|
|
|
|
By
Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems |
|
Last week we explored the general
rationale behind having a protocol -- a proactive procedure
to keep yourself on track when problems arise in your training.
And trust me, we all
have problems to overcome. I'd even go so far as to say that
the most successful athletes are those who most effectively
manage their bad workouts -- not those who simply
have great intensity and consistency when things are going
well.
|
 |
With that in mind, there is a set
of principles that govern success in the gym, or during any attempt
to acquire a new skill. Almost everyone reading this already knows
what these principles are, but the more pertinent question is- do
you comply with them when you're under the bar? In other words,
is your training always specific and progressive? Does it respect
your unique individual peculiarities, such as age, genetics, leverages,
and orthopedic history?
It's one thing to cognitively understand
the principles of specificity, progressive overload, and individuality,
but it's quite another thing to successfully apply them to
your training, especially when you're in a slump.
Let's consider a problem that we all
face from time to time -- you're not getting stronger. Despite your
hard work 4 times a week in a well-equipped gym, and despite the
confidence you have in your program, your numbers just aren't moving.
And it's not like you don't know what you're doing; let's assume
that as well. So what gives?
During times like these you've got
to go back to the bedrock principles. You need to look at your program
through "beginner's eyes," as if you're looking at someone
else's workouts with a critical, unbiased eye. It's only then that
clues begin to emerge.
(Incidentally, how many times have
you heard trainers say something like "Man, my programs work
great for all my clients but they never work for me!"? THAT'S
a clue that you need a more objective analysis of what you're doing.
If you don't think you can rely on yourself to do this, find someone
else. )
Since a lot of you reading this are
lifters, let's tackle the issue of specificity for a moment. If
you're a powerlifter, you're required to perform 3 heavy attempts
each on the squat, bench, and deadlift. If you're a weightlifter,
ditto for the snatch and clean & jerk. And if you're involved
with highland games and/or throwing, a similar requirement holds
true. The common denominator here is that you're performing 3 or
more single attempts.
This being the case, the principle
of specificity demands that most of your training consistent of
heavy singles- particularly when you're close to a competition,
but I'd argue that heavy singles should dominate the overwhelming
majority of all your training.
Now that's easy enough to understand,
so let's now turn to the flip-side of this question, which is "What
circumstances (if any) warrant the inclusion of relatively non-specific
work?" Because let's face it -- all of you do perform
non-specific work, right? So the question is, "Why?" Some
legitimate answers might include:
- To develop supportive capacities/motor-qualities
that are difficult to develop using completely-specific training.
- To encourage recovery/regeneration
from periods of very heavy work.
- To provide a psychological break
from monotonous heavy training.
- To address weaknesses (muscles/ranges
of motion/etc) that cannot be easily improved using specific training
alone.
- Lighter weights make me faster/more
explosive
- Eccentric training will help to
"injury-proof" me
- I need to back off to let my injuries
heal and/or do some rehab work.
Some more questionable reasons might
include:
- To "confuse" your muscles
into new levels of growth
- Because the grass looks greener
over there (I.e., boredom)
- Because the Bulgarian periodization
system you just discovered demands it.
- Because that's what your training
partner/coach says you should do.
- Because what you were doing before
didn't seem to work, so you decide to try something new.
- You read a new article/book from
a famous coach and it makes so much sense, you've just gotta
try it.
Now be honest -- just looking at these
two lists, which category do you tend to fall under? And regardless
of which category best describes you, are you becoming more clear
about why you shouldn't be coaching yourself?
The Link Between
Specificity And Individuality
I hope it may have dawned on you that
your individuality is at least the co-author of specificity. After
all, your individual characteristics dictate, often in large part,
what methods you should be using. For example, if you're short,
you have a lesser chance of sustaining lifting-related knee problems,
as compared to your taller peers. This impacts your training protocol-
if you're tall, you may need to pay more attention to patellar tracking,
hamstring length, and IT-band health. If you're shorter, these decisions
will be closer to the bottom of your list.
As another example, if you're overly
reliant on the stretch-shortening cycle, your training should reflect
this through the inclusion of a pause immediately prior to the concentric
phase of the lift.
No matter how many examples I choose
to cite, it always comes back the the same inescapable truth:
"Exploiting Your Opponent's Weakness
Starts With Identifying Your Own."
The Link Between
Specificity And Weak-Links
If you believe that a chain is only
as strong as it's weakest link, you'll be compelled to prioritize
the identification and correction of weaknesses in your training.
As we saw earlier, this cannot always be achieved in a highly-specific
training context.
As a weightlifter, you need enough
pulling strength to accelerate the bar high enough to rack in on
your shoulders (in the case of a clean) and also enough squatting
strength to stand back up after you catch the bar in a squat position.
Whichever component is weakest will determine how much weight you
can clean. If you can pull 275 high enough to rack it, only to become
crushed in the squat because you lack enough squatting strength
to stand up with it, no amount of heavy cleans will correct this
imbalance. Instead, you'll need to focus on front squats until your
squatting strength matches your pulling strength.
If you're an MMA competitor with poor
hand-striking skills, no amount of competition-specific fighting
will ever improve your weak-link, because under intense pressure,
you'll of course revert to your strengths in order to "survive."
Instead, you'll need to spend time in drills that require you to
solve problems with your hands. Such drills are less than 100% specific,
yet they are necessary to overcome your weaknesses.
When To Be Specific;
When To Be General
The training of boxers provides a
useful analogy for those hoping to better understand the continuum
between specificity and generality:
Hard, competition-intensity sparring
for several 3-minute rounds, using regulation gear is the most specific
form of training a boxer can perform. Add in some canned applause
on the PA system and put a little money on the line, and it becomes
even more specific.
Now, if you didn't have a firm grasp
on the foundational principles of training, you'd rightly assume
that this would be the most productive type of training a boxer
could do. Following that, you'd also assume that he should simply
spend all of his time doing hard sparring. But you'd be wrong of
course, and here's why:
- Typically, the most specific training
is also the most intense, and that certainly holds true for boxers.
You can only do so much hard sparring before you break down and/or
burn out. How much hard sparring would it take before reaching
this breaking point? I'd guess if you did 9 hard rounds per day-
at truly competition-level intensity- you'd be toast in 5-6 days
max. That means you'd be dead meat from 36 minutes of training
per day (9 minutes of which is actually spent resting) in less
than a week. Clearly, as athletes, we all reach a point where
we no longer have adequate resources (time, energy, orthopedic
integrity, etc) to perform highly-specific training, but where
we do still have adequate resources to perform less intense training
(cardio, stretching, skill work, etc).
- More often than not, highly-specific
training environments are less than optimal for the development
of skill-deficits. Think of it this way: if you wanted to learn
a second language- say, Italian- imagine how difficult it would
be if you found yourself suddenly immersed in an Italian population
of people who had absolutely no English skills. I'd be willing
to bet that you might not ever acquire significant skills
in the Italian language. A more successful approach would be to
enter a less-specific learning environment, where you could
first learn individual words, common phrases, and then gradually
work your way into complete sentences under the guidance of a
competent teacher who can provide constant feedback.
- Less-specific training is by definition
contrastive, and as such, serves the valuable function as a form
of active recovery. This is especially useful during the week(s)
leading up to an important competition (also called the "taper
phase"). A peak is, by definition, surrounded by two valleys.
High-intensity, is by definition, a transitory state.
|
|
Understood
By All, Mastered By Few
The principles of progress
are like an abbreviated musical scale consisting of only
3 notes- you know what the notes are, you know what they
sound like, you've figured out how to make a few chords,
but you're likely unaware of the almost limitless ways they
can be applied in order to create a successful outcome.
The best musicians work from
the same notes that the worst ones do- it's just that they
find ways to synthesize them into amazing new compositions
that inspire their les-skilled peers. Start thinking of
training principles in this way, and you'll be well on your
way to strength-training mastery.
Click
Here For Part 2
|
|
|
|
Got a Website, Blog
or Newsletter?
CLICK HERE to learn how you can republish
Charles Staley's
articles on your site for free!
|
 |
|
About
The Author
|
His colleagues call him
an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients
call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability
to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself
a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout
school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are
ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
His counter-intuitive approach and self-effacing demeanor
have lead to appearances on NBC’s The TODAY Show
and The CBS Early Show.
Currently, Charles competes
in Olympic-style weightlifting on the master’s circuit,
with a 3-year goal of qualifying for the 2009 Master’s
World Championships.
|
|
Learn
More About
EDT Training!
You can build
muscle and strength and burn fat in as little as 15
minutes, 3 times a week with EDT...it works for EVERYONE
- male, female, young, old...your body simply has no choice
but to get results!
Click
here to learn more
and get your copy today!
 |
|
|
