality foundation.
It's polishing part of the global picture. But goodness what a big difference a little bit of polish, a little bit of tuning can make: the image is clearer; the music more harmonious - the effect more enlivening.
Muscle tuning in this way therefore seems to make great sense as part of a whole package of coaching/tuning for performance and well being: start with cleaning up whole movement (i like z-health r-phase for this); then dial it in even more with a coach who can offer muscle tuning (and more - like working in the wonderful world of ligaments - no kidding - but that's for another time).
Related Posts
That happened to me today. As some of you know i'm trying to get the 24kg KB press - hence the wee recent chat with Dan John about pressing. But today, at the 9S strength and suppleness course, one of the components was getting some muscles checked to see if they were firing on demand. Eg, anterior delt. Pretty important in pressing. What did i learn? It wasn't staying on through a good part of the range of motion possible of that muscle. Let me clarify - part of the muscle wasn't staying on through the ROM. In my case, close up to the origin was having a hard time. Just part. Consequence? Sucky press progress.
So we looked at ways to help a person (a) learn the range of motion of the muscle with respect to its action on a joint and (b) how to cue the person to get that part of that muscle to come on in that range of motion. Gotta tell you there were a lot of "Oh so that's what that muscle feels like when it's working" comments.
The big deal here is that we're talking about parts of the whole muscle - not the big "my glute med isn't firing" but "this part of my glute med at this ROM is not firing."
Why would we Care to get More Muscle going?
Contractions: Muscle fibers are wee wee things making up the body of a muscle. Motor units - nerves going to the bundles of muscles - don't all come on at once. But they also don't come on part way. THere's no dimmer switch to a muscle. They're either on or off. The strength of a contraction is relative to the number of motor units that come on. Another cool point is that the ratio of motor units to fibers changes depending on body parts. Hands, feet and eyes have for instance way way higher rations of motor unit to fibers than say the legs or the forearms. There's also issues around the squencing of motor units firing in a contraction, but we'll set that aside for the moment
So the potential to see the effect of motor unit shut down may be greater in the bigger muscles with fewer individual motor units per fiber.
Main point: If a bunch of motor units are not being recruited, or they turn off part way through a motion, we get squishy bits or what feels like dead zones in the body of the muscle.
Conversely, the more motor units firing, the more fibers get triggered, the more force can be produced, the more easily we lift - or the more load we lift and the smoother the lift that can keep the muscle on throughout the action. THis is likely a gross oversimplification that does not take into account recruitment patterns and wind speed etc, but it seems to work as a general model.
Example I had the pleasure to work with a great guy and super coach, big guy too, muscle wise, who said that he had trouble with his squat - his DL overtook it completely. By comparison his shoulders are beautiful. So let's see if those massive delts may also be associated with sans squishy recruitment.
WHen muscle testing his shoulders - the delts and the teres major in particular - everything was solid throughout the range of motion. No squishy bits (unlike mine). Wow. When we tested the quads it was quads be gone. They were just a sea of squishy bits. Wow.
Now, obviously this guy could squat me on his back all day long no problem, so he's not "weak" in the 99lb sand kicked in his face kinda way. But it's plain that he could be stronger and faster if more of the muscle was willing to come on.
Aside: Nervous System Perspective. Everything's connected.
In many cases that weekend, we worked on muscles, helped folks get squishy bits to come on more fully, and tested that yup performance was going up. And in some cases pain was going down at the same time.
With super coach's quads, we did not get so much action back in the legs. A bit of history revealed that super coach's biggest issue is plantar fascitis right now and that's his priority. It may be that in his case, his nervous system is not willing to pour more juice into his quads to let him go heavier if his base is in pain. Poor feet feeling, not so safe for adding greater load. Could be. So wisely super coach is focusing on what his bod is telling him to do.
In other cases, helping one muscle to fire better, helped an entire system to opening up and got people to a whole new level of happy.
Plugging in Muscle Work.
Learning to feel what a muscle feels like - what it's role is in a movement is an interesting exercise.
Here's where some kinesiology can help - by knowing what muscle is reponsible for what action in a movement, we can see if it's doing its job to support that movement.This approach to performance checking is another reason why we all need a knowledgeable coach. If progress is stalling it may be that it can be addressed more rapidly by a quick anatomy function check to see if something needs a little attention to be brought to it to come to the party than looking at 20 different lift variations to see if that's the ticket. It's not to say that those lift variations aren't key plateau busters, but for them to function optimally, it would be better for them to be situated on an optimally functioning base, no? Accelerate progress.
A coach can cue our awareness of the muscle, it's ROM and check when it's coming off and help us practice attention to keep that part of a muscle on.
Tuning
Muscle work like this, it seems to me, is tuning. It's not the single factor foundation thing in itself that will solve all ills or create training shortcuts. It's a refinement on top of good movement quality to begin with and *then* tuning the muscles within this quality foundation.
It's polishing part of the global picture. But goodness what a big difference a little bit of polish, a little bit of tuning can make: the image is clearer; the music more harmonious - the effect more enlivening.
Muscle tuning in this way therefore seems to make great sense as part of a whole package of coaching/tuning for performance and well being: start with cleaning up whole movement (i like z-health r-phase for this); then dial it in even more with a coach who can offer muscle tuning (and more - like working in the wonderful world of ligaments - no kidding - but that's for another time). Related Posts
- What is z-health
- Pelvis Power - working hip opening in the press.
- the other side of the gym: sensory motor work
- Fatigue testing: is the next rep one too many
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Pressing Matters: a wee chat with Dan John
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Greetings b2d readers and especially, if i may, to fellow Canucks, as tomorrow be Canada Day. To Roll in the New Great Summer month of July, something special: an interview with Dan John - mainly about pressing.
For some folks in strength training, Dan John needs no introduction. He is both an active coach in sport, and strength and conditioning as well as being an just-won't-quit competitive athlete in both his favorite sport, the discuss, as well as in the Highland Games. In very recent times, he has become a fan of the humble russian kettlebell, and a proponent of its value as part of one's trainstreing program.
I had the pleasure of connecting with Coach John at the past RKC II in San Jose, where we got talking about the Press in particular, and since then has ranged to a host of related topics from what makes a press beautiful, where it sits next to the deadlift, instinctual training, coaches and training women.
Dan will also be co-delivering a new workshop this fall with Pavel Tsatsouline for RKCs called SCIENTIFIC STRENGTH SECRETS for EXTREME PERFORMANCE (with a book to follow). The workshop i am told is also a once-only, not-to-be-repeated event.
And so without further ado, a conversation with Dan John.
Dan's Book. You have a book out called "Never Let Go
" the title of which struck me as a wee bit ironic for a guy who has a reputation for throwing objects at speed away from himself. I know you explain this in the book, but could you review the rationale?
Kettlebells in general - You've progressively moved into working with KB's. How come? what's the attraction to this tool? Where, if i may, does it fit in with the rest of your personal practice and work you do with the athletes you coach?
The Press And speaking of the press, you seem to be a guy who likes the Press as a move, why? where does that fit into the Dan John picture of strength practice?
When we were talking about improving the press, you suggested that in your experience women have to press more than guys to press heavier.
Dan, in the RKC II as you know, one of the skills/strength tests for certification is a kb press. For men, it's half their body weight. For women, it's 1/4. Some gals have been saying a quarter is too light, why not a third, or even half for women too? For a 60KG woman, going by the men's chart, this would mean, closest bell is the 28. Personally, while the 20 is fine, i'm still working to get the 24 as a 58-60kg gal.
I guess what i've been wondering is given that if we accept that women need more volume to press heavier, more volume can also mean higher exposure to possible overuse injury. Is it worth it to put up the strength requirements for women? and if they were to go up, what would you see as a sane progression?
Something all yours, kenneth jays and pavel's volume emphasis along with Asha Wagner's training results. Asha pistoled a 24 without ever training it - just trained a lot of pistoling the 12. a lot - is that doing a lot of lighter reps (50-60%) is a potentially great way to train for The Big Lift. This may seem like stating the obvious, but i'm not sure if i have lost the plot? how might you suggest that be tuned?
* women's strength in general
Training colleague Kira Clarke recently suggested that a coaching colleague has seen a correlation between strength and persistent well being. This is worth repeating so let me post it here, from Kira:
* everyone needs a coach?
On the theme of gym bags and coaching then, a lot of folks who practice their sport or their skill do so without getting together with a coach. They run or they lift or do whatever independent of any formal checks. They may say i don't know anyone, i'm only doing this for myself, not competing, why do i need to spend money on a coach i know what i'm doing. THoughts? Suggestions?
Related to dieties, and conversion, are there any attitudes that you see in folks coming to a new training practice - like oly lifting or kb's - where they've drunk the kool aid, and focus seems to narrow perhaps rather than enlarge, or everything is seen through the lens of the One True Movement? Any suggestions for folks either going through this, or observing it?
You coach folks who are frequently identified as athletes, who compete formally in sport, and then there's the rest of us who mayn't compete or think about competition. I'm not quite sure how to frame this question, but do you think there's something important about either formal competition or some kind of external check in performance that any athlete - formal or not - should consider? Do you think it's important (that's not the right word) for people to compete or be evaluated in some way (i think about the challenge of being evaluated at the RKC certs for instance)? and if yes why? or why not?
Well on that note, could you offer a few moments in your own athletic practice that have been particularly meaningful to you, and why?
- fave dan lift?
What's a practice perspective that you'd say has been of most pracitcal (and/or spiritual) benefit for you in your athletic career?
Coming up Later This Week:
Hope y'all enjoyed that. With Dan's permission granted, coming up later this week i'll post the routine Dan gave me for increasing the press (part II of the interview).
Related Links
For some folks in strength training, Dan John needs no introduction. He is both an active coach in sport, and strength and conditioning as well as being an just-won't-quit competitive athlete in both his favorite sport, the discuss, as well as in the Highland Games. In very recent times, he has become a fan of the humble russian kettlebell, and a proponent of its value as part of one's trainstreing program.
I had the pleasure of connecting with Coach John at the past RKC II in San Jose, where we got talking about the Press in particular, and since then has ranged to a host of related topics from what makes a press beautiful, where it sits next to the deadlift, instinctual training, coaches and training women.Dan will also be co-delivering a new workshop this fall with Pavel Tsatsouline for RKCs called SCIENTIFIC STRENGTH SECRETS for EXTREME PERFORMANCE (with a book to follow). The workshop i am told is also a once-only, not-to-be-repeated event.
And so without further ado, a conversation with Dan John.
Dan's Book. You have a book out called "Never Let Go
" the title of which struck me as a wee bit ironic for a guy who has a reputation for throwing objects at speed away from himself. I know you explain this in the book, but could you review the rationale? No, thank you, that makes sense. That's really kind of cool. So with that grounded base for discussion, let us move to something it usually makes good sense to keep in hand when practicing. Kettlebells.Well, of course, I discuss this in the book, but it comes from T. H.
White’s “The Sword in the Stone
.” It was the book, along with Jerry Kramer’s “Instant Replay
,” that turned me into a reader. In the book, young King Arthur (Wart) is taught by Merlyn by being turned in animals. The first law of the foot, animals who live and die by their foot or talons, is “Never Let Go.” I base my life on the principles of that book…odd as it might sound.
Kettlebells in general - You've progressively moved into working with KB's. How come? what's the attraction to this tool? Where, if i may, does it fit in with the rest of your personal practice and work you do with the athletes you coach?
The attraction of the tool is simply that: it is an awesome tool! On my limited porch, I recently moved, I can train hard, really hard, with the space that used to be about the size of my storage in my training area. I love Double Kbell Cleans and Front Squats for working hard and I love windmills and Get Ups for stretching and assessments. The Kbell is harder than it should be no matter what you are doing. Too light? Do them bottoms up! And, there is nothing better than Kbells for swings.It's really intriguing to me how many senior kb practitioners are celebrating the Swing and the bottoms up press. Potent training can be pretty simple.
The Press And speaking of the press, you seem to be a guy who likes the Press as a move, why? where does that fit into the Dan John picture of strength practice?
The overhead press would be along with the deadlift as the two most important lifts that most people should do. Yes, you should do a squatting movement every day, for the same reasons toss in a hinge, a walk, and joint mobility work, but for loading, you want the press (maybe even first and foremost in my thinking now) and the deadlift. I have worked with women in fat loss programs that simply get everything they need from pressing. Now, they also were on zero carbs, stacking ephedrine and caffeine and aspirin, drinking huge amounts of water and walking every day, but the simple overhead press seemed to pop them to another level.
If can overhead press it, you can bench it. The more you press overhead, the more stable you become overall. Also, for whatever reason, call it what you want, but pressing overhead seems to apply to sport and general badassary.Do these thoughts vary when thinking about the KB press rather than bar/dumbbell? or when you think of the press now, do you think pretty much press=kb press?
Well, for me, with my new situation, I can’t just pop into the garage and pick one of four O lifting bars, or dumbbells. I have kettlebells, so there you go!When you think about the press, or the kb press in particular, then, what would you say is the art of the press, and of developing a beautiful press?
Well, two things: first, the alignment of wrist, elbow and shoulder. I used to be dumb enough to teach this, now I just have the person do a Bottoms Up Press and then, after lots of failing, flailing and fumbling around, the person gets it right and I say “Yes, just like that.” The response is “Oh, I didn’t know that.”
The second is stability. Pick up a foot (either works, but not both at the same time) while pressing and just note how the body locks down in support. That is the key. Certainly, there are details, but I like to let the body teach you what to do. If there is a “secret” to coaching, it is to provide a simple drill to address an issue.Around women and pressing.
When we were talking about improving the press, you suggested that in your experience women have to press more than guys to press heavier.
“Press more” in terms of volume, of course…women should press probably every day, doing something in a pressing movement. I didn’t say heavy, I didn’t say 100 reps. In the same vein, woman should stop stretching all the time. They are predisposed to flexibility, yet lack in pressing strength. No, for total candor, I like the female design and I am not being critical. My point is that everyone likes to play to their strengths and ignore their weaknesses. Women need to press. Women tend to have a narrow shoulder base vis-à-vis the waist and it is difficult to press with that issue. I would argue that a guy can get away with just one press in his program, but a woman should master every variation they can find. I have had some great insights, by the way, from training women, as working with this “problem” has given me some insights to improve my own lifting. So, I decided to add more variation into my training and it has made it more fun and more productive.In that conversation, you've also plugged in doing windmills with presses to complement the press. How have you seen these go together?
In terms of load, well, adding weight to a woman’s press is stubborn work! Percents are worthless and it is really hard, like with Dragondoor Kbells, for a woman to jump up the four kilos from like the 12 to the 16. So, we get back to drills and stability work. This is fine. One little thing: if you screw up a press, you can get hurt like “Bang!” So, drilling, training and thinking is also a way NOT to hurt yourself.
The more I teach and work with Windmills, the more insights I am gaining about the upper body. This one guy in Ohio dismissed the Windmill with “I just feel it in my ribs.” I thought to myself, well, you know, the ribs are a amazing series connective tissues, hard matter and key organs below and the beauty and design of the things are poetry (certainly, it’s a rare epic that doesn’t mention them somewhere) and if you feel them moving and stretching, that’s good. Also, with all the hip work I have been doing, the Windmill is a MUST after every hip stretching workout. It is the best way to stretch the outer hips I know.Are there other moves related to supporting the press you'd suggest?
The Get Up for a moving shoulder analysis, the various presses like SeeSaws and the like, and, this won’t surprise too many people, the Double Kettlebell Front Squat. If you worked with me, you would know this one. It is a great way to teach the rack and the need to squeeze.RKC II Strength Requirements for Women's press
Dan, in the RKC II as you know, one of the skills/strength tests for certification is a kb press. For men, it's half their body weight. For women, it's 1/4. Some gals have been saying a quarter is too light, why not a third, or even half for women too? For a 60KG woman, going by the men's chart, this would mean, closest bell is the 28. Personally, while the 20 is fine, i'm still working to get the 24 as a 58-60kg gal.
I guess what i've been wondering is given that if we accept that women need more volume to press heavier, more volume can also mean higher exposure to possible overuse injury. Is it worth it to put up the strength requirements for women? and if they were to go up, what would you see as a sane progression?
For me, this is one of those questions for someone with more experience. I wouldn’t mind a quick study of this as something to discuss it with the hard numbers, but I think a lot of women can just grab the 16 and press it with no training. The 106 KB is NOT something most guys can just pick up who weight over 100 Kilos. So, I have mixed feelings about this. I like standards, but I also like people to feel they can do accomplish the task. Real mixed feelings…Interesting...So if we think about upping weight, though, what are the cues you'd give your athletes - perhaps the gals in particular - to help head off overuse injuries before they occur?
Overuse injuries are rarely caused by me! The volleyball crazies and the basketball loons with all their year round clubs and travel teams and all the BS lying about full ride scholarships. We have girls with multiple ACL surgeries and then someone comes into the weightroom and tells me that I am overdoing something? I guess it “can” happen, but just remember Pavel’s basic programming point: any idiot can “work you out.” And, there seems to be plenty of idiots on the internet. Hire someone who will teach you, train you. That will prevent most problems: proper training. Pay attention: if you are about to fail, stop. Rest, start again.high volume; lighter loads for strength
Something all yours, kenneth jays and pavel's volume emphasis along with Asha Wagner's training results. Asha pistoled a 24 without ever training it - just trained a lot of pistoling the 12. a lot - is that doing a lot of lighter reps (50-60%) is a potentially great way to train for The Big Lift. This may seem like stating the obvious, but i'm not sure if i have lost the plot? how might you suggest that be tuned?
The one great lesson that lifters can learn from throwers: you should thrive in submaximal ranges. Not every throw is the World Record…they can’t all be gems!
* women's strength in general
Training colleague Kira Clarke recently suggested that a coaching colleague has seen a correlation between strength and persistent well being. This is worth repeating so let me post it here, from Kira:
"My coach friend (Will Heffernan) has a simple test (and benchmarks) he uses regularly on his athletes (he adjusts them for different types of athletes, but these are his general guidelines)
Squat or deadlift: 2 x bodyweight
Inverted rows in 1 minute: 30+
Pushups in 1 minute: 50+
Pullups in 1 set: 10+
Bench press: 1.5 x bodyweight
In his experience, once his athletes hit these numbers (and ratios) their injuries drop significantly. And as they surpass them, he still likes to see lower/upper body strength numbers increase together, and the bodyweight numbers increase maintaining the ratio of approximately 5:3:1."
[...]
He recommends the following for female athletes ...Does the above resonate with you at all as injury proofing? Anything you'd highlight or modify?
deadlift: 2 x bodyweight...
pullups: 8+
pushups: 50+
inverted rows: 30+
bench press: 1-1.25 x bodyweight
(It's basically the same benchmarks he uses for 100kg+ male athletes)
He also shared the following snarky remark ...
"The biggest problem that female athletes suffer from is the low expectations of male coaches"
I have two very strong daughters (State Champion in the shot for Lindsay) and a very strong wife. One of things I would agree with entirely is that male coaches often coddle their females (sadly, literally true) but I have pushed my family to some big numbers in the weightroom simply by expecting it. There is no question that the human female is not that weak in comparison to the male, I just read about this in a book (I’m usually reading about two or three at a time, so I don’t remember which one) and for primates we are pretty even between males and females. So, we shouldn’t be afraid to push females in the weightroom. I do.What are your approaches to help keep your athletes injury free, and do you modify that council at all between gals and guys?
This is going to shock you, but I change nothing working for males or females. I have to admit, I have more feminine products in my gym bags than most guys.
On the theme of gym bags and coaching then, a lot of folks who practice their sport or their skill do so without getting together with a coach. They run or they lift or do whatever independent of any formal checks. They may say i don't know anyone, i'm only doing this for myself, not competing, why do i need to spend money on a coach i know what i'm doing. THoughts? Suggestions?
Well, I need a pair of eyes to watch me! No one coaches me and it really hurts my quality of training. I would strongly suggest that everyone get some level of coaching. It doesn’t have to be much, but it really helps. I am cutting my own income, but some coaching can help. Now, don’t let the coach become a God with all knowledge and all knowing and all this and that. It’s just a coach. One’s deity should be a bit more complete.* attitude of the Converted?
Related to dieties, and conversion, are there any attitudes that you see in folks coming to a new training practice - like oly lifting or kb's - where they've drunk the kool aid, and focus seems to narrow perhaps rather than enlarge, or everything is seen through the lens of the One True Movement? Any suggestions for folks either going through this, or observing it?
How about: Get over it?That's pretty clear. Still on coaching, this topic of instincutal vs planned routine training seems to come up more frequently. Your thoughts on "instinctual training" vs "training plan?
How about: Shut up?
Number Two is my issue with the guys on the net, especially. One 40 kilo snatch and they start giving advice like the Olympic champ. Show some discipline and continue to learn. I snatched 142.5 and felt like I still knew nothing. Hell, I still don’t!
I really think you need a lot of experience to train without guidance. I like what Alwyn Cosgrove says about doing a program: now, you can critique it. So, do about ten different programs, then try something on your own. I was a fairly accomplished athlete when I did ETK from Pavel, AfterBurn II from Alwyn and the Velocity Diet from Chris Shuggart. That’s the key: follow plans until you trust your instincts to follow plans.* Athletic Achievement/reality-checking
You coach folks who are frequently identified as athletes, who compete formally in sport, and then there's the rest of us who mayn't compete or think about competition. I'm not quite sure how to frame this question, but do you think there's something important about either formal competition or some kind of external check in performance that any athlete - formal or not - should consider? Do you think it's important (that's not the right word) for people to compete or be evaluated in some way (i think about the challenge of being evaluated at the RKC certs for instance)? and if yes why? or why not?
Well, sports gives you the right world for a goal. It is on this day, at that place, with these “things.” So, no BS. You do what you say you will do. It is hard for a person to follow their goals without the built in support systems that a sport naturally has going for it.Personal moments of athletic happiness?
Well on that note, could you offer a few moments in your own athletic practice that have been particularly meaningful to you, and why?
* Dan Faves?I always love overcoming all the barriers in the way of being a champion. There are so many…
- My daughter’s last throw, personal best, winning toss to win the State Championship in the shot put.
- Having both daughters in the finals at the state meet in the discus…at once!
- The many times I have won things on the last throw or last effort.
Double Kettlebell Press- fave dan throw?
Discus!!!- fave dan move he wishes he could do but currently does not see himself doing in this lifetime?
The Bent Press- fave dan move he wishes he could do and can see that happening this lifetime?
A correct WindmillFinal Dan Thoughts
What's a practice perspective that you'd say has been of most pracitcal (and/or spiritual) benefit for you in your athletic career?
If you'd reference “To Grad from Dad” on my website here? It is all of this…and more!You bet sir. Thank you for your time. Much obliged. That was fun.
Coming up Later This Week:
Hope y'all enjoyed that. With Dan's permission granted, coming up later this week i'll post the routine Dan gave me for increasing the press (part II of the interview).
begin2dig (b2d) on Facebook
Related Links
- Asha Wagner: Women's Beast Challenge Tamer
- Eccentrics for Tendinopathy
- Andrea du Cane: Windmill Queen and Strength Master
- Windmills and Press Combo (inspired by dan john)
- The Shoulder Girdle
- The Rotator Cuff
- This is protection for ankle injuries?
- mc's rif on Kenneth Jay's beast pressing protocol
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Rope Climbing, how to climb a rope efficiently (if you can find a rope...)
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Ever climbed a rope? I haven't yet. But it *seems* like such the complete athletic movement - like a pull up that keeps on going, no? So this is a post to help folks prep for your own rope climbing ascent.
Partial History. It turns out that once upon a time - from between the 1860's to 1932 rope climbing was an olympic event. It persisted as a college competition sport into the 1960's.
John Gill put together a wonderful overview of both the history and the specs of the competition. Please visit these pages - the content and images are lovely, and its fabulous to read the descriptions from various periods of the respect and pleasure experienced by authors who obviously enjoyed practicing this movement. Citing from there, Gill quotes a wonderful text on gymnastics from the 50's that describes climbing this way:
Modern Practice. Apparently in 1993, it started a resurgence in the Czech republic that is still going strong, as demonstrated in this 2007 vid below:
Kids Resurgence. Perhaps more excitingly, rope climbing is apparently also making a come back in kids gymnastics classes as part of the National Elite Physical Abilites testing (pdf), at least in the states. And the cool thing is, form here - of keeping the legs in pike position - is part of the practice - so no leg help; all upper body and core.
Very cool to see girls do this so well - don't stop!
Getting Practical. Here's some awesome rope climbing teaching tips for starting with kids (how well do these translate to adults?)
Adult Tips One place where rope climbing is used more as a physical readiness test than as a competition is in the French Foreign Legion, where climbing a rope multiple times with 24kg of gear is not unknown. So here's a french foreign legion rope climbing tip.
I can confirm that this approach has been tested out by experience rope climbers who found that it made a climb "ridiculously easy"with the added tip to "stay close to the rope" and "look down a bit"
I'm keen to try rope climbing. i imagine sitting down legs out, and rather staying down. Actually, part of the challenge for me is just finding a place with a rope. Our uni gym doesn't have one (does yours?). I've run trails where there are pull up bar stations at points on the trail, but not rope climbing ones - perhaps it's a health and safety fear? Work was not happy about a rope slung down between an open area between two floors. Perhaps if it had had decorative ivy?
Climbing Simulation: Update 2011 - crosscore War Machine -
Ok since i wrote this post, i've found a way to practice rope climbing without a rope. It's called (ahem) the "war machine" made in the US by some awesome guys. Really. Awesome. If you scroll in to 55secs, the vid below shows the climbing simulation (but the whole vid is so good, you just might want to watch the whole thing.
The cool thing is that with the WM we're able to practice the techniques for climbing recommended above. Wicked. Starting with feet on a box or ball or jammed into the wall is also great. If you're interested in the WM in the US avail right from cross core; in the UK avail from Balance Performance. In either case, tell 'em dr mc sent you and they'll be happy happy.
General Queries: Do you climb a rope? if so, do you keep your legs piked out? where do you practice? would you agree it's technique?
Look forward to hearing from you.
Related Posts - in strength as practice
Partial History. It turns out that once upon a time - from between the 1860's to 1932 rope climbing was an olympic event. It persisted as a college competition sport into the 1960's.John Gill put together a wonderful overview of both the history and the specs of the competition. Please visit these pages - the content and images are lovely, and its fabulous to read the descriptions from various periods of the respect and pleasure experienced by authors who obviously enjoyed practicing this movement. Citing from there, Gill quotes a wonderful text on gymnastics from the 50's that describes climbing this way:
Competitive rope climbing is truly an art and a skill by itself. It does not involve all the intricacies or maneuvers of apparatus work yet the art of climbing can be detailed and exacting in nature. A great deal of practice is involved to produce a champion rope climber. Since the record for climbing a rope 20' high with the hands alone is under 3 seconds it is easily understood why considerable practice is necessary for top performances. (sited as from Newt Loken & Robert Willoughby in the Complete Book of Gymnastics, 1959.)That's a pretty compelling description of a skill-based rather than just strength based practice.
Modern Practice. Apparently in 1993, it started a resurgence in the Czech republic that is still going strong, as demonstrated in this 2007 vid below:
Kids Resurgence. Perhaps more excitingly, rope climbing is apparently also making a come back in kids gymnastics classes as part of the National Elite Physical Abilites testing (pdf), at least in the states. And the cool thing is, form here - of keeping the legs in pike position - is part of the practice - so no leg help; all upper body and core.Very cool to see girls do this so well - don't stop!
Getting Practical. Here's some awesome rope climbing teaching tips for starting with kids (how well do these translate to adults?)
Adult Tips One place where rope climbing is used more as a physical readiness test than as a competition is in the French Foreign Legion, where climbing a rope multiple times with 24kg of gear is not unknown. So here's a french foreign legion rope climbing tip.
I will now reveal the secret to the dreaded rope climb. RaiderDingo was the closest to the technique. It is very simple, and has little to do with upper-body strength. It is 90% technique. I did miss several meals (we had to climb it every day before midday meal) before I studied the guys who scooted right up the damn thing. When I saw how they did it, I almost laughed at myself. I truly believe that EVs should have to figure it out for themselves, like we anciens did. But, with all of the "upper-body strength" answers, I feel that I must give this out to the wannabes--I seldom reveal Legion secrets, as my brother anciens should know by now, so take this as Primo Info from one who knows.
Everyone makes the same mistake--they reach up as high as they can, and start to pull themselves up--this is wrong and will wear you out before you get 1 meter. The correct way is to start with both hands directly in front of your nose--elbows at 45% at all times--take short steps with your hands, keeping them directly in front of your nose at all times--NEVER, I repeat NEVER straighten your arms. Some of the testing requires that you climb it twice, without ever touching the ground between the two climbs, we had to go up once, come back down, and without setting either foot on the ground, go right back up. If you use this technique, you will have no trouble going up and down several times. I am 6 feet and 1 inch tall, slim, with ZERO upper-body strength--I could barely do 3 pull-ups, but once I got the TECHNIQUE, I never had any problem with the rope. In fact, during the testing, I started up the rope for the 3rd time without touching ground, and the Sgt. had to stop me. I think he was afraid that I was giving the secret away.
It is my OPINION, that they are not testing upper-body strength, as much as MENTAL CAPACITY. So, les gars, there you have it. If you doubt the simplicity of this, just try it at your local gym--believe me, you will be amazed. This is the only secret I will ever give away, so take it to heart and savor your victory when you astonish the cadre by scooting right up the damned dreaded rope the very first time. I do expect expensive cadeaux from all EVs who trust me and use the technique. I hope this will be the end of the "rope" questions. Tex __________________
Les hommes comme vous, je ne refuser rien.
I can confirm that this approach has been tested out by experience rope climbers who found that it made a climb "ridiculously easy"with the added tip to "stay close to the rope" and "look down a bit"
I'm keen to try rope climbing. i imagine sitting down legs out, and rather staying down. Actually, part of the challenge for me is just finding a place with a rope. Our uni gym doesn't have one (does yours?). I've run trails where there are pull up bar stations at points on the trail, but not rope climbing ones - perhaps it's a health and safety fear? Work was not happy about a rope slung down between an open area between two floors. Perhaps if it had had decorative ivy?
Climbing Simulation: Update 2011 - crosscore War Machine -
Ok since i wrote this post, i've found a way to practice rope climbing without a rope. It's called (ahem) the "war machine" made in the US by some awesome guys. Really. Awesome. If you scroll in to 55secs, the vid below shows the climbing simulation (but the whole vid is so good, you just might want to watch the whole thing.
The cool thing is that with the WM we're able to practice the techniques for climbing recommended above. Wicked. Starting with feet on a box or ball or jammed into the wall is also great. If you're interested in the WM in the US avail right from cross core; in the UK avail from Balance Performance. In either case, tell 'em dr mc sent you and they'll be happy happy.
General Queries: Do you climb a rope? if so, do you keep your legs piked out? where do you practice? would you agree it's technique?
Look forward to hearing from you.
Related Posts - in strength as practice
- asha wagner - pistoling, pull up'ing and pressing a 24kg kb
- michael castriovanni interview - tossing kettlebells with a partner
- hanging leg raise: technique first then strength?
- Pull ups 101 - how to, in many ways
- War Machine in Training - with Rannoch Donald
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Ab Exercise Surprise - Moves you mayn't have suspected require (lots of) abs/core
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Six pack lust. So many workout programs are sold on the promise of delivering visible abs. As we've talked about before, a 6 pack is largely about body fat %: get it below 10 if you're a guy, 16 if you're a gal, and voila: visible abs. But what if you want stonking great abs? Then work them in traditional isolation patterns of crunches, as per these approaches for more ab strength/hypertrophy? Well, you could. There are some interesting programs to do that and folks like powerlifters and olympic lifters definitely have them - for a specific reason - as part of their workouts. But you may find that you are already working your abs sufficiently to meet your goals - if you plan the rest of your program right. And on the high side, you'll be able to show off some beautiful skills that simultaneously work the abs.
Known Compounds We know that the abs get worked as part of many "compound" exercises - that is, exercises that work multiple muscle groups at once, and in particular, workouts that work the core: the hip, pelvic, lumbar areas. A kettlebell swing is a great example of a compound exercise that hits the core, getting both upper body, middle and lower body. A turkish get up (as worked through in Kalos Sthenos for example) requires lots of ab work to complete that getting up part. The more traditional squat, likewise. A push up, a pull up (even a pull up, here's a how to resource), all engage the fabulous core, of which the abs are a core part. But these aren't the only ones.
What i'd like to share here are a few exercises that shake up the abs and may be a bit of a surprise to find that they do. What i'd like to ask is to hear from you, if these or any particular moves have surprised you in how they hit your core.
Renegade Row.
The renegade row (detailed here) is a powerful exercise, demanding a lot of rigidness through the middle - like a plank - to maintain form. But unlike a plank, the renegade row is a lovely full body movement that requires a lot of sensory-motor integration and small movement firing.
You'll find that the obliques in particular are hit happily by this one - all the while working the chest, delts, lower back, butt - well lots of full on core and upper body too.
Windmill
The windmill is a combination press and bend movement.
This one has been a big surprise for me, again working the obliques with light loads and lots of reps, The usual focus of windmill is hip/pelvis stability and shoulder stability, but goodness, this will fire up the middle - again the obliques, but in a way different and lower down than the Renegade Row
Flexed Arm Hang
I like pull ups. I do pull ups. A pull up is a part of the RKC II test - doesn't show up on the RKC I cert test. I looked at the test for the gals for the HKC cert and noticed that it's a flexed arm hang hold for 15 sec - don't even have to pull up to the bar.
A flexed arm hang means hanging onto a pullup bar so that the chin clears the top of the bar.
As a kid, one of the tests for a kid to get a gold fitness medal was a 60sec flexed-arm hang. For a gal who does pull ups, this is gonna be easy peasy.
Er, no, it wasn't. The first thing to start to feel it, beside the shake in my arms? My abs. Oh man.
So y'all out there who do pull ups? Well i got something to say to you: don't go for second best, baby: put your pull up to the test. Make them express how your abs feel then you'll know they're made of steal.
In other words, next time doing a pull up? Stop at the top for 15 secs (or longer, like 70 as in the USMC test) and see how that isometric hold works for you. It may just be a surprise.
Skipping
Ok, this is perhaps my biggest ab surprise. After watching Andrea U Shi Chang skip non-stop last summer effortlessly for well over ten minutes, and listening to Rannoch Donald of Simple Strength talk about the many values of skipping (here's a discussion over at b2d on facebook), i've thought what the heck - especially for travel. Where do i feel it? Mainly? Yes, abs. That was a surprise.
And if you're interested in giving skipping a go, it's a skill, and one to think of initially in terms of short sets. It can cause DOMS in the areas of the calf muscles not generally worked - even by bicycle couriers. But as said, more than that, abs will get it good too.
In the facebook discussion, Rannoch points to a couple sources from bodyweight maestro Ross Enemait: Part 1, and Part 2 of his tutorials are here. And here's some inspiration:
Variety is the Spice of Muscle Life
Each of these movements hits the abs in a slightly different way, and that's good - to be able to get the obligues through pulls and rotaion, and the abs through say static holds and higher reps.
What has surprised me is just the fact that these moves have been able to show me the next day the degree to which these are hitting the abs in new ways. Why the surprise? I do a lot of swings with various load kb's (eg, running the bells). Recently i was able to start adding hanging leg raise work to my routine (until my shoulder said it wanted a break from pull ups) - that's supposed to be a big ab challenge. i didn't really feel it there the next day, either. Which suggests that HLR's may be at this point more about technique work than strength development - afterall, i ain't doing 20 in a row. So, not a new load and not a new enough move to make the abs say "new work."
But skipping? Skipping? for like 70-110 reps? That makes my abs talk to me the day after?
So, here's the thing, muscles adapt to movements by developing new muscle fiber firing patterns to support loads and movements. The more these are practiced, the more familiar, the more literally engrained they become. Change the load; change the movement involving that muscle, and the body has to put effort into learning a new process.
When we feel that bit of next day challenge (aka DOMS) in a muscle group that's used to being worked one way, we know we're getting it in a new way. That's a good thing: it means our bodies and minds are mapping new skills and adapting in new ways - in this case part of the new adaptation is strength. And as posted recently, hypertrophy starts with rep one. So that's good too.
I'm not saying at all the desire here is to trigger a DOMS response; it's just a way to know that a muscle has been hit in a new way - and that can mean either a new move or a new load. Light DOMS is a way to know that that has been the case.
Potential Trivia:
In DOMS, it's generally the eccentric part of an action that causes the DOMS experience, which is why researchers testing DOMS will often have participants walks backwards down an elevated treadmill.
In the crunch, while most of us usually focus on the energy to contract in, the science suggests it's the uncurling - controlling the eccentric contraction that causes the DOMS response.
Recently we also looked at the role of these eccentrics in helping address tendinopathies - might there be a relationship?
So here's a question:
Above are four examples of Ab Surprises.
What moves have hit your abs/obliques by surprise - when perhaps you mayn't have thought the move was going anywhere near your midsection? Do you still do that move?
Look forward to hearing from you,
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Six pack lust. So many workout programs are sold on the promise of delivering visible abs. As we've talked about before, a 6 pack is largely about body fat %: get it below 10 if you're a guy, 16 if you're a gal, and voila: visible abs. But what if you want stonking great abs? Then work them in traditional isolation patterns of crunches, as per these approaches for more ab strength/hypertrophy? Well, you could. There are some interesting programs to do that and folks like powerlifters and olympic lifters definitely have them - for a specific reason - as part of their workouts. But you may find that you are already working your abs sufficiently to meet your goals - if you plan the rest of your program right. And on the high side, you'll be able to show off some beautiful skills that simultaneously work the abs. What i'd like to share here are a few exercises that shake up the abs and may be a bit of a surprise to find that they do. What i'd like to ask is to hear from you, if these or any particular moves have surprised you in how they hit your core.
Renegade Row.
The renegade row (detailed here) is a powerful exercise, demanding a lot of rigidness through the middle - like a plank - to maintain form. But unlike a plank, the renegade row is a lovely full body movement that requires a lot of sensory-motor integration and small movement firing.You'll find that the obliques in particular are hit happily by this one - all the while working the chest, delts, lower back, butt - well lots of full on core and upper body too.
WindmillThe windmill is a combination press and bend movement.
This one has been a big surprise for me, again working the obliques with light loads and lots of reps, The usual focus of windmill is hip/pelvis stability and shoulder stability, but goodness, this will fire up the middle - again the obliques, but in a way different and lower down than the Renegade Row
Flexed Arm Hang
I like pull ups. I do pull ups. A pull up is a part of the RKC II test - doesn't show up on the RKC I cert test. I looked at the test for the gals for the HKC cert and noticed that it's a flexed arm hang hold for 15 sec - don't even have to pull up to the bar.
A flexed arm hang means hanging onto a pullup bar so that the chin clears the top of the bar.
As a kid, one of the tests for a kid to get a gold fitness medal was a 60sec flexed-arm hang. For a gal who does pull ups, this is gonna be easy peasy.
Er, no, it wasn't. The first thing to start to feel it, beside the shake in my arms? My abs. Oh man.
So y'all out there who do pull ups? Well i got something to say to you: don't go for second best, baby: put your pull up to the test. Make them express how your abs feel then you'll know they're made of steal.
In other words, next time doing a pull up? Stop at the top for 15 secs (or longer, like 70 as in the USMC test) and see how that isometric hold works for you. It may just be a surprise.
Skipping
Ok, this is perhaps my biggest ab surprise. After watching Andrea U Shi Chang skip non-stop last summer effortlessly for well over ten minutes, and listening to Rannoch Donald of Simple Strength talk about the many values of skipping (here's a discussion over at b2d on facebook), i've thought what the heck - especially for travel. Where do i feel it? Mainly? Yes, abs. That was a surprise.
And if you're interested in giving skipping a go, it's a skill, and one to think of initially in terms of short sets. It can cause DOMS in the areas of the calf muscles not generally worked - even by bicycle couriers. But as said, more than that, abs will get it good too.
In the facebook discussion, Rannoch points to a couple sources from bodyweight maestro Ross Enemait: Part 1, and Part 2 of his tutorials are here. And here's some inspiration:
Variety is the Spice of Muscle Life
Each of these movements hits the abs in a slightly different way, and that's good - to be able to get the obligues through pulls and rotaion, and the abs through say static holds and higher reps.
What has surprised me is just the fact that these moves have been able to show me the next day the degree to which these are hitting the abs in new ways. Why the surprise? I do a lot of swings with various load kb's (eg, running the bells). Recently i was able to start adding hanging leg raise work to my routine (until my shoulder said it wanted a break from pull ups) - that's supposed to be a big ab challenge. i didn't really feel it there the next day, either. Which suggests that HLR's may be at this point more about technique work than strength development - afterall, i ain't doing 20 in a row. So, not a new load and not a new enough move to make the abs say "new work."
But skipping? Skipping? for like 70-110 reps? That makes my abs talk to me the day after?
So, here's the thing, muscles adapt to movements by developing new muscle fiber firing patterns to support loads and movements. The more these are practiced, the more familiar, the more literally engrained they become. Change the load; change the movement involving that muscle, and the body has to put effort into learning a new process.
When we feel that bit of next day challenge (aka DOMS) in a muscle group that's used to being worked one way, we know we're getting it in a new way. That's a good thing: it means our bodies and minds are mapping new skills and adapting in new ways - in this case part of the new adaptation is strength. And as posted recently, hypertrophy starts with rep one. So that's good too.
I'm not saying at all the desire here is to trigger a DOMS response; it's just a way to know that a muscle has been hit in a new way - and that can mean either a new move or a new load. Light DOMS is a way to know that that has been the case.
Potential Trivia:
In DOMS, it's generally the eccentric part of an action that causes the DOMS experience, which is why researchers testing DOMS will often have participants walks backwards down an elevated treadmill.
In the crunch, while most of us usually focus on the energy to contract in, the science suggests it's the uncurling - controlling the eccentric contraction that causes the DOMS response.
Recently we also looked at the role of these eccentrics in helping address tendinopathies - might there be a relationship?
So here's a question:
Above are four examples of Ab Surprises.
What moves have hit your abs/obliques by surprise - when perhaps you mayn't have thought the move was going anywhere near your midsection? Do you still do that move?
Look forward to hearing from you,
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Monday, May 3, 2010
Occlusion Training: Tightening up everything we don't know about Hypertrophy
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
If we asked someone "what should i do to build muscle" probably not a lot of people would say "cut off the blood flow to a working limb." Turns out though, that this latter kind of work - called occlusion training, or blood flow restriction (BFR) - has proven a powerful technique for inducing hypertrophy at very low loads (10-30% of a 1RM). While it's mainly been explored as a rehab technique to help accelerate recovery, some researchers have been looking at it as an approach in regular training. What, then, are the pro's and con's of this technique for training? And what are we learning about the mystery that is hypertrophy from studying the phenomena of occlusion for hypertrohhy strength?
These questions are addressed in an excellent review of occlusion research from 2008 called " Ischemic strength training: a low-load alternative to heavy resistance exercise?"
Two of the highlights of the paper (at least for me) -the review of hypertrophy models such as they are and a possible rationale for the Pump in bodybuilding circles.
Overview on the (un)Known of Muscle Building
The authors go through an amazing job of investigating the known models of hypertrophy - and all that we dont know about it - to see where occlusion training may fit in with existing models. Heck, in order to understand what role occlusion plays, we need to have some sense of the depth and breadth of the puddle it's playing in.
Unaccustomed as i am to being brief, i'm actually not going to go through these models in detail here. Suffice it to say though that what we have often thought of as the biggie thing to boost in order to super charge hypertrophy may not hold. The authors do a lovely job of showing for instance that heh, post occlusion training, yes Growth Hormone (GH) is up and IGF-1 is up, but according to all this other research, we really don't know if the presence of these hormone levels is really what's upping protein synthesis at all.
Not just hormones, the reviewers look at other factors too - like mechano checmical. THat means that maybe the calcium involved in the actin/myosin bridge that enables contractions is a key to what's really important for hypertrophy - but so far there aren't studies looking at these responses in occlusion, so we have no comparison.
This review is great for myth busting. In other words, its review of what we can actually point to and say "that's what casues muscle growth" shows us what we know is so small, it's really exciting. Why is being able to say "but we don't know if that's what's doing it" exciting? One, it means we're starting to know what's going on in more detail to be able to say we don't know and two, it means in any discussion about somebody saying this is WHY this works (like why the pump "works") we can be pretty confident in knowing they maybe shouldn't be so confident.
It may seem a fine point, but work like this also lets us continue to say that "if you do this protocol, you'll get big" - assuming it's been tested on lots of athletes of various types. What we cannot say with the same confidence is WHY if we follow that protocol we're getting big.
I recommend the full first half of the article just for this review of the state of the art (as of 2008) on hypertrophy.
SO where does this get us then with occlusion and hypertrophy?
First a few words about occlusion training - what is it?
Occlusion training goes by a bunch of names: kaatsu training, occlusion, Blood Flow Restriction (BFR), ishemic training. Occlusion generally means to obstruct or block or even hide something (from view). In the case of muscle work, the blood flow is obstructed, usually by a tournequette of some kind. Ischemia is sort of the technical term for blood flow restriction - to the heart or other body tissue -as a result of some type of block (or occlusion).
Protocols - often seem to involve tournequetting the working limb, then using loads of 10-30% of a 1RM, usually lots of reps, very low rest, until fatigue hits. The results in strength gains are similar to working sets with 80% 1RMs.
The main benefit has been seen in rehab, getting a person who's too weak to work at heavy levels, back on their feet again. There's even been consideration of the use of this kind of training for astraunauts who, following Woolfs' and Davis's law do tend to lose it from not using it - their muscle that is.
So, we can start to see with results like this, it would be interesting to understand how low loads with a cuff can cause strength gains equivalent to 80% of a 1RM
Is It Safe?
One of the biggie first questions people have about occlusion is (well, what was yours>) - is - is it safe? The authors respond that by saying they looked at 13 studies with thousands of trials - and even in the one where the forearm was completely occluded for 20mins, there were no measurable ill effects.
Most sessions last only 5-10 mins, and are not full, but partial occlusion.
Likewise, i was reading a 2010 study that wanted to see if thrombosis symptoms would occur in healthy participants - another concern about occlusion - and nothing close to that effect was measured. So from these typical kinds of fears, no such effects it seems have been measured.
The one side effect "acute muscle pain" - i think this means similar to the burn sensation some folks get when going too far in a set. That's common with the "to fatigue" type training used in occlusion. DOMS is also common in the first few bouts. The authors suggest that with these cautions in mind "training combined with ischemia clearly requires a high degree of motivation from the trainee, especially if performed with a high level of effort."
Will that be Wide or Narrow?
The consensus is it seems that wide cuffs have the advantage: lower pressures can be used with wider cuffs. Likewise there are fewer shear force issues with wider cuff and one can stay away from complete occlusion with more control.
Last year i looked at a study that just tied up the lower limbs with wide wraps. Important to note that the cuffs these folks are describing in the research reviews can have the pressure adjusted with the cuff to exact mmHg, similar to a blood pressure cuff.
I make no recommendations about whether it's better to use a proper occlusion cuff or just wrap up a limb; i only note that the places in Japan that have the most experience with this approach use Katsu cuffs - cuffs that enable control of pressure.
Is a Tournequette Even Necessary?
This is my favorite part of the paper because i think there's a link between what is described here, and what is discussed with the Pump (b2d overview here). See what you think.
First the authors point out that studies show the effect of an occlusion cuff is erased once loads get up to 40-60% load. What's interesting is that work using research's favorite - the leg extension - showed that even without a cuff, loads as low as 20% could induce "ischemic pain" - like that's a good thing.
The authors hypothesize that there are ways to get a low load ischemic effect without a cuff by doing the following: partials
So this is where my Pump query comes in: the Pump - if one is not overtraining and under nourished - is easy to achieve by using lots of reps with light loads, until one's arms or related feel like they're so full of blood they can't move. Sounds like kaatsu work.
Now there's been an ongoing debate about whether or not the Pump really leads to hypertrophy. Some of the vigerous come backs are "i never train for the pump and i still get big" - while true not really a defence. And actually, what hasn't been directly tested it seems is post ishemia self-induced, does hypertrophy occur? A lot of body builders will say yes.
What i'm intrigued by is that there seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to say that ishemia induced with low loads develops hypertrophy - but if anyone tries to say "and here's why that is" - and they start talking about NO supplements and flushing and who knows what all - you can pretty confidently say, well, based on what research?
In other words, there's a relationship it looks like, but what the actual mechanism is, we don't entirely know. Mybe it's fatiguing out type one and bringing on type II, maybe its IGF-1 goes up and myostatin goes down. Maybe it's mTOR levels. They're all in the soup. But what's cause and what's conincidence - ain't clear. But i sure as heck ain't gonna say the pump is a myth - just the explanations for it so far are pretty mythical.
To Cuff or Not to Cuff
One might think that just going for this kind of non-cuff'd based ischemia (blood pooling; can't flow back) is better than cuff based. Here's what the authors think:
What about the Dose?
To summarise a great long section of this paper, the results are not in for normal training about what the optimal frequence, volume, intensity is for optimal hypertrophic effect using occlusion.
The authors make a great note that not all ischemic training results in strength gains. For some reason, cycling isn't great for occlusion and strength development. On the other hand walk training is one of the big successes of occlusion work, and of course stength training - the short bursts of activity - is where the biggest benefit seems to be. Whether therefore the ratio between ischemia and reperfusion is key here, we just don't know but it seems to be a factor.
Will it Blend
So if we're not rehabbing, and with all the unknowns about dose, is it appropriate to put occlusion training into the mix of a regular strength program with "heavy" resistance.
I dunno.
The authors focus on work that's looked at two great benefits of heavy resistance training: bone mineral density and tendon stiffness.
In both cases lighter load work has been shown to have less of an effect on these factors. So - for ones bones, heavy resistance is a bonus - but then, so is stop and start action. For tendons, however, it seems that volume is also a key factor in enhancing stiffness (MTC descibed here - doesn't mean anything about flexibility, but about load, really)
In other words, while occlusion may not bring on the benefits of heavy resistance, there are other ways than heavy work to enhance these benefits so playing with ischemia may be useful for strength development.
High Volume towards Ischemia? Again, to take another page from bodybuilding and powerlifting practice, mechanisms to increase volume without killing form or inducing failure can be awesome. 
Trainer par excellance Roland Fisher introduced me to the timed sets of Huge in a Hurry
's Chad Waterbury. Very simple: get a weight at the end of a session where you can do 20 reps, and as soon as the fast tempo drops to complete the set, drop the weight, go for another 20. By using time as the marker, there's no way to get to fatigue and form failure. One heck of a pump, too. Thus, one has done their heavy work, and uses the occlusion level sets for a finisher. I love it. Your mileage may vary. See what you find.
Wrap UP - sans wraps even
And speaking of finisher, the authors wrap up with the following. The first sentence for me is key:
Meanwhile, if you wish to try occlusion training yourself, there's only about 4 uni's in the US using it; most work is in Japan. Here's an intereting PDF that talks about a specific Kaatsu cuff system, too.
The point is, i guess, that as this article started, just when we think we know something who'd a thought that strength can be aided by counter-intuitive actions like restricting blood supply? where does that map to evolution?
If nothing else, occlusion work shows us that we are complex systems with more than one path to create an effect.
Related Resources
Citations:
If we asked someone "what should i do to build muscle" probably not a lot of people would say "cut off the blood flow to a working limb." Turns out though, that this latter kind of work - called occlusion training, or blood flow restriction (BFR) - has proven a powerful technique for inducing hypertrophy at very low loads (10-30% of a 1RM). While it's mainly been explored as a rehab technique to help accelerate recovery, some researchers have been looking at it as an approach in regular training. What, then, are the pro's and con's of this technique for training? And what are we learning about the mystery that is hypertrophy from studying the phenomena of occlusion for hypertrohhy strength?These questions are addressed in an excellent review of occlusion research from 2008 called " Ischemic strength training: a low-load alternative to heavy resistance exercise?"
Two of the highlights of the paper (at least for me) -the review of hypertrophy models such as they are and a possible rationale for the Pump in bodybuilding circles.
Overview on the (un)Known of Muscle Building
The authors go through an amazing job of investigating the known models of hypertrophy - and all that we dont know about it - to see where occlusion training may fit in with existing models. Heck, in order to understand what role occlusion plays, we need to have some sense of the depth and breadth of the puddle it's playing in.
Unaccustomed as i am to being brief, i'm actually not going to go through these models in detail here. Suffice it to say though that what we have often thought of as the biggie thing to boost in order to super charge hypertrophy may not hold. The authors do a lovely job of showing for instance that heh, post occlusion training, yes Growth Hormone (GH) is up and IGF-1 is up, but according to all this other research, we really don't know if the presence of these hormone levels is really what's upping protein synthesis at all. Not just hormones, the reviewers look at other factors too - like mechano checmical. THat means that maybe the calcium involved in the actin/myosin bridge that enables contractions is a key to what's really important for hypertrophy - but so far there aren't studies looking at these responses in occlusion, so we have no comparison.
This review is great for myth busting. In other words, its review of what we can actually point to and say "that's what casues muscle growth" shows us what we know is so small, it's really exciting. Why is being able to say "but we don't know if that's what's doing it" exciting? One, it means we're starting to know what's going on in more detail to be able to say we don't know and two, it means in any discussion about somebody saying this is WHY this works (like why the pump "works") we can be pretty confident in knowing they maybe shouldn't be so confident.
It may seem a fine point, but work like this also lets us continue to say that "if you do this protocol, you'll get big" - assuming it's been tested on lots of athletes of various types. What we cannot say with the same confidence is WHY if we follow that protocol we're getting big.
I recommend the full first half of the article just for this review of the state of the art (as of 2008) on hypertrophy.
SO where does this get us then with occlusion and hypertrophy?
First a few words about occlusion training - what is it?
Occlusion training goes by a bunch of names: kaatsu training, occlusion, Blood Flow Restriction (BFR), ishemic training. Occlusion generally means to obstruct or block or even hide something (from view). In the case of muscle work, the blood flow is obstructed, usually by a tournequette of some kind. Ischemia is sort of the technical term for blood flow restriction - to the heart or other body tissue -as a result of some type of block (or occlusion).
Protocols - often seem to involve tournequetting the working limb, then using loads of 10-30% of a 1RM, usually lots of reps, very low rest, until fatigue hits. The results in strength gains are similar to working sets with 80% 1RMs.
The main benefit has been seen in rehab, getting a person who's too weak to work at heavy levels, back on their feet again. There's even been consideration of the use of this kind of training for astraunauts who, following Woolfs' and Davis's law do tend to lose it from not using it - their muscle that is.
So, we can start to see with results like this, it would be interesting to understand how low loads with a cuff can cause strength gains equivalent to 80% of a 1RM
Is It Safe?
One of the biggie first questions people have about occlusion is (well, what was yours>) - is - is it safe? The authors respond that by saying they looked at 13 studies with thousands of trials - and even in the one where the forearm was completely occluded for 20mins, there were no measurable ill effects.
Most sessions last only 5-10 mins, and are not full, but partial occlusion.
Likewise, i was reading a 2010 study that wanted to see if thrombosis symptoms would occur in healthy participants - another concern about occlusion - and nothing close to that effect was measured. So from these typical kinds of fears, no such effects it seems have been measured.
The one side effect "acute muscle pain" - i think this means similar to the burn sensation some folks get when going too far in a set. That's common with the "to fatigue" type training used in occlusion. DOMS is also common in the first few bouts. The authors suggest that with these cautions in mind "training combined with ischemia clearly requires a high degree of motivation from the trainee, especially if performed with a high level of effort."
Will that be Wide or Narrow?
The consensus is it seems that wide cuffs have the advantage: lower pressures can be used with wider cuffs. Likewise there are fewer shear force issues with wider cuff and one can stay away from complete occlusion with more control.Last year i looked at a study that just tied up the lower limbs with wide wraps. Important to note that the cuffs these folks are describing in the research reviews can have the pressure adjusted with the cuff to exact mmHg, similar to a blood pressure cuff.
I make no recommendations about whether it's better to use a proper occlusion cuff or just wrap up a limb; i only note that the places in Japan that have the most experience with this approach use Katsu cuffs - cuffs that enable control of pressure.
Is a Tournequette Even Necessary?
This is my favorite part of the paper because i think there's a link between what is described here, and what is discussed with the Pump (b2d overview here). See what you think.
First the authors point out that studies show the effect of an occlusion cuff is erased once loads get up to 40-60% load. What's interesting is that work using research's favorite - the leg extension - showed that even without a cuff, loads as low as 20% could induce "ischemic pain" - like that's a good thing.
The authors hypothesize that there are ways to get a low load ischemic effect without a cuff by doing the following: partials
Other quadriceps exercises can also be modified to achieve intramuscular restriction of blood flow. During closed kinetic chain exercises such as the squat and the leg press, the force demands of the movement dictate that the electrical activity of the quadriceps is high at flexed knee angles (90°–100°) and low near full-knee extension (Andersen et al., 2006). If the range of motion instead is limited to between ∼50° and 100° of flexion, the muscle activity remains fairly high throughout the movement and intramuscular occlusion is thus more likely to occur.The goal of going for ischemia with low loads is to get the benefit of heavier loads without having to use heavier loads that perhaps could not be taken to the given rep level.
So this is where my Pump query comes in: the Pump - if one is not overtraining and under nourished - is easy to achieve by using lots of reps with light loads, until one's arms or related feel like they're so full of blood they can't move. Sounds like kaatsu work.
Now there's been an ongoing debate about whether or not the Pump really leads to hypertrophy. Some of the vigerous come backs are "i never train for the pump and i still get big" - while true not really a defence. And actually, what hasn't been directly tested it seems is post ishemia self-induced, does hypertrophy occur? A lot of body builders will say yes. What i'm intrigued by is that there seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to say that ishemia induced with low loads develops hypertrophy - but if anyone tries to say "and here's why that is" - and they start talking about NO supplements and flushing and who knows what all - you can pretty confidently say, well, based on what research?
In other words, there's a relationship it looks like, but what the actual mechanism is, we don't entirely know. Mybe it's fatiguing out type one and bringing on type II, maybe its IGF-1 goes up and myostatin goes down. Maybe it's mTOR levels. They're all in the soup. But what's cause and what's conincidence - ain't clear. But i sure as heck ain't gonna say the pump is a myth - just the explanations for it so far are pretty mythical.
To Cuff or Not to Cuff
One might think that just going for this kind of non-cuff'd based ischemia (blood pooling; can't flow back) is better than cuff based. Here's what the authors think:
Intuitively, a training model which is based on the muscles own internal restriction of blood flow would have advantages both from a safety point of view and from a practical point of view. On the other hand, in certain muscle groups and in some individuals, it may be difficult to induce relative ischemia at low loads by exercise alone, due to factors such as insufficient intramuscular pressures developed during exercise. Furthermore, it is possible that there are differences between the muscle ischemia resulting from exercise alone and the ischemia induced with a tourniquet in combination with exercise (e.g., a greater build-up of metabolites in the cuff-occluded muscle), which in turn could lead to differences in the stimulation of hypertrophic pathways. Future studies should compare the effects of ischemic training with and without cuff occlusion at the same level of effort.Another great "we don't know" but a great question: is cuffing the same kind of physiological response as non-cuffing occlusion effect?
What about the Dose?
To summarise a great long section of this paper, the results are not in for normal training about what the optimal frequence, volume, intensity is for optimal hypertrophic effect using occlusion.
The authors make a great note that not all ischemic training results in strength gains. For some reason, cycling isn't great for occlusion and strength development. On the other hand walk training is one of the big successes of occlusion work, and of course stength training - the short bursts of activity - is where the biggest benefit seems to be. Whether therefore the ratio between ischemia and reperfusion is key here, we just don't know but it seems to be a factor.
Will it Blend
So if we're not rehabbing, and with all the unknowns about dose, is it appropriate to put occlusion training into the mix of a regular strength program with "heavy" resistance.
I dunno.
The authors focus on work that's looked at two great benefits of heavy resistance training: bone mineral density and tendon stiffness.
In both cases lighter load work has been shown to have less of an effect on these factors. So - for ones bones, heavy resistance is a bonus - but then, so is stop and start action. For tendons, however, it seems that volume is also a key factor in enhancing stiffness (MTC descibed here - doesn't mean anything about flexibility, but about load, really)
In other words, while occlusion may not bring on the benefits of heavy resistance, there are other ways than heavy work to enhance these benefits so playing with ischemia may be useful for strength development.
High Volume towards Ischemia? Again, to take another page from bodybuilding and powerlifting practice, mechanisms to increase volume without killing form or inducing failure can be awesome. Trainer par excellance Roland Fisher introduced me to the timed sets of Huge in a Hurry's Chad Waterbury. Very simple: get a weight at the end of a session where you can do 20 reps, and as soon as the fast tempo drops to complete the set, drop the weight, go for another 20. By using time as the marker, there's no way to get to fatigue and form failure. One heck of a pump, too. Thus, one has done their heavy work, and uses the occlusion level sets for a finisher. I love it. Your mileage may vary. See what you find.Wrap UP - sans wraps even
And speaking of finisher, the authors wrap up with the following. The first sentence for me is key:
By seeing an interesting strength effect from occlusion, that raises the question how is this working in terms of what we know about hypertrophy? Turns out that in asking what we know about hypertrophy, it's surprisingly still very little. Lots about what's happening in the soup with strength training, but not lots of clear A therefore B. Having occlusion in the mix gives us a great point of comparison to be able to say at least what's different with the following factors (or the same) when blood flow is restricted? what's going on that this is happening? That's cool.
The research on resistance exercise performed during ischemic conditions has so far provided important new insights into the physiology of strength training. In addition to being a possible alternative or complement to conventional high-load resistance training in certain situations, ischemic strength training may also have a place in sports training. Because relative ischemia can be induced at rather low loads in certain exercises even without tourniquets, external pressure may not always be necessary to achieve significant training effects. Also, any unique effects of cuff occlusion per se during exercise have yet to be determined because the increased training effects observed in the studies published to date may simply have been due to greater effort. With reference to training combined with cuff occlusion, current evidence suggests that this mode of exercise is relatively safe, but more research is needed especially regarding the potential adverse effects on soft tissues.
Meanwhile, if you wish to try occlusion training yourself, there's only about 4 uni's in the US using it; most work is in Japan. Here's an intereting PDF that talks about a specific Kaatsu cuff system, too. The point is, i guess, that as this article started, just when we think we know something who'd a thought that strength can be aided by counter-intuitive actions like restricting blood supply? where does that map to evolution?
If nothing else, occlusion work shows us that we are complex systems with more than one path to create an effect.
Related Resources
- Occlusion Training
- Get Huge or Die
- Protein Ingestion and Protein Sythesis
- Nutrient Timing for muscle building
- Creatine and Beta Alanine
- Does this stuff work?
- the Pump
Citations:
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Wernbom M, Augustsson J, & Raastad T (2008). Ischemic strength training: a low-load alternative to heavy resistance exercise? Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 18 (4), 401-16 PMID: 18466185
Madarame, H., Kurano, M., Takano, H., Iida, H., Sato, Y., Ohshima, H., Abe, T., Ishii, N., Morita, T., & Nakajima, T. (2010). Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on coagulation system in healthy subjects Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 30 (3), 210-213 DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2010.00927.x
Loenneke, J., & Pujol, T. (2009). The Use of Occlusion Training to Produce Muscle Hypertrophy Strength and Conditioning Journal, 31 (3), 77-84 DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181a5a352
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
