Archive for February, 2012

Powering Up 5/3/1

I’ve mentioned previously that before I had taken ill I ran Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 program. I found after a few cycles that I wasn’t getting much out of the strength training assistance work of 5x10x50% and ended up modifying assistance work to better suit the parameters which I have found help me progress in strength and size (lower volume, increased intensity) after some consultation with Callum Mahoney.

Assistance work for my primary lift became a dynamic version of Jones’s Rule of 24 combined combined with Mahoney’s outlined 90% Method. Weights for assistance work were based off of treating my top set on 5/3/1 as my “daily max” as outlined by Mahoney, requiring all of my assistance work to be done at or above 90% of the top set. Reps for assistance work were equal to the number of reps completed during the top set, and sets were calculated based on the rule of 24.

  • 12×2
  • 8×3
  • 6×4
  • 5×5
  • 4×6
  • 3×8
  • 3×9
  • 3×10
  • 2×11+

Any rep count higher than ten was performed for only two sets as form would be lacking from fatigue if run any longer than that. An example of a deadlift session on “3″ week would be:

  • 5×115
  • 5×140
  • 3×170
  • 3×195
  • 5×250
  • 5x5x225

Additionally, this assistance work was applied to deload weeks as well. Deload week on this version of the program is a repeat of the weights and reps from “3″ week, but you stop your last working set at three reps instead of going on for a large/maximal effort. In this case, the assistance work for deload week will always be done with a set/rep breakdown of 8×3.

This is a method which I found worked well for me and allowed me to make better progress on 5/3/1. I would recommend making the switch in assistance work only if you’re not seeing results with the regular 5x10x50% as that’s something which is quite tried and true. If you haven’t run 5/3/1, but are looking to make a change in your program to increase maximal strength, I would highly recommend paying to pick up the manual and giving it a read. It just might change the way you look at training.

2012
02/28
CATEGORY
Coaching Philosophy
Leave a comment

Setting An Example

As physical education majors, my department holds myself and my fellow students to certain standards. We have to maintain fairly healthy lifestyles and pass fitness and skills tests administered every so often. We should be able to run/walk 1.5 miles in under 12 minutes, perform some arbitrary number of press-ups and crunches, have an acceptable body fat measurement, and successfully complete a handful of other tests in the battery.

Today I drove out to the school that I’m assigned to work in during my field placement in March to meet with my facilitating teacher. I made my way back into the gymnasium and waited for my FT to arrive. The first bell of the day rang and students began filing in. Not long after I spot a grown man shaking hands and talking with some of the students and figured that had to be the man I was looking for. I had to hold back a slight grimace as the man who had addressed himself as “Coach” in our e-mail correspondences turned out to be a bit on the side of overweight, and it was quite apparent that that overweight wasn’t purely from having far too much muscle mass for his frame.

We walked down to the locker room while discussing some aspects of my field placement, and that was when I met Coach’s co-teacher. I didn’t know what to make of the situation. I wasn’t sure if this was a joke, or if this guy was seriously a physical educator. I was shocked because if I counted Coach as “a bit on the side of overweight,” then this man was well over the line of obese. The simplest way to put my first impression of these two gentlemen is that I’m positive they would not be allowed to graduate from the physical education program that I’m going through today. They know what they’re doing, but they don’t exemplify it.

As physical educators, we have to be able to set an example for the products we hope to produce from our instruction. If you want your students to buy into the information that you’re giving them about maintaining healthy lifestyles, then you have to show those individuals that you believe in the material you’re teaching. It’s the same for strength coaches: if you want your athlete to commit to the program, then you have to show that athlete that you believe in your methods and the program. Having an obese physical educator in your school is telling your students “you guys can have a long and healthy life, but it’s also perfectly okay if you take nothing from this class and decide to just let yourselves go.”

The “Do it because I told you to,” approach is not as effective as it once was. The approach should be more along the lines of “Do it because it works, I’m an example that it works, so are my other students/athletes, and I can show you the science to back it up if you’d like.” Anything less should be unacceptable.

2012
02/14
CATEGORY
Coaching Philosophy
Leave a comment

The “sport of fitness” and why it isn’t.

Today I was watching a video a colleague sent me about CrossFit. During the opening minutes I heard mention of falling in love with the “sport of fitness”.

I had to stop. Said to myself, “Fitness is a sport? That’s news to me.”

See, CrossFit workouts are what I look at as GPP (general physical preparedness). They’re not sport specific, and follow no apparent form of periodization. Last time I checked, GPP was not a sport. Sport requires specialization on some level.

Now, I’m sure that many CrossFitters out there could brag about being able to smoke a professional rugby prop in a mile run, but how many of them can tackle his 110+kg mass as he’s storming down a pitch? They can perform high repetition deadlifts at 185lbs, but how many of them can pull 700+lbs like competitive powerlifters?

Let’s look at it from Dan John’s/Pavel’s quadrant examples in Easy Strength. QI is essentially GPP. All of the basic movement patterns, a large number of qualities required at very minimal levels of mastery. Every other quadrant includes sports which requires moderate to high levels of mastery in fewer and fewer skills as you progress II-IV (think about the aspects of contact sports like football, rugby, or hockey then progressing up through to very specialized sports such as sprinting, powerlifting and so on).

Sports require some level of specialization in a handful of qualities or skills in order to excel. GPP requires the ability to perform a very broad spectrum of movements. They are two very different things, and to hear GPP called a sport is bothersome because that is exactly what it isn’t.

That’s not to say that GPP is evil or useless. We all go through it at some point (think about a quality physical education coming up through school). It has its place in our physical development, but further specialization is required to create and athlete. Off-season training could include some GPP for athletes, but otherwise most training should be sport specific and work to improve the qualities which the athlete requires to compete at their absolute best.

For those of you looking to improve your general wellness and fitness, GPP would be a good place to start. But if you’re looking to become an athlete and compete at any level, you should be training specifically for that event rather than wasting your time on how fast you can do x amount of hand stand push-ups.

2012
02/09
CATEGORY
Coaching Philosophy
4 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 689 other followers