The New Era of Interval Training

Written on July 23, 2010 at 5:13 am, by Eric Cressey

Most of you already know by now that I’m not a fan of “traditional” cardio.

Step aerobics classes have ruined enough knees, Achilles tendons, and hips.

Ellipticals don’t allow you enough hip flexion to avoid developing hips like a crowbar.

Most people don’t need to sit on their fat a**es on bikes, either because most people, well, they sit on their fat a**es enough as it is.

In short, as I’ve noted in the past in my discussions of The Law of Repetitive Motion Part 1 and Part 2, take a small amplitude of motion and repeat it thousands of times and you’re going to wind up with some issues sooner than later.  And, to take it a step further, you’re going to get efficient at this motion – and over the course of time, burn fewer calories (especially if you’re doing steady-state cardio and not interval work).

It’s not like I haven’t made suggestions on other stuff to do, either.  Try Sprinting for Health, Rethinking Interval Training, or When Things Get Boring, Turn to Cardio Strength Training.  I also recently raved about the emphasis Chad Waterbury placed on movement on his great new fat loss program, Body of Fire.

And, if you need one more example, here was a little fun I had with an impromptu conditioning session on Sunday afternoon at Cressey Performance: Alternating Lateral Lunge Walk with Keg paired with Inchworms.

I’d already done some cable woodchops, t-push-ups, face pulls, slideboard, easy sprinting progressions, and medicine ball throws in a circuit format that day (pair up two exercises with low resistance and rotate back and forth without stopping for three minutes).  It’s not rocket science because we aren’t building rockets; people just need to move more.

Please enter your email below to sign up for our FREE newsletter.

When Things Get Boring, turn to Cardio Strength Training

Written on July 1, 2010 at 6:52 am, by Eric Cressey

…turn to Coach Dos!  What do I mean?  Read on.

The last week was the final week of my fiancee’s residency (ended yesterday), and needless to say, she was REALLY ready for it to be over.  The days were getting longer for her, and it was sapping her energy before she came in to exercise at night after the workday.  Even with all of Cressey Performance’s specialty training implements – slideboards, medicine balls, sleds, turf for sprinting/movement, farmer’s walks, TRX, kettlebells, cows for tipping, an Airdyne bike, speed chains, and tires/sledgehammers – and her choice of music on the stereo, she still was looking for some variety for her interval training session that night.

So, I delved into the trusty Cressey Performance office library, and pulled out a copy of Robert dos Remedios’ book, Cardio Strength Training.

I was honored to have contributed a bit to this book, and it came out really well.  Sure enough, it got the job done for us last week, as we used a few new exercises to shake things up using a kettlebell and TRX.  It’s a really solid book at a great price; I’d highly recommend you check it out.

Please enter your email below to sign up for our FREE newsletter.

Random Friday Thoughts: 6/4/10

Written on June 4, 2010 at 4:34 am, by Eric Cressey

1. I’m headed to Providence first thing tomorrow to speak at the Perform Better Summit.  If you’re in attendance, be sure to introduce yourself and say hello; it’s always great to meet my readers.

2. It’s the time of year where all the all-star and league MVP awards are handed out around here as playoffs are just getting underway. Here’s a great article about one Cressey Performance athlete, Carl Anderson of Lincoln-Sudbury, who won the Dual County League MVP as he set school records for homeruns and RBIs: Diamond Natural, If a Bit Rough

3. Likewise, another CP athlete, Jeff Bercume in the Oakland A’s organization, just got a little love: Bercume’s Game Going North.

4. HERE is some recent research to support the use of accommodating resistance in the form of bands in resistance training.  Many of us in the powerlifting community have anecdotally been able to verify its efficacy, but it’s nice to see some research out there that confirms what a lot of folks have insisted for quite some time.

It’s important to interpret this research with caution, though.  Using bands on top of free weight resistance is fantastic, but it can really beat up your joints if you use it for too long without taking a break.  I always found that the added eccentric stress really beat up my shoulders and elbows on the bench press if I used bench presses against bands in my training cycles for more than three weeks without a break from them.

5. Researchers from the University of Nebraska report that energy expenditure in untrained college students is the same on ellipticals and treadmills when working at a self-selected intensity.  An unnamed researcher from the Cressey School of Hard Knocks reports that working at a “self-selected intensity” on these modalities requires about as much effort and coordination as watching NASCAR.

Call me crazy, but I think most college-age folks would be better off hitting things with sledgehammers as exercise; it’s just way more badass.

6. Here’s another solid testimonial we just received on Optimal Shoulder Performance:

“Eric and Mike did a great job of taking complex information and making it easy to understand for the viewer.  I really liked the collaboration between the clinical side of things, and the training side.  I now have a much better understanding of how to effectively assess the shoulder.  More importantly, I am now better equipped to take that information and improve the training strategies and techniques for my clients.”

-Danny McLarty, CSCS

Click here to pick up a copy of Optimal Shoulder Performance for yourself.

Please enter your email below to sign up for our FREE newsletter.

CP Internship Blog: Can Circuit Training Develop Work Capacity? – Part 2

Written on April 28, 2010 at 9:15 am, by Eric Cressey

This guest blog comes from current Cressey Performance intern, Sam Leahey.

Last time, we discussed circuit training and the validity of whether or not it develops “mental toughness” in our athletes.  We then questioned whether this “mental toughness” (however one defines that term) is actually translating into enhanced sports performance. This week’s article focuses on the implications regarding circuit training and “work capacity”.

Simply type the term “work capacity” into YouTube and you’ll end up with tons of videos implementing a wide variety of exercises in circuit training fashion, most which consist of modified strongman events, and every one of these claims the same thing: “it develops work capacity.”  What does that even mean?

Now, enter “work capacity” into the search bar on a peer-reviewed research journal site (PubMed, etc.) and what are the findings? Nearly every study listed with the term “work capacity” in the title is in direct reference to something specific like “physical work capacity,” “anaerobic work capacity,” “aerobic work capacity,” “wingate test work capacity,” “upper body work capacity”, “cardio-respiratory work capacity,” or “functional work capacity.”

Compare and contrast these two discoveries and we are left with the simple conclusion that “work capacity” is specific and using it as a general term is scientifically unjustifiable.  In fact, it is pretty much theory altogether unless directly tied to something else. Yet, when looking across the landscape of private training facilities and collegiate Strength & Conditioning settings, we find that most coaches and trainers use the term “work capacity” in the aforementioned grossly-oversimplified way as opposed to a specific type of capacity that actually makes transferable sense. I often wonder why that is?

There are many common arguments in favor of the work capacity idea. Coaches and trainers are now more than ever espousing and raising “work capacity” awareness.  Let us look at some of the underlying principles and theories behind the “work capacity school of thought” and try to make sense of it and establish how coaches arrived at the solution of “in order to develop work capacity we need to do circuit training”. This will lead into the conclusion of this article.

Principle: Work capacity is developed when the human body tolerates and recovers from a workload. Once adapted to that stimulus they need to be able to work above that “work threshold” for continued success.

I can’t believe how much this gets parroted these days. When I think about this statement I am left wondering how this is any different from regular strength training or even a stinkin’ bicep curl? It sounds to me like just another way to describe the Principle of Overload, not the “principle of work capacity”! Furthermore, I wonder how it’s indicative of the conclusion so many people reach: “I have to do circuit training to develop work capacity?”

Theory: If an athlete’s general fitness or capacity is low, their specific fitness or capacity will not improve.

So you’re saying if I take a highly deconditioned athlete with no general fitness and make him play soccer for one week straight he won’t be a better, more conditioned soccer player by day seven than he was on day one because his “general fitness/capacity” was low to begin with? Really?

One more time. . .

Theory: If an athlete’s general fitness or capacity is low their specific fitness or capacity will not improve.

Though still a vague statement perhaps, now we’re getting closer to something actually definable – “general fitness.” Many coaches use the terms “general fitness” and “work capacity” synonymously. Perhaps this is where coaches arrive at the conclusion of “I should do circuit training to develop general fitness.”

More importantly, though, do I even want “general fitness” for my? Or, just specific fitness? It seems we need a definition or list of components of “general fitness” before we can answer that question. You might say that the progression should go from general to specific and my response there would be general WHAT and specific WHAT? What quality are we talking about – strength, power, flexibility, speed, or something else? I feel that to simply just say we should go from general to specific may be shortsighted; we need to clarify what quality we’re covering.

If you do an internet search or academic search to define “general fitness,” you most often times end up at the same thing that is still taught in academic settings today – “General Fitness consists of the 5 Health Related Components of Fitness,” which are:

• Muscular Strength
• Muscular Endurance
• Cardiovascular Endurance
• Flexibility
• Body Composition

Once here, we can actually begin to clarify the argument.  Am I supposed to develop all these above qualities optimally to attain “general fitness”? Do I even need or want some of these above qualities to be maxed out in say, a sprinter? Nope.

If we’re talking about Muscular Strength then I totally accept the idea of general strength to specific strength.  However, if we’re discussing cardiovascular endurance, then I think most of us would disagree with the general-to-specific thought process. Both Charlie Francis and Mike Boyle have obliterated this general-to-specific idea with regards to energy systems years ago. They speak against doing “general running” (aerobic jogging) and then moving into “specific running” (anaerobic sprinting).

Francis has written about how kids need to do enough power related activity in their teen years to really reach optimal performance in sprinting when they get older. What is he saying by that? He’s saying we should start specific and end even more specific.

Mike Boyle took Francis’ thoughts and began doing tempo runs in early off-season with his athletes to develop a sprinting base, which is still inherently specific, and then progress them to higher intensity sprints. Basically, he started specific in as broad a way as he could and then got even more specific with the training. He did not attempt to develop an aerobic base first by running miles and then gradually move to sprinting; rather, he started the off-season with higher volumes of lower intensity “sprints” (tempo runs) and then moved to lower volumes of higher intensity “sprints” (shuttle runs). A different way Coach Boyle also approached this idea during his career of building proper sprinting work capacity (notice it’s specific and not “general”) is represented in this graphic:

Though a different order of intensity and volume, all I’m trying to get you to see is the point that it is not developing “general fitness,” but instead specific fitness. So, hopefully now we can all see that the general to specific idea doesn’t hold up too well until we clarify what quality we’re referencing (strength, flexibility, energy systems, or something else).

Theory: Work capacity enhances and coordinates the cardiovascular, metabolic, and nervous systems and it is composed of 2 components:

1) The ability to tolerate a high workload by recovering quickly from the stimulus so that another stimulus can be presented on a consistent basis.

2) Being able to resist fatigue no matter what the source.

These two points taken alone, I struggle to see how people are lead to the conclusion that they need to be implementing circuit training to develop this so called “work capacity.” However, taken all together with the initial mention of the physiological systems, we may have finally arrived at a specific qualitative point – the nervous, cardiovascular, and “metabolic” systems.

Somehow coaches take this to mean that doing circuit training is the best option for coordinating and enhancing these systems. If I take time in my program to do circuit training, will it coordinate and enhance my nervous system optimally with all that fatigue going on during the circuit, especially compared to what I else could be doing instead to prepare my nervous system? I would say “no;” circuit training does not fit the bill optimally.

If I take time out of my conditioning program to do circuit training, will it coordinate and enhance my cardiovascular system better than what I’m already doing? Again I would have to answer “no.”

Will circuit training enhance and coordinate my energy systems (metabolic system) better than my conditioning program? Nope.

The point here is the traditional methods you’re already using in your strength training, power training, and conditioning program are far superior in developing those physiological systems than doing circuit training.

Here’s another definition being thrown around the internet:

“Work capacity refers to the general ability of the whole body as a machine to produce work of different intensity and duration using the appropriate energy systems of the body.”

This is probably the best attempt at defining “work capacity.” Yet, the question still arises: do I need or want this “general ability” of my body to “produce work” of varying intensities and times? Instead, how about narrowing it down to what specific energy systems I’m going to need to compete in my sport or event and at what intensity or durations? Doesn’t that make more sense that just saying to somebody, “Hey, I’ve got good work capacity because I can do a million sit-ups, a 1RM squat, a bunch of pull-ups, and then sprint 50 yards – all in under 5 minutes!” Does a competitive sprinter benefit from being able to run a marathon, do a ton of pushups, then do a ton of pull-ups, when he’s competing in a 55 meter dash? Would a golfer optimally benefit from doing random “general fitness” activities at random intensities and durations as opposed to specific fitness activities?

So, I humbly ask: why are we doing circuit training to develop general work capacity? How did we ever arrive at the conclusion that a general work capacity was needed as opposed to a specific work capacity like linear sprinting or multiple changes of direction or vertical jumping or asymmetrical rotation (golfer/pitcher)?

Instead, can I suggest we seek to develop specific work capacities instead of general ones? How about we develop the ability of a basketball player to reproduce jumping and hopping performance throughout the course of a game. Also, how about we build a golfer’s capacity (through corrective exercise) to take all the swings he/she requires without getting hurt instead of running him/her through a modified strongman circuit to build “general fitness” or “work capacity?”

Eric Cressey has good work capacity by powerlifting standards; he can take a lot of singles over 90% of 1RM in a single training session and bounce back reasonably quickly.

Does that mean, though, that Eric can just walk outside and play soccer and be good at it because his “work capacity” is up? I don’t believe so, because work capacity is specific, not general. Instead, develop the specific capacity to play soccer! There’s no need to develop tons of different, and in many cases competing qualities just for the sake of saying we have a general capacity to tolerate a bunch of random events. All in all, it may be best to simply stick with the traditional methods of training and develop the specific capacities needed for a specific event or sport as opposed to taking hours during the training week for circuit training.

Just think of what higher-yield activities you could be doing instead while you taking hours of time out each week to do circuit training…

Sam Leahey CSCS, CPT can be reached at sam.leahey@gmail.com.

Sign up for our FREE Newsletter today and and receive this deadlift technique video!

Lynx Grips: Our Most Versatile Piece of Training Equipment

Written on April 26, 2010 at 4:56 am, by Eric Cressey

Back in 2006, Indiana Pacers Strength and Conditioning Coach Shawn Windle told me about a new piece of training equipment and connected me with the company that made it.  A week or so later, my first pair of Lynx Grips arrived in the mail – and I’ve been using them extensively ever since.  In fact, I found Lynx Grips to be so versatile that when the opportunity to buy a small portion of the company arose, I wrote a check immediately.

Originally, the grips were positioned as a better alternative than lifting gloves, especially for females who didn’t want to develop “man hands” from lifting heavy stuff.  They certainly prevent the issue completely.  My fiancee loves them – and actually refers to them as her “tacos.”

The more I used them, though, the more I realized that we could integrate them in our strength and conditioning programs with a multitude of other benefits.

I recommended Lynx Grips to my online consulting clients who trained in places (i.e., commercial gyms) that didn’t allow chalk – and the grips made it easier to pull heavy without losing one’s grip during sweaty training sessions.  Problem solved.

Conversely, we also started using the Lynx Grips to make grip strength exercises harder – by doubling or even tripling them up to thicken a handle.  Another problem solved.

Then, we turned around and used the grips to make things easier on the hands again – but wrapping them around the connector chains we use for reverse sled drags.  This made it easier for us to haze interns (you’ll notice him pick up the Lynx Grips at the 2:05 mark of this video). Problem solved…again.

Lastly, we have certain bars – the giant cambered bars, safety squat bars, and farmer’s walk bars – that are slightly thinner than other bars, so our muscle clamps don’t keep the plates from sliding during one’s set.  Slide a Lynx Grip in the small space between the clamp and the bar, and you’re good to go.  Yet another problem solved.  Look closely, and you’ll see four of them being put to good use in this medley:

I’m not the only one who feels this way.  Dozens and dozens of collegiate and professional sports teams are using Lynx Grips on a daily basis in our strength training programs.

What’s the take-home message?  Lynx Grips are the real deal: versatile, convenient, durable, and affordable.  Check them out HERE.

(I’d recommend you pick up two pairs – which is four total grips – so that you can double or triple them up for grip work.)

Sign-up Today for our FREE Newsletter and receive a deadlift technique tutorial!

This Was Hard.

Written on April 15, 2010 at 11:56 am, by Eric Cressey

CP Internship Blog: Can Circuit Training Develop Mental Toughness? – Part 1

Written on April 5, 2010 at 9:20 am, by Eric Cressey

This guest blog comes from current Cressey Performance intern, Sam Leahey.

Preface

A qualification needs to be made first. This debate often times confuses people because they don’t take the time to qualify what exactly they’re discussing. The overriding issue here is on the use of exercise or conditioning circuits in training to develop “mental toughness” and/or “work capacity.” Both capacities are actually pretty different scientifically and practically, but too often get thrown into the same conversation. When we talk about using exercise or conditioning “circuits” in the weight room, most coaches rationale for using them is rooted in one of three things:

1)    To build “mental toughness” in the athletes

2)    To build “work capacity” in the athletes

3)    To build both.

I want to be clear here that this article will focus solely on thoughts regarding the first rationale and not the others. This if for clarity’s sake, brevity, and quality of analysis. In future blogs, I hope to delve into the other two reasons why coaches/trainers program conditioning circuits and whether or not it has value and/or a desired training effect.

Before you continue reading, I’d pose the title of this article to you again and ask that you take a moment to think about your answer – can YOU develop mental toughness of YOUR athletes using circuit training in your programs?

What is “Mental Toughness”?

The first thing we need to establish is what “mental toughness” really is.  Defining the term alone could be another endless debate, so let’s keep things neutral and use good ol’ dictionary.com as our trusted resource:

Type in the term “mental toughness” and the search comes up empty.

Hmm, this has implications. It seems that the term “mental toughness” as a whole is abstract and inherently debatable because there is no established definition in the dictionary. Disagree with me? If so, then I’d point you to the example of the term “Mc Job”, which is a term referring to a service industry job that is unstimulating, pays low wages, and offers few benefits. At one point “Mc Job” was an abstract concept just like the term “mental toughness” currently is. It wasn’t until enough people settled on its terms that it went from being abstract to a concrete reality which is definable and published in the dictionary itself, see:

Mc Job

- 2 dictionary results

Mc – Job [muh k-job]

-noun

an unstimulating, low-wage job with few benefits, esp. in a service industry.

So, in the same sense, I think the term “mental toughness” will take much longer (if ever) to reach a state of clear and accepted definition. Continuing on, though, what we can establish here is that the words “mental” and “toughness” are separately definable:

Men·tal

m?n tl/ Show Spelled[men-tl]

-adjective

1. of or pertaining to the mind: mental powers; mental suffering.

2. of, pertaining to, or affected by a disorder of the mind: a mental patient; mental illness.

3. providing care for persons with disordered minds, emotions, etc.: a mental hospital.

4. performed by or existing in the mind: mental arithmetic; a mental note.

5. pertaining to intellectuals or intellectual activity.

6. Informal. slightly daft; out of one’s mind; crazy: He’s mental.

-noun

7. Informal. a person with a psychological disorder: a fascist group made up largely of mentals.

Tough

Spelled [tuhf],adjective,-er, -est, adverb, noun, verb

-adjective

1. strong and durable; not easily broken or cut.

2. not brittle or tender.

3. difficult to masticate, as food: a tough steak.

4. of viscous consistency, as liquid or semiliquid matter: tough molasses.

5. capable of great endurance; sturdy; hardy: tough troops.

6. not easily influenced, as a person; unyielding; stubborn: a tough man to work for.

7. hardened; incorrigible: a tough criminal.

8. difficult to perform, accomplish, or deal with; hard, trying, or troublesome: a tough problem.

9. hard to bear or endure (often used ironically): tough luck.

10. vigorous; severe; violent: a tough struggle.

11. vicious; rough; rowdyish: a tough character; a tough neighborhood.

12. practical, realistic, and lacking in sentimentality; tough-minded.

13. Slang. remarkably excellent; first-rate; great.

-adverb

14. in a tough manner.

-noun

15. a ruffian; rowdy.

Combining the first two definitions we could say that “mental toughness” via dictionary.com is a strong, durable, non-tender mind capacity or functioning. So now we have a theoretical foundation from which we can work – and we again arrive at the initial debate: can this “mental toughness” be developed by strength and conditioning coaches using forms of circuit training with their athletes?

Acute vs. Chronic

Here are some classic examples that coaches and trainers (both good and bad) who subscribe to the theory “you can develop mental toughness through circuit training” use in practice. . .

(Each exercise done for 1 minute each, circuit done 2-3 times)(*AMRAP – as many reps as possible)

“Death Circuit Saturdays”

-          Overhead MedBall Slam (AMRAP)

-          Tire Flips (20 yards)

-          Overhead Sledgehammer Tire Hits (AMRAP)

-          Pushups (AMRAP)

-          Farmer’s Walk (25yards down and back)

-          Rotational MedBall Throws (AMRAP)

-          Vertical Jump (AMRAP)

“Meat-Head Monday”

-          Barbell Bench Press (225lbs x AMRAP)

-          Barbell Back Squat (315lbs x AMRAP)

-          Pull-Up (BW x AMRAP)

-          Conventional Deadlift (315 x AMRAP)

-          Chest Supported T-Bar Row (70lbs x AMRAP)

“Functional Friday”

-          Single-Leg Box Squats (AMRAP)

-          1 Arm TRX Inverted Row (AMRAP)

-          Front Plank

-          Standing 1 Arm Cable Press (AMRAP)

-          Side Plank

-          Walking Lunges with Overhead DB Press (AMRAP)

-          1 Arm Chin-Up (AMRAP)

“Strong-Man Monday”

-          Farmers Walk (30yards down and back)

-          Seated Rope Pull (20yard rope connected to weighted sled – pull to you once)

-          Prowler Sled Pushes (30yards down and back)

-          Giant Log Lift (AMRAP in 2 minutes)

With this list of random circuits in mind, now let’s talk about how and when strength and conditioning coaches implement these circuits into their program(s). If you’ve been around collegiate strength and conditioning for any amount of time, you’ll know these circuits usually get placed at the end or beginning of a training week and sometimes at the end of a training cycle. In the private sector of the strength and conditioning profession (training facilities), there isn’t that much separation from that either. You’ll find these circuits being sprinkled in to the clients (athletes) programs. The biggest point to consider here is that whenever circuit training is used it’s almost never done continually, 100% of the time; it’s always used sparingly while the bulk of the training is more traditional.

Conclusion – The Carryover

Imagine if you yourself or an athlete you know did one of the above circuits. How would you feel? It’d be pretty tough wouldn’t it? If I told you that you were going to do it again next week, you would be mentally prepared for it, wouldn’t you? After doing it every Friday for two months, would you have mentally adapted to the stimulus and find it less of a mental struggle each time? Of course! However, what happens every other day of the week when you don’t have that stimulus present? Are you still as “mentally tough” throughout the week as you are on Friday when you are near puking your brains out and have a coach scream at you and blowing whistles? Even more relevant is the perspective of adding up those single exposure circuit days and compare them to all the days in the off-season and in-season you’re not doing a circuit. Which of the two sums has the most potential for developing ANYTHING for that matter?

In other words, being “mentally tough” is a LIFESTYLE – NOT A SINGLE EXPOSURE TO SOME DEATH CIRCUIT ONCE A WEEK OR ONCE A MONTH!

Are we forgetting the fact that many collegiate teams implement these circuits to only end up with losing seasons? Meanwhile, on the other hand, you have teams doing the same death circuits and getting to the championship. Did one team not do enough “death circuits” and needed more exposures so they can reach post season play? Or, did the team who reached the championship lead a mentally tough lifestyle off the field/court/ice and not just get “psyched up” for a death circuit once a week or month?

True athletic team success is the result of all the little things added up throughout the week that culminate on game day, not just a mental victory once and while over some weight room circuit.

It’s performing every exercise in the weight room with perfect technique that fosters CHRONIC mental toughness in athletes. It’s not accepting lousy technique for the sake of putting more weight on the bar that makes the athlete mentally tough.

It’s showing up to train on time, every time, over the course of the entire macrocycle that gives us sustainable and reproducible mental toughness that carries over into team chemistry and cohesiveness.

It’s going through the full warm-up without skipping steps just so you can get on to lifting heavy weights quicker.

It’s only doing the prescribed number of reps and sets that’s your given and not letting an athlete do his/her own thing.

It’s not missing workouts or having athlete find excuses not to come in and train because it’s a “light day” or “regeneration day”.

It’s a culture, not a single event!

Living a mentally tough lifestyle is what produces long term athletic success. If you want your athletes to reach their full mental potential and, in turn, athletic potential, then find ways to change their LIFESTYLE instead of getting them “psyched up” for your weightroom circuit you worked so hard to design. Furthermore, the mental toughness lifestyle you cultivate in your weight room can carry over into the rest of their lives as well whereas some weekly circuit cannot.

If you develop a culture of mentally tough athletes in your weight room via the little things, their ability to reproduce that (which is the whole point, anyway) can certainly be carried over into the way they approach the sport skills practice and whatnot. If they’re showing up to the weight room on time, every time, how much more likely will they be to show up for practice on time, every time? If they’re habitually not cutting corners in the weight room and choosing to not take the easy way out, will they make the same decisions on the field/court/ice where they know it has more direct carry over to game day?

You can see that the evolution of leading a mentally tough lifestyle eventually can translate into habitual changes in personal character and discipline. I struggle to see how a weekly circuit or once a month event can have even a remotely similar effect. It is the responsibility of the coach to instill this aforementioned mentally tough lifestyle through cultivated weight room culture.

So the argument is essentially a fundamental disagreement, but I think the answer is quite clear. Even though the term “mental toughness” lacks a true definition, can we as coaches instill what most would agree on as “mental toughness” in our athletes via the weight room? The answer is “yes,” but it’s not through doing “death circuits.” Doing things habitually RIGHT breeds a lifestyle that makes you mentally tough. This chronic mental toughness cannot be accomplished with a sparingly used weight room circuit of exercises.

The Exception

I wrote this article/blog knowing full well that someone out there would come up with the question:

“What if I have my athletes do circuit training EVERY time we train then, for an entire off-season. This way we’re getting the “mental toughness” stimulus constantly. Would that work?”

In response, I would say there is only one man I know of on the entire planet who was inherently ingenious enough to implement circuit training EVERY SINGLE WORKOUT and still not have his athletes overtraining. This way, they were constantly pushing the mental envelope and eventually they went from being a good team to the winning the national championship of college hockey. The strength coach’s name is Michael Boyle.

Unless you have the ingenious capability of….

-          engineering circuit training day in and day out for an ENTIRE off-season,

-          having no one get injured doing so,

-           have most everyone on the team get stronger,

-          and most importantly find a way to have these mentally tough workouts carry over into the players habitual lifestyles,

….then I suggest you don’t even both trying. If you’ve read the book Outliers you’ll understand there’s only one Mike Boyle for a reason and you’re NOT him.

For the rest of us, I think it’s best to stick to the above rationale if we want develop true mental toughness in our athletes that will last a lifetime of athletic competition.

Sam Leahey, CSCS can be contacted at sam.leahey@gmail.com.

When is Rapid Fat Loss Ideal?

Written on January 21, 2010 at 9:44 pm, by Eric Cressey

Programs aimed at rapid fat loss are quite the rave nowadays.  There are some excellent programs out there (most notably Warpspeed Fat Loss, which we’ve discussed here quite a bit) that deliver some quick reductions in body fat over the course of a few weeks of absolutely hellish training and strict nutritional modifications.  There’s no doubt that it’s a effective way to drop body fat quickly.

That said, the question is whether that degree of specialization – incinerating body fat at all costs – is what’s right for an individual.  For some people – particularly woman (who aren’t generally as concerned with carrying appreciable levels of muscle mass and strength), these programs are just fine; any accompanying losses in strength and muscle mass won’t be as disconcerting because they aren’t perceived as being as important.  Obviously, it’s also true for those who are morbidly obese, but they generally aren’t candidates for complete overhauls right away, as they have to get their feet wet first with the basics of regular training and better nutrition.

Most specific to this piece, though, rapid fat loss programs are most enticing to the more experienced trainee who carries a lot of muscle mass, but needs to shed some blubber quickly to get ready for a vacation, photo shoot, or scandalous make-out scene on live TV.

However, for every one of these folks (the experienced trainees – not the horny, drunk, bearded dudes with Confederate flag hats), there is another individual who is male, with limited training experience, subpar strength, and not enough muscle mass on him to really even demonstrate that he regularly trains.  He might be 6-1, 180 pounds at 20% body fat.  For those of you keeping track at home, that’s 144 pounds of fat free mass, and 36 pounds of fat mass.

Well, here’s a question: if this hypothetical guy dropped 10 pounds of body fat right now and somehow managed to maintain all his muscle mass (and recovered any water weight reductions he got from lower carb dieting), would he be happy with how he’d look?  That’d still put him at 144 pounds of fat free mass, but lower his body weight to 170 with 26 pounds of fat mass (15.3% body fat).  Sorry, but while respectable, 15.3% body fat isn’t super lean.  And, 170 pounds at 6-1 will only earn him points with insurance companies who calculate premiums based on body mass index.

Imagine taking about the ideal NFL cornerback, and then stripping 25 pounds of muscle off him and adding back 15 pounds of body fat.  Be sure to kill off all the athleticism in the process, too.  Not a very impressive picture.

In other words, a program that might have been perfect for a guy who was 30 pounds heavier with the same body fat percentage – but two more years of training experience – just isn’t a good fit for a guy who can become “skinny-fat” really quickly.

I have just seen a lot of guys go on crazy fat loss programs only to get to a lower weight and realize that they look skinny because they aren’t carrying enough muscle mass in the first place.  And, along the way, they lose a lot of strength – so it’s harder to build up muscle mass quickly thereafter to right the ship.

For this reason, it’s been a long time since I resorted to a rapid fat loss program in my own training; I just am not willing to sacrifice the strength gains I’ve made just to see the scale weight go down quickly.  Rather, I’d prefer to do it gradually and retain the gains.

This has also been a strategy we’ve employed with excellent success with athletes who come our way who need to lean out.  Often, body weight – and not body composition – are what predicts their success.  Pitchers are a perfect example; I’ve seen many who have just indiscriminately lost body weight, only to see their velocity drop considerably.  This may come from the actual loss of body mass, the increased training volume that caused it, the type of training (extra aerobic activity?), or – most likely – a combination of all these factors.  One thing is for sure, though; I would be my 2010 salary on the fact that if CC Sabathia “trimmed down” to 210, he wouldn’t be nearly as dominant as he is.

Would some gradual weight loss and an emphasis on improving body composition help him?  Absolutely.  Would taking 80 pounds off him be a smart or specific off-season goal?  In my opinion, no.  The research has demonstrated that body mass is one factor that predicts velocity.

Baseball relevance aside, this is why I rarely go “exclusively fat loss” or “exclusively bulking” with a lot of general fitness clients who don’t have more than two years of strength training under their belt.  They absolutely, positively can add muscle mass and drop body fat simultaneously if they accumulate enough of the right kind of activity and eat the right stuff.  It just takes some individualization, adherence, consistency, and effort.  We’ve seen it hundreds of times already with the Show and Go program alone, and that doesn’t even take things to the level of individualized programming.

To reiterate, I’m not saying that rapid fat loss programs don’t have merit; I’ve seen a lot of people get tremendous results when the program was the right fit for them.  However, I also know that handing a NFL running back’s training program to a 12-year-old Pop Warner running back isn’t appropriate in light of his experience.  The same can be said for novice trainees who try to drop body fat too quickly; they are skipping steps and missing out on crucial adaptations – including strength and muscle mass gains – that could bode more favorably for long-term progress.

As always, you have to fit the program to the individual, and not the individual to the program.

Sign-up Today for our FREE Newsletter and receive a deadlift technique tutorial!

The Best of 2009: Guest Submissions

Written on January 7, 2010 at 12:38 pm, by Eric Cressey

This week, I’ve already featured our top articles, product reviews, and videos of 2009.  I was also really lucky to have some bright minds as guest contributors this year, and today I’ll feature a few of their submissions.

The Rocker Inferior Capsule Stretch – This excellent submission from physical therapist Tim DiFrancesco shows a shoulder mobility exercises we’ve used with some of our guys with excellent results.  It includes some great videos like this:

So What Does a Pitching Coach Do, Anyway? – I love this guest blog from Matt Blake, a great pitching guy with whom I get to work daily.  It just goes to show you that there is a lot more to understand than mechanics when it comes to developing elite pitchers.

21st Century Nutrition: Talking Shop with Dr. John Berardi – This was more of an interview than a guest submission, but let’s be honest: JB provided most of the content here!  He discusses the future of nutrition and the success of Precision Nutrition.

The Be-All, End-All Throwing Program from Your Favorite Snake Oil Salesman – Here’s another post from Matt Blake.  I like this one because it’s entertaining thanks to the cynical tone that kicks it off, but educational because of the justification for that cynicism.  It’s classic “info-tainment.”

Real Activation: Modifying a Classic Core Movement – Jim Smith is perhaps best known for being a true innovator when it comes to exercise selection, and this post was an excellent one for that very reason.

Interval Training: HIIT or Miss? – A great guest submission from Mike Boyle; enough said!

Building Vibrant Health Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 – Eric Talmant presented a comprehensive look at his involvement with Metabolic Typing(R).

Thanks to everyone for the time they spent on creating these pieces, and the expertise they shared!

Summer Interns Gone Diesel…well, okay, not really diesel…Part 3

Written on September 3, 2009 at 4:15 pm, by Eric Cressey

And then there was Roger “Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun” Lawson.  He doesn’t get a new nickname because in this second go-round, he still couldn’t manage to get the entire medley into one clip because my memory card actually filled up.  Consider yourself forewarned: this isn’t pretty.

I’ll give him some style points for the outfit, but the repeated spills and bellowing during the overhead keg lunge walks made me feel like I was watching a rhino give birth at the zoo – while standing on one leg.

The good news, however, is that Roger requested a chance at redemption, so we agreed to let him try to improve his time with a Thursday night effort.  We’ll post it tomorrow.  Any predictions on what his next time will be (this one was 7:40).