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.

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!

Pulled Quad – or is it?

Written on May 19, 2009 at 6:57 am, by Eric Cressey

Q: How should I warm up properly before sprinting sessions? Back in the day when I did sports my quads were always prone to injuries. Funny thing is I haven’t had any problems when doing squats of any kind. Recently I decided to involve some alactic work in my workout and immediately pulled a quad doing sprints. It’s obviously something wrong with my warm-up!

A: Saying “pulled quad” might be a little bit too general.  In reality, most of the time, you’re looking at a rectus femoris strain.  While it is one of the quadriceps, the rectus femoris is also active as a hip flexor.  So, as the picture below shows, it crosses two joints.

The rectus femoris is responsible for both hip flexion and knee extension.  So, as you can imagine, it is placed on a huge stretch when an athlete goes into a position of hip extension and knee flexion – kind of like this:

You’re asking the rectus femoris to go on a huge stretch there – and under very high velocities.  With a squat, you’re not putting it on full stretch, as the hip and knee are both flexed.  So, with that in mind, it’s not surprising at all that sprinting would bother your “quad” when squatting doesn’t – especially since we know the overwhelming majority of folks out there are tight in the rectus femoris.  Why?

Well, first, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that, as a society, we sit far too much.  Second, though, is the fact that most people never really get above 90 degrees of hip flexion in anything that they do.  Mike Boyle has done a great job of outlining how we can develop imbalanced hip flexion patterns; essentially, we never use our psoas, the only hip flexor active above 90 degrees of hip flexion. The picture below is kind of rudimentary (and somewhat awkward), but it shows what I’m getting at with respect to the advantageous attachment points for psoas with respect to hip flexion above 90 degrees:

How many of the folks at your gym are getting 90+ degrees of hip flexion with their treadmill, stairclimber, and elliptical work?  None.  So, we underuse psoas, and overuse rectus – and it shortens up over time.  Take a short muscle through a maximal stretch at high-velocities, and it’s going to hate you.  So, what to do?

Well, first, I’d recommend running through some warm-ups from Assess and Correct, and that’ll cover a lot of the fundamentals (especially if you go through the assessments to figure out what else is going on).  One important thing that’ll cover is activation work for psoas; Kevin Neeld demonstrates one option here:

Second, just add in some targeted static stretching for the rectus femoris a few times a day using this stretch (don’t start using it until the “pulled quad” has settled down, though).

Third, and most importantly, ease your way into sprinting.  Not everyone is prepared to just jump right in full-throttle.  I discuss this in further detail in my contribution to the most recent Mythbusters article at T-Nation.  Basically, just get out there twice a week and do some 60-yd build-ups at 80% of your best on a grass field.

Sign-up Today for our FREE newsletter and receive a deadlift technique video!

The Neural Fatigue of CNS Demanding Workouts

Written on January 14, 2008 at 6:46 pm, by Eric Cressey

Q: Why is it that training that is very CNS demanding requires such long recovery periods between workouts. I understand the need for long recoveries between sets, but not between workouts. So why is it that many coaches recommend training things like depth jumps, or speed and agility drills only 1-2 times per week?

A: The truth is that we really don’t understand neural fatigue to the extent that we’d like simply because it isn’t as easy to quantify or observe. With muscular damage, we can use biopsies in the lab and blood measures (creatine kinase, for instance). Neural fatigue is really only truly assessed by performance measures; it’s why “a decline in performance” is about the only true definition of non-volume-induced overtraining.

Here’s a very cool read on this front.

Some guys can train at a high-intensity more frequently, while others have to take more time between efforts. This is where it’s as much a science of interpretation as it is of experimentation and application; you’ve got to respond to how each athlete recovers a bit differently.

Eric Cressey

Talking Plyos

Written on November 2, 2007 at 9:23 am, by Eric Cressey

I believe that during bounce drop jumps, the heels should make contact with the ground lightly. Very few athletes have the eccentric strength to land completely on the balls of the feet. You’re also putting a lot of undue stress on the Achilles and patellar tendons and limiting your ability to cushion with the hip extensors. Additionally, you’re really increasing the amortization phase, therefore killing the very elastic response you’re trying to train.

A lot of people will argue that it’s counterintuitive in light of the sprinting motion, but I don’t see that argument as holding water. Vertical displacement is centimeters in sprinting, but meters in bounce drop jumps, so you’re comparing apples and oranges in terms of ground reaction forces. I use different short-response tactics for using just the balls of the feet.

Eric Cressey